Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


One Ned starts making things up on his own, twisting what others say, etc. No one pays attention to him.

Yeah, Che. Sure. Identical situations. One is exploitation. One is not -- according to you. According to everyone else, though, the communist brand of fairness is unfairness personified.

[chequita guevara]

I'm not going to debate you, Ned. You deliberately misinterpret statements to make your points. I'm not going to feed your trolling.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Unless you're a libertarian, there is a fundimental disagreement with them over what capitalism is. For them, it's the free market, plus private property with no government interference. They would reject certain basic premises, such as capitalism being inherently violent, the cause of wars, etc. while most people would recognize the latter at the least, and when shown sufficient evidence, at least agree that the former has been true at times (if not fully agreeing with it in order to avoid drawing the logical conclusions resulting).

You're mixing up definitions. I'm decidely NOT a libertarian, and I vehemently disagree with them on many things - but I do not disagree with them on what constitutes capitalism. We all agree that the industrialized world operates under a capitalist system that's constrained to one degree or another. We can disagree about whether the constraints are good or bad, but we all recognize the constraints and realize that at the end of the day, it's still capitalism.

As for your contention that capilatism is inherently violent, I don't see how that has anything to do with it. The violence may or may not be an outcome of the system, but it doesn't change what the system is.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
Flubber,

Communism pays according to contribution at first. However the ultimate goal is to eliminate pays. This can be achieved if 1) nobody is greedy and 2) there is aboundance of products.

Hmmm-- I think the requirement that NOBODY be greedy is unrealistic. Lets assume you could get the majority of folks to look out for the common good . . I don't think its ever possible to get everyone or even a massive majority. On abundance of products, it depends about what we are talking about. You could have ample food and shelter for everyone but do you have enough cars, bicycles,big screen TVs, gamecubes, palm pilots etc etc. Are we talking about having enough of each and every product that is out there so that any person that wants one can have one? I could see a huge frivolous consumption problem if people don't have to consider some "cost" of things when determining their needs.

Originally posted by Xin Yu
Flubber,

For example, if there are billions of houses, each is equally good in quality, then you don't need money to buy a house. You just pick one for free..

But even if all houses are identical, the one downwind of the chemical factory is less desirable than the one backing on the park. making the houses identical doesn't change the fact that many people would like to be on the beach, or not be the closest house to the supermarket ( sorry . . . foodstuff distribution centre)-- So with no market or cost, you would have more people wanting certain houses than others. So there would have to be a decison making process. While a house lottery would be fair, I suspect that the central planners would step in in the name of efficiency and that the high rankers would end up by some coincidence with most desirable neighborhoods

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's not a communist definition. It's the dictionary and accepted definition. It's very simple. If you possess the means of production for the mere reason of profiting from my work then you've expoited me.

ex·ploi·ta·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ksploi-tshn)
n.
The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.
Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.
An advertising or a publicity program.

hmmm

THE ACT OF EMPLOYING TO THE GREATEST POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE. I like it.

See I thought you were trying to use it like this:

an act that exploits or victimizes someone (treats them unfairly); "capitalistic exploitation of the working class";

You will admit that "exploitation"seems to be a loaded term with connotations of unfairness. But if you mean that a capitalist exploits workers in the same way the miner exploits copper, in that both are employed as efficiently as possible, that seems acceptable.

But kid, you keep saying that exploitation is bad, so I assume you mean to incorporate some unfairness in the meaning of the word as you use it. It is this that I reject. I do not accept that capitalism necessarily "exploits" workers in that I do not accept that they are victimized or treated unfairly.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kontiki
We all agree that the industrialized world operates under a capitalist system that's constrained to one degree or another.

But that's just it. Libertarians do not agree that we live in a capitalist system. They call this socialism, or at best, a mized economy. They explain it thus: what to you have if you put a teaspoon of wine in a vat of garbage? Garbage. What do you have if you put a teaspoon of garbage in a vat of wine? Garbage. For them, any government interference in the economy renders an economy socialist. They do not agree with you.

As for your contention that capilatism is inherently violent, I don't see how that has anything to do with it. The violence may or may not be an outcome of the system, but it doesn't change what the system is.

