I have read accidental superpower and am halfway through absent superpower by Peter Zeihan.
Reading his books got me thinking about communism and where communism has been tried.
Most of the major communistic states have been in capital poor nations. (Capital doesn't necessarily mean money) Russia and China are both very capital poor countries.
The question I have is, did communism fail because the countries did not have sufficient capital resources to make it work or did it fail because communism is inherently a bad system for producing capital.
Another way to phrase this question is, if communism was tried is a capital rich country, say the USA, would it work?
(07-06-2017 11:38 AM)Dragonlair2.0 Wrote: I have read accidental superpower and am halfway through absent superpower by Peter Zeihan.
Reading his books got me thinking about communism and where communism has been tried.
Most of the major communistic states have been in capital poor nations. (Capital doesn't necessarily mean money) Russia and China are both very capital poor countries.
The question I have is, did communism fail because the countries did not have sufficient capital resources to make it work or did it fail because communism is inherently a bad system for producing capital.
Another way to phrase this question is, if communism was tried is a capital rich country, say the USA, would it work?
Communism doesn't produce capital. It doesn't produce wealth. It doesn't produce upward mobility. Communism is absorbs capital. Communism redistributes wealth. Communism eliminates upward mobility.
The most basic problem is that a communist country will always run out of other people's money. Making everybody (everybody except the politically elite) equally miserable is a death sentence for a country.
(07-06-2017 11:38 AM)Dragonlair2.0 Wrote: I have read accidental superpower and am halfway through absent superpower by Peter Zeihan.
Reading his books got me thinking about communism and where communism has been tried.
Most of the major communistic states have been in capital poor nations. (Capital doesn't necessarily mean money) Russia and China are both very capital poor countries.
The question I have is, did communism fail because the countries did not have sufficient capital resources to make it work or did it fail because communism is inherently a bad system for producing capital.
Another way to phrase this question is, if communism was tried is a capital rich country, say the USA, would it work?
No, it would not. It's an evil philosophy where in every citizen is a slave to the collective population.
I mean if you had advanced enough technology and near infinite free energy you could pull it off... Though you would have to do something about that pesky human nature.
(This post was last modified: 07-06-2017 11:45 AM by Bull_Is_Back.)
(07-06-2017 12:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote: been waiting for one of these dippo threads....
greed is hardly the driving factor miko....that exists in any equation
Sure it is. Capitalism runs on greed. Maybe we substitute self interest in lieu of greed, but overall everyone is craving more money. When you try to force people to defy their human nature and become altruists, the system fails. Our nature is to try to maximize our own benefits. Communism is designed to have people to not attempt to maximize their own benefits but to be content with a defined benefit that is not dependent upon your labor or brains.
The biggest thieves in communist systems are those people who plead the most for the people to sacrifice for the "better good".
I think you are half correct. A key reason why the proponents of the "communism has failed everywhere it has been implemented" argument is flawed is because of this specific point.
I think you are wrong in that even if a strong economy such as the USA tried it, we would struggle with hostility from other first world countries as they don't want to see communism succeed and will do anything to undermine the economy of a communist USA. It should also be wise to note that many of the USSR's problems were blatantly self inflicted such as military spending based on capability rather than cost. "I want a sub capable of carrying 35 missiles" verse "I want a sub that costs $500 million how many missiles will that give me" which is why their military spending was so out of whack.
A capitalist system inspires innovation which is why it will always be a superior system to communism. However there are a select few industries that are simply incompatible with capitalism and should be socialist in nature. Plus wealth demographics that has a strong middle class without absolutely massive income gaps on the top 1% is clearly the most beneficial allocation of wealth.
That's why I believe a society that is overwhelmingly capitalist but with socialist elements to it is the most ideal system.
The real question is: Is a system where communism is done correctly superior to a system where capitalism is done incorrectly? Capitalism is by nature always trying to turn itself into an oligarchy. that is why citizens of a capitalist society must be vigilant and constantly on the lookout preventing the wealthy from turning the nation into an oligarchy and to keep the system in check. when oligarchy does take over it very well could end up being a society worse than a communist society. I believe Russians are actually poorer now than they were under the USSR for this very reason.
(07-06-2017 12:59 PM)john01992 Wrote: I think you are half correct. A key reason why the proponents of the "communism has failed everywhere it has been implemented" argument is flawed is because of this specific point.
I think you are wrong in that even if a strong economy such as the USA tried it, we would struggle with hostility from other first world countries as they don't want to see communism succeed and will do anything to undermine the economy of a communist USA. It should also be wise to note that many of the USSR's problems were blatantly self inflicted such as military spending based on capability rather than cost. "I want a sub capable of carrying 35 missiles" verse "I want a sub that costs $500 million how many missiles will that give me" which is why their military spending was so out of whack.
A capitalist system inspires innovation which is why it will always be a superior system to communism. However there are a select few industries that are simply incompatible with capitalism and should be socialist in nature. Plus wealth demographics that has a strong middle class without absolutely massive income gaps on the top 1% is clearly the most beneficial allocation of wealth.
That's why I believe a society that is overwhelmingly capitalist but with socialist elements to it is the most ideal system.
The real question is: Is a system where communism is done correctly superior to a system where capitalism is done incorrectly? Capitalism is by nature always trying to turn itself into an oligarchy. that is why citizens of a capitalist society must be vigilant and constantly on the lookout preventing the wealthy from turning the nation into an oligarchy and to keep the system in check. when oligarchy does take over it very well could end up being a society worse than a communist society. I believe Russians are actually poorer now than they were under the USSR for this very reason.
Lookey here. Johnny can actually compose an intelligent post.
And not one insult. Praise the Lord, he's been saved.
The main advantage of capitalism is that the poorest of the poor can improve their situation and become rich by their own making. In communist and most socialist countries this is not possible or is at best extremely rare.
