Can we Create an America that can Lead the World

[Propaganda]

Re: Can we Create an America that can Lead the World

Originally posted by DuncanK
Can we Create an American that can Lead the World?

Sure, but only out of Russia, so make sure you keep sending your tax money to Russia and we'll make sure the world will be safe!

[Velociryx]

Che - then my point stands. Given the width and bredth of the 'franchise' in today's world, it is OUR beast. Good try tho....

As for the my-dad-is-bigger-than-your-dad, communist vs. capitalism debate, I'm not gonna go there. History has borne out which system works and which system doesn't. If you wish to cling to the belief that communism can be made to work, that's your bag, and I'll not try to convince you otherwise.

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK


For that matter why don't you mention that most of the communist governments were corrupt and authoritarian.

Because we wouldn't be able to find one that wasn't. Central authority lends itself to corruption. The only one I can think of that hasn't been is Cuba, and even that is suspect.

It sends me the message that communism is only appropriate for small nations with a limited economy. Anything more than that and corruption (selfishness) begins to eat away from the inside.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK
You all know that Russia would never have had a chance without communism. Instead they recovered from WWI and WWII with amazing efficiency, launched the first satillite and defended themselves from the industrialized capitalist nations for the entirety of the USSRs existance.

Yes, communism is a good stepping stone for countries that have some serious difficulties. But it doesn't have sustainability, mainly because of the lack of an outlet for corruption and selfishness. A certain amount of both is to be expected in any society, but with a nation that functions with central planning alone, all the inefficiencies that corruption brings about will manifest only from within the government.

With capitalism, at least people can be corrupt in the stock market or in banking where their dishonesty and corruption usually doesn't cause any serious damage. It provides them with an outlet so the government, and hence the people, won't suffer directly from their actions.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Willem
Because we wouldn't be able to find one that wasn't. Central authority lends itself to corruption. The only one I can think of that hasn't been is Cuba, and even that is suspect.

Central power is a natural outcome when a nation is at war. Take away war and you have less abuses of power from the top. In fact you have less power at the top altogether.

Originally posted by Willem
It sends me the message that communism is only appropriate for small nations with a limited economy. Anything more than that and corruption (selfishness) begins to eat away from the inside.

True, China didn't do well because of their size. They were way to centralized. They claimed to decentralize, but when they did it was a disaster. All the really did was leave all the poor rural communities out in the cold. You have to have something like a federal system where the regions have some powers.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Willem
Yes, communism is a good stepping stone for countries that have some serious difficulties. But it doesn't have sustainability, mainly because of the lack of an outlet for corruption and selfishness. A certain amount of both is to be expected in any society, but with a nation that functions with central planning alone, all the inefficiencies that corruption brings about will manifest only from within the government.

That's new. Communism is a stepping stone to capitalism. Russia was a bit diferent. The industrialization of Russia was even more expoitive of its people than the industrialization of the united states was. Industrialization itself is exploitive, because capital accumulation comes out of wages. Communism shouldn't be exploitive. When it is its really fascism. Nations should industrialize under capitalism.

Originally posted by Willem
With capitalism, at least people can be corrupt in the stock market or in banking where their dishonesty and corruption usually doesn't cause any serious damage. It provides them with an outlet so the government, and hence the people, won't suffer directly from their actions.

It does cause serious damage. That's not all though. As workers we support their lifestyle while they sit back and think of better ways to rip us off and exploit us.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Communism shouldn't be exploitive. When it is its really fascism.

And that's one the major flaws of central planning, it makes it very easy for a single person to usurp the mechanism and turn it into fascism.

It does cause serious damage.

You'll notice I said usually. Ordinarily the damage is restricted to the bank, and it's customers alone. All other financial institutions actually benefit by drawing consumers away from the one that was victimized by the corruption of it's managers. If there was only one state supported institution, the damage would be felt by all.

As workers we support their lifestyle while they sit back and think of better ways to rip us off and exploit us.

So instead we'd support the lifestyle of politburos who sit back and think of better ways of repressing our freedom of choice and civil liberties? How is that an alternative?

[DuncanK]

Can you explain how central economic planning leads to fascism?

You'll notice I said usually. Ordinarily the damage is restricted to the bank, and it's customers alone. All other financial institutions actually benefit by drawing consumers away from the one that was victimized by the corruption of it's managers. If there was only one state supported institution, the damage would be felt by all.

We have different perceptions. I guess we are both bias by our political views.

So instead we'd support the lifestyle of politburos who sit back and think of better ways of repressing our freedom of choice and civil liberties? How is that an alternative?