But liberatrians would disagree. You are making the mistake of assuming that libertarians agree with you, without examining what their fundimental beliefs are. Libertarins would say that a system with violence is not capitalism, because for them, capitalism is non-coercisive. Period. If there's coercision, then you're back to that vat of wine with the teaspoon of garbage in it.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I doubt people choose to be on welfare. I will believe that they can not support their families without welfare. btw, welfare is for children. It supports the parents, but only because of the children.

1. Most people do not choose to be on welfare and are only on it for a short time until their circumstances improve. Long-term users include people with long term mental problems, disabilities, addictions, some people in depressed economic situations with no available work and the lazy asses and system abusers.

2. Welfare must be different where you are. Here an able bodied adult can still collect some welfare. In Calgary there is lots of work-- companies in construction are crying out for basic labourers -- For higher paid work, there are buses that will take people to the oilsands projects where they can live in the camp with food provided (generally two weeks on and 2 off). These workers are very well paid but there is still a shortage---- Yet there are still people in Calgary on welfare.

Originally posted by Kidicious

Welfare isn't all that you think it is, and that's putting it mildly. Work is a need. Welfare recipients are still denied all of their needs being met until they have a job.

Well if a job is a need then welfare, even if it were a lot of money could not meet that need right?? All I know is that I see a situation here where employers often cannot get enough people to fill available positions. Employers have even done some recruiting elsewhere in Canada.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm not going to debate you, Ned. You deliberately misinterpret statements to make your points. I'm not going to feed your trolling.

Socialist dialectic: divert attention, deny, ignore the other side's argument and finally riducle the intelligence of your opponent. Never ever admit that socialism is flawed in any way.

[chequita guevara]

See what I mean? Here I'll argue with everyone else on this thread, but you go and deliberately twist and insult. What's the point of my debating you, Ned? You'll only rewrite what I say to make it fit your agenda.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

They simple don't compete for resources anymore, which means that their babies aren't eaten by the evil capitalists anymore.

That about sums up the rationality of your views

Originally posted by Kidicious

You believe that people who work hard get ahead because you have gotten ahead. You really don't know about the other people. You just make an assumption that helps you see yourself in a good light.

Its not just me. its lots of people. But if you want to make it about me for a second lets do that. I grew up in a small fishing community and I think the official unemployment rate hovered around 30%-40%. Everyone went to the same school, played on the same sports teams etc . I saw my classmates grow up and I know where most of them ( and preceding and ensuing years) ended up. Most worked hard, left that town and are doing quite well. A couple stayed in that town and are also doing well. Another few are still in that town and have been "unemployed" for most of the last 20 years. When I see them, they complain about the lack of opportunity and the government but the reality is that they never tried. The welfare/unemployment insurance schemes plus some under the table income creates a comfortable little trap. Its not a lot but its enough for these couple of people to make their way through life. They definitely exhibit NO need to work

Don't try to lecture someone from rural Newfoundland on welfare and unemployment. Do some research on the province and you will see what I mean. I grew up with it all around me . .. and guess what? Anyone that really wanted to escape the trap, did!!

So while no I don't know about all other people (nor do you), I do have a LOT of experience in witnessing what several hundred high school graduates, growing up in less affluent circumstances did do. Most people get ahead.

Sorry if that blows your little theories but it is reality.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


This should be easy to understand.

A capitalist hires workers to make money for him. The money he makes comes from the surplus values the workers produced. If the workers were not exploited, there wouldn't be any surplus values, and the capitalist wouldn't make any money.

Minimum wage does not make exploitation illegal, it just decreases the amount of exploitation possible.

UR-- I know and understand that theory backwards and forwards. I simply

1. reject the idea that the factory/machine does not create some of the value.
2. Reject the use of the term exploitation in the sense of unfairness
3. Think it is an idiotic model since it means the fair value for a diamond miner or oil worker of what they produce can be hundreds of thousands of dollars a day while a shop clerk on a slow day may produce neglible value. If the sales clerk makes no sales, does that mean that they should not be paid?

edit-typos

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
1. reject the idea that the factory/machine does not create some fo the value.