(07-06-2017 12:59 PM)john01992 Wrote: I think you are half correct. A key reason why the proponents of the "communism has failed everywhere it has been implemented" argument is flawed is because of this specific point.
I think you are wrong in that even if a strong economy such as the USA tried it, we would struggle with hostility from other first world countries as they don't want to see communism succeed and will do anything to undermine the economy of a communist USA. It should also be wise to note that many of the USSR's problems were blatantly self inflicted such as military spending based on capability rather than cost. "I want a sub capable of carrying 35 missiles" verse "I want a sub that costs $500 million how many missiles will that give me" which is why their military spending was so out of whack.
A capitalist system inspires innovation which is why it will always be a superior system to communism. However there are a select few industries that are simply incompatible with capitalism and should be socialist in nature. Plus wealth demographics that has a strong middle class without absolutely massive income gaps on the top 1% is clearly the most beneficial allocation of wealth.
That's why I believe a society that is overwhelmingly capitalist but with socialist elements to it is the most ideal system.
The real question is: Is a system where communism is done correctly superior to a system where capitalism is done incorrectly? Capitalism is by nature always trying to turn itself into an oligarchy. that is why citizens of a capitalist society must be vigilant and constantly on the lookout preventing the wealthy from turning the nation into an oligarchy and to keep the system in check. when oligarchy does take over it very well could end up being a society worse than a communist society. I believe Russians are actually poorer now than they were under the USSR for this very reason.
Lookey here. Johnny can actually compose an intelligent post.
And not one insult. Praise the Lord, he's been saved.
it's rich seeing you fault others for an inability to produce intelligent/non-insulting posts with a post that is nothing but an insult and contributes nothing to the conversation other than trying to piss me off. and you are doing so unprovoked I might add.
just goes to show how obtuse and dense you are. going around blaming others for something you are clearly guilty of doing yourself.
(07-06-2017 01:09 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote: The main advantage of capitalism is that the poorest of the poor can improve their situation and become rich by their own making. In communist and most socialist countries this is not possible or is at best extremely rare.
Um...how?
Minimum wage/cost of living is so low that you need to work three jobs just to meet your basic living expenses. No time to go to a trade school (if you can even afford the jacked up tuition). a flawed capitalist system especially one where an oligarchy takes hold there is no way that statement holds true.
(07-06-2017 11:38 AM)Dragonlair2.0 Wrote: I have read accidental superpower and am halfway through absent superpower by Peter Zeihan.
Reading his books got me thinking about communism and where communism has been tried.
Most of the major communistic states have been in capital poor nations. (Capital doesn't necessarily mean money) Russia and China are both very capital poor countries.
The question I have is, did communism fail because the countries did not have sufficient capital resources to make it work or did it fail because communism is inherently a bad system for producing capital.
Another way to phrase this question is, if communism was tried is a capital rich country, say the USA, would it work?
One major flaw with this argument... Russia was definitely not capital poor.
Oil and mineral reserves definitely dispute that part of the argument.
(07-06-2017 01:09 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote: The main advantage of capitalism is that the poorest of the poor can improve their situation and become rich by their own making. In communist and most socialist countries this is not possible or is at best extremely rare.
Um...how?
Minimum wage/cost of living is so low that you need to work three jobs just to meet your basic living expenses. No time to go to a trade school (if you can even afford the jacked up tuition). a flawed capitalist system especially one where an oligarchy takes hold there is no way that statement holds true.
Since you are not joking there are to many to list. Here are a few.
Bill Gates
Larry Ellison
Dr. Ben Carson
Oprah Winfrey
etc...
(07-06-2017 01:09 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote: The main advantage of capitalism is that the poorest of the poor can improve their situation and become rich by their own making. In communist and most socialist countries this is not possible or is at best extremely rare.
Um...how?
Minimum wage/cost of living is so low that you need to work three jobs just to meet your basic living expenses. No time to go to a trade school (if you can even afford the jacked up tuition). a flawed capitalist system especially one where an oligarchy takes hold there is no way that statement holds true.
Now it's *three* jobs to meet basic living expenses? See how the numbers just keep getting higher..
In Illinois someone making Minimum Wage will make 16.5K a year... That's a gross monthly income of 1,402 and a net of about 1,000...
Now that will get you
* 50$ in SNAP benefits a month
* 70% of your rent covered with Section 8
* 70$ a month Low Income Home Energy Assistance
.....
To say you need three jobs to meet basic living expenses is hyperbole.
(07-06-2017 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote: As always you are clueless to the reality of the people bull
Did I say anything that was incorrect John? And "of the people" give me a damn break... I grew up in a family of nine on the income of an autoworker. My "reality" is just fine, thanks...
(07-06-2017 11:38 AM)Dragonlair2.0 Wrote: I have read accidental superpower and am halfway through absent superpower by Peter Zeihan.
Reading his books got me thinking about communism and where communism has been tried.
Most of the major communistic states have been in capital poor nations. (Capital doesn't necessarily mean money) Russia and China are both very capital poor countries.
The question I have is, did communism fail because the countries did not have sufficient capital resources to make it work or did it fail because communism is inherently a bad system for producing capital.
Another way to phrase this question is, if communism was tried is a capital rich country, say the USA, would it work?
One major flaw with this argument... Russia was definitely not capital poor.
Oil and mineral reserves definitely dispute that part of the argument.
I would argue that they were capital poor. Just because they have significant natural resources, it doesn't mean that they were utilizing them effectively when Nickie II was overthrown. Not one single country that implemented communism ever did so according to Karl Marx's blueprint. That is where you COULD argue that the root cause was a lack of capital to redistribute. Russia jumped into communism directly from a feudal based system and China was roughly only 1 generation removed