It is different Willem, by the simple fact that there is not such a disparity in wealth. Only some of these people are corupt, and not so many as there are today. Think of all the people who have jobs today that that would not be needed in a communist system. These people are in a way doing the same thing. Stock brokers, blah. I'll take a central planner any day.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Can you explain how central economic planning leads to fascism?

It seems rather obvious to me. With all decisions in the hands of the government, all someone has to do is work his/her way to the top through the government apparatus. Once there, he will have control over the army, the industry, the financial institutions. He would have total control over all aspects of people's lives. That's exactly what happened with Stalin.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

We have different perceptions. I guess we are both bias by our political views.

No actually, I once held views very much like yours when I was younger. I've taken the time to look at the issue carefully from both sides and realized that in many ways I was being naive and idealistic. They are nice ideals to live by, but reality is a different thing altogether.

Think of all the people who have jobs today that that would not be needed in a communist system. These people are in a way doing the same thing. Stock brokers, blah.

Yes, let's think of those people that have jobs. How many would still have them if we eliminate the diversity of the market place, and the state only produces one type of automobile, one type of computer, one style of clothing?

Many years ago, I think Bresnev was in power, I ran into a girl who had left the Soviet Union. She mentioned that yes, everyone had a job, but the approach was to hire three people for a task that only required one. Now I don't know about you, but I think I would rather curl up and die than be forced to work at a boring job where I usually ended up sitting on my butt for 8 hours a day.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Willem


It seems rather obvious to me. With all decisions in the hands of the government, all someone has to do is work his/her way to the top through the government apparatus. Once there, he will have control over the army, the industry, the financial institutions. He would have total control over all aspects of people's lives. That's exactly what happened with Stalin.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The army is the key here. Even in the US or canada, the commander and chief of the army has an oppotunity to take control of the state if you army obeys his orders. The key to a free people is the people standing up collectively at times like this. The Russians and the Chinese never did this. Either did the Germans, Italians or Japanese.

I don't support national communism only world communism. With world communism you don't need an army and you shouldn't need many police. In fact I think it should be placed into law a limit on the number of police.

Originally posted by Willem
No actually, I once held views very much like yours when I was younger. I've taken the time to look at the issue carefully from both sides and realized that in many ways I was being naive and idealistic. They are nice ideals to live by, but reality is a different thing altogether.

I used to be a libertarian when I was young and dumb

Originally posted by Willem
Yes, let's think of those people that have jobs. How many would still have them if we eliminate the diversity of the market place, and the state only produces one type of automobile, one type of computer, one style of clothing?

Many years ago, I think Bresnev was in power, I ran into a girl who had left the Soviet Union. She mentioned that yes, everyone had a job, but the approach was to hire three people for a task that only required one. Now I don't know about you, but I think I would rather curl up and die than be forced to work at a boring job where I usually ended up sitting on my butt for 8 hours a day.

Well they were definitely screwing up since there were shortages. There are inefficiencies in both systems, but the thing about communism is you have some shortages and surpluses sometimes, but there is always the option of direct and immediate action being taken where that action is needed the most. And you don't have people complaining about taxes, inflation, and the rights of property owners. So the things that are really important get taken care of.

[Velociryx]

Duncan – While I have never actually held the views you hold, I do understand them. I do not know if what follows will change your mind or not, but I will try to explain as best I can.

First, the concept of ownership.

Ownership is not a sin, nor a crime.

Imagine a world where cars, for example, were considered “community property.� If you went shopping, rather than getting in “your car� you could simply have your pick of any car in the lot.

That’d be kina groovy, wouldn’t it? I mean, you’d never know what you were going to get, but almost certainly you’d gravitate toward certain kinds of cars….maybe you’d be a “faster is better� kina guy, and always keep your eye out for the Lotus, or maybe you just really liked green, so your first pick would be a green car of any stripe.

And…that might work for a little while.

But what would the incentive be to maintain the cars? If you had a flat tire, would you be inclined to spend your money to fix it, or would you just leave it in the parking lot and go get another car? Same thing with an oil change. Why spend twenty bucks when you don’t have to, right? Just ditch it, and get a different car.

That’s the problem with community property. Everybody likes to use it, but nobody wants to maintain it.

So…if EVERYTHING is “communitized� then nothing gets proper maintenance, and why should it? You have no vested interest in maintaining it. You don’t own it, so it doesn’t matter.