It doesn't. It transfers value from one thing to another. New value isn't created. When the factory/machine was created, the people building it created value. As the machine/factory is used up, it transfers some of that value to the new products.

2. Reject the use of the term exploitation in the sense of unfairness

It's a loaded term, and some of Marx's terminology from the 19th Century causes problems for people today. Meanings change.

Think it is an idiotic model since it means the fair value for a diamond miner or oil worker of what they produce can be hundreds of thousands of dollars a day while a shop clerk on a slow day may produce neglible value. If the sales clerk makes no sales, does that mean that they should not be paid?

Well, the miner doesn't produce the full value of a finished diamond (and oilmen do get paid quite well, IIRC). The dimond must still be removed from the rock, sorted, transported, cut, ground, mounted, and sold to have value. Even then, the only reason they have such a high price is because of artificial scarcity since DeBeers keeps most diamonds off the market. That's going to change soon as artificial diamonds revolutionize the market.

At each stage of the journey, workers add new value to the product. A salesperson adds value to a product. After all, if you can't buy it, it has no value.

[Whaleboy]

It doesn't. It transfers value from one thing to another. New value isn't created. When the factory/machine was created, the people building it created value. As the machine/factory is used up, it transfers some of that value to the new products.

Err no. Since when is value some inherent, essential property of an object? Value is a relative term, simply a function of supply and demand, i.e., more valuable when in demand with less supply. The labour that has gone into it is irrelevant to it; that's a kind of twisted sentimentality that's more of an inpedence than anything else.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Kontiki
We all agree that the industrialized world operates under a capitalist system that's constrained to one degree or another.

But that's just it. Libertarians do not agree that we live in a capitalist system. They call this socialism, or at best, a mized economy. They explain it thus: what to you have if you put a teaspoon of wine in a vat of garbage? Garbage. What do you have if you put a teaspoon of garbage in a vat of wine? Garbage. For them, any government interference in the economy renders an economy socialist. They do not agree with you.

As for your contention that capilatism is inherently violent, I don't see how that has anything to do with it. The violence may or may not be an outcome of the system, but it doesn't change what the system is.

But liberatrians would disagree. You are making the mistake of assuming that libertarians agree with you, without examining what their fundimental beliefs are. Libertarins would say that a system with violence is not capitalism, because for them, capitalism is non-coercisive. Period. If there's coercision, then you're back to that vat of wine with the teaspoon of garbage in it.

Not only am I aware that Canada is a form of constrained capitalism, I like it that way. The individual freedom and opportunities are present but there is also the ever present social safety net which means that everyone should be provided a certain standard. Its imperfect. For example some mentally ill persons have a level of competence that means that authorities are not able to hospitalize them against their will but they reject and are paranoid about the government and thus do not and will not collect their cheques or avail themselves of housing.


Constrained capitalsim is not only what we have but its what I promote. I like it .. Fiddle with it all you want. Increase or change benefits etc but leave the basic model alone.

Oh and I don't think there are many libertarians in Canada so I'm not too worried about there concerns. This after all is the place where the creator of nationalized healthcare was voted as our "Greatest Canadian"

As an aside, Alberta is not the easiest place to sell a dogma where workers have to feel exploited. With worker shortages in many industries driving wages up and up and up, most of those "proletariet"are too busy banking all of their cash to be worried about theoretical models of how bad they have it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Err no. Since when is value some inherent, essential property of an object?

It isn't of an object. Specific objects, however, such as commodites, however, have value inherent in them. If they didn't have value inherent in them, they wouldn't be commodities. It would be like saying money has no inherent value. If it didn't it wouldn't be possible to use it as a medium of exchange. A factory or a machine are just as much commodities as a pencil or a banana.

Value is a relative term,

D'uh.

simply a function of supply and demand, i.e., more valuable when in demand with less supply.

Incorrect. Value |= price. Price tends to follow value, but not always. Supply and demand can distort the price away from the value of an object, such as in the afore mentioned case of diamonds.

The labour that has gone into it is irrelevant to it; that's a kind of twisted sentimentality that's more of an inpedence than anything else.

Labor is the only common element that has gone into every item that people use (with the exception of air). It is the only basis for a comparison of the relative values of all commodities.