Why I think a communist revolution is a pipe dream in United States.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Their work will end up being rewarded with the same amount of money as before, because the market forces work the same. People will only pay a certain price for something, so there is only so much money with which to pay the workers.

Wrong. There is a fundamental difference between a communist company and a capitalist company: the capitalist company is out to maximize profit, to hand it to the shareholder. This is why you have fat cats who get enriched by unrewarded hardworking people. The fact that cashiers are underpaid comes from the willingness to have a profit margin. Unlike what the liberal economists want you to believe, wages and prices don't get adjusted automagically, but they serve a purpose. In capitalism, the purpose is to bring money to the shareholder. In communism, it is to bring money to the worker.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
There is a fundamental difference between a communist company and a capitalist company: the capitalist company is out to maximize profit

So commies like debt ridden, failing industries?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
So commies like debt ridden, failing industries?

Communist companies are not supposed to look for profit margin, at least not in the meaning of giving them to the shareholder. I don't see why it would make these companies debt ridden.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't see why it would make these companies debt ridden.

Loosing money, inefficent, etc.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Velociryx
Further, because of the scarcity of resources on this planet and the ballooning population,

The population is not only not ballooning, the rate of growth is lowing down. In fact, it is not believed that Earth will reach its peak population (about 9 billion) by 2050, at which point the world's population will begin to drop.

Source please?

IIRC census predictions do not agree with your statements. There is a slow down in China and eventually a plateua in that state but not for the world as a whole, but then again we can thank the police state for the revocation of the right to procreate there can't we?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by skywalker

Sorry -- it seems that in countries like United States, wealth is grossly, inequally distributed.

It seems that it is even MORE grossly, unequally distributed in communism.

Moreover, what exactly is wrong with an unequal distribution of wealth? Shouldn't more capable people be rewarded more?

Yes -- unequal distribution is part of any system where people earn what they own.

But to what extent is our country's unequal distribution part of the elite manipulating our government, and not as a result of ordinary citizens working an honest day's work for an honest day's pay??

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Source please?

IIRC census predictions do not agree with your statements. There is a slow down in China and eventually a plateua in that state but not for the world as a whole, but then again we can thank the police state for the revocation of the right to procreate there can't we?

The UN is the most commonly cited source for global population data, not the US Census department. The most recent update to their projections (a word the UN is now de-emphasizing in favor of "scenario" or "working hypothesis") can be found here. Note that UN projections are divided into High, Medium, and Low. Most sources quote the Medium forecasts, while those with agendas quote the High or the Low, depending upon their point.

Che is saying what the UN has been saying for well over half a decade now, that the medium hypothesis has the global population growth rate declining except in your most severely impoverished and corrupt countries (Botswana and the like), and can go as far to bare replacement levels by 2050, 2085 at the latest. By then some countries will still be over the replacement level, but the majority will not.

However the above report suggests the possibility that after a country goes through a period of stagnant birth rates (I think they said 95 years), historical data suggests* that fertility rates will creep upward to slightly over the 2.1 children per couple replacement level. I would also like to note that the UN does not assume any major paradigm shifts in world civilization - i.e., they're assuming we don't learn how to colonize the seas by the tens of millions, they're not assuming any new, devastating diseases and wars, etc.

*Only "suggests," mind you, as the historical data for this scenario is rather paltry.

[JohnT]

Here's the home page to the UN population division: http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm

[Az]

Good discussion but lots of mudslinging, too.

Now what I am about to do is present my socialist model, and the way it will adress the problems that various socialist attempts have suffered from. Both various socialists and capitalists, feel free to attack my views, as long as we all strive to the same goal, to make as many people as happy as possible, i.e. no libertarian arguments.



My model will be a model of a mix of a presidential and parliamentary republic, a la France. It will be backed up by a strong socialist constitution, that will ensure that the economy will be run as the decisions of the entire public will like it to be, as well as civil rights.

The press will be independent from the government.

The economy will also have companies, managers, etc. but they'll work together. Salaries WILL vary, and vary quite a lot, but not as much as they do in the current world. Managers will still be responsible for the running of the economy. Everything will be under oversight, though, such as the State Auditor, in Israel.

This is it, in short.

[JohnT]

And it is quotes like this that both attract and repel me from these conversations...

A lot of scarcity in capitalism is artificial. We could produce far more of most things we need and want. We don't do it because it would be inefficient as far as capitalism is concerned, because there wouldn't be enough of a return on investment. If the purpose of production is to meet human needs rather than a profit margin, then this is not a problem.

Che, are you really telling me that the 7% average ROI that investors have historically demanded is the cause of human poverty and scarcity in todays world? I argue that the demand for that 7% ROI is what is causing the needs and desires of billions to be met and without it, instead of a world with 2 billion chronically poor we would have a world with 6 billion chronically poor - at least right before the Die Off, that is.

I also like this:

Rather than having the anarchy of the market deciding where resources should be allocated, we can plan to move capital into different ares of production and retool overproducting factories without throwing millions out of work.

Because we just know two years in advance to move people from the making of Scooby Doo crap to making SpongeBob SquarePants crap because the tastes of the Nations 7 year olds are so scientifically known they can be plotted before they happen.

Shiite, Che, if you know what is going to be the hot electronic item 3 years down the road, let us in on your secret. I, as well as your Apolyton brethren, can stand a little early retirement.

[Giancarlo]

The number one question I got to confront the commies around here is...

Is your system really going to function? Afterall paying everybody a similar ****ty wage will not work. In the Soviet Union, accomplishment meant nothing. I am sorry but your idea of a revolution can be saved for some third world ****hole and not the United States. First off, it cannot and will not happen because the conditions are not for it. Secondly, the people in the United States tend to be of either center-right to center-left political affiliation. Finally, though the cold war is over there is still a hatred for socialist or communist ideals in the United States.

Also how can a system function when private ownership does not exist?

Lets face it.. the commies are not going to ever gain power because their own belief system is nonsense and fallacious.

[MrFun]

You provide no evidence, and yet you want to destroy communism!! You evil capitalist!!

[Giancarlo]

Hey my post was more than one sentence and looked very informative...

[Az]

Is your system really going to function? Afterall paying everybody a similar ****ty wage will not work.

IT HAS BEEN STATED NUMEROUS TIMES THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Fez
Hey my post was more than one sentence and looked very informative...

Until you read it.