The solution, of course, is to create legions of government employees whose job it is to maintain all this community property out there. We need people to keep all the machines on the factory floor in working order, people to chase down all the cars on the road, and make sure they’re in good running order, people to maintain all the computer stuff….so we create one gigantic arm of the government as a service sector….these people are not producers of anything….they merely clean up after you. To continue with the car example though….if cars are community owned, the logical choice would be to run them until they simply stopped working (again, no ownership = no incentive to fix them), which means that before long, cars would just be pushed off to the side of the road and abandoned, and it’d be up to the government employees to go out and haul the broken cars in to find out what was wrong with them, and get them in working order again (and repaint them, wash them, etc). This is exceedingly inefficient. In the first case, now the car repair branch of the government will have to have fleets of tow trucks to go get every single car that’s broken down, regardless of what’s wrong with it, and haul it back to the shop to investigate. And they will have no clue as to what’s wrong with it, so this could take time to discover.

Contrast that with private ownership of cars. If you OWN the car, will you take care of it? You bet you will! Especially if the car is your primary means back and forth to work! No car…no work….no work….no money, so yes! The car will be maintained, and now when it comes time to spend that twenty bucks for the oil change, you’ll dig into your wallet and make it happen. You won’t wait till your car dies on the side of the road (though that may happen now and again), rather, you’ll drive to the shop, tell the guy running the place “hey…it’s time I got my oil changed.� And he’ll get right to it. See the difference in efficiency there? HUGELY important advantage that capitalism has over communism.

In short, private ownership means better care will be taken with personal possessions, and capitalism is more efficient in the market than communism.

Capitalists innovate, Communists copy. Here’s why.

If you can own stuff, then you can own new ideas too. Let’s say that you work in a shoe factory in a capitalist country, and come up with an idea for a better shoe machine. A super-bada$$ shoe machine that can make fifteen times the number of shoes that the current machines can make.

You draw up plans for it and get a patent. It’s yours, so you pitch the idea to the shoe company you work for, and they LOVE it! In fact, they love it so much they want to buy the rights to build one of your machines. Now, you could do that, sure. Sell them the plans for the machine for X dollars, and go about your business (probably retiring from the shoe factory), OR, you could rent the machine to them….say for a small portion of the profits they made by using it. True, you don’t get as much money up front, but you’ll probably get more in the long run. Either way you choose to go, why not? It was your genius that thought of the idea, not someone else’s. Without you, they’d still be making one fifteenth of the number of shoes they COULD be making. You don’t think it’s a good thing to reward people for being creative? Apparently not, because communism does not think so.

Such innovation normally (there are exceptions, but normally) does not occur, and why should it? Why bother wracking your brains for a groovy idea like that, when IF you come up with something, the PolitBuro is going to come take it from you, declaring it property of the state, and maybe give you a plaque for your service to the party. How’s that for some motivation, eh?

So...you're saying then that if you owned the machine and the time was NOT ripe for revolution, you'd keep it and "exploit" those you hire to use it? Is that consistent? Why not just turn it over to them now....perhaps that would be the spart that ignites the revolution?

And nope...I believe you to be a good person, but I do not believe you would just hand over an expensive machine to others.

If you work hard, save your money, and buy something like that....why should you? The machine represents the fruits of YOUR hard work. Nobody else's.

If other people want to use your machine, that's cool, but they're using YOUR machine. Since the value of the machine is greater than the value of what's made from the machine, you pay them for their time spent making stuff, they pocket the money, and you eventually make the money back on the machine.

That's not evil or exploitive, that's common sense! And it also happens to be the essence of capitalism.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Wait....let me see if I understand you correctly.....

You want to take an economic system that has been demonstrated as a complete failure every time it has been attempted, and apply it globally????

As if somehow MORE of the same bad medicine will make any difference?

I don't get that.

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Vel,

More often than not when some one becomes a capitalist. It's not by working hard and saving their money. They achieve their status by dishonest ways. It goes at least as far back as the punic wars. Soldiers went off to fight for Rome. They couldn't maintain their lands. Make a long story short they ended up landless when the wars were over. The people who didn't fight in the wars ended up with their land. It's the same way today. Things just aren't fair. Those with property have more opportunity to gain more porperty. The system works for them, not us.

As far as your view of communism. That's just some propaganda that keeps getting recycled. Some people without common sense see communism like that but not me. You can't just keep going to the store and getting whatever you want, then use it once and go back to the store because you want a new one.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Wait....let me see if I understand you correctly.....

You want to take an economic system that has been demonstrated as a complete failure every time it has been attempted, and apply it globally????

As if somehow MORE of the same bad medicine will make any difference?

I don't get that.

-=Vel=-

Capitalism has only been successfull in your view in America. I admit it works better in other countries, but your not going to sell the American Dream to me. I know my history.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sandman
What I mean is an America which submits to UN stuff even though it doesn't like them.

Why should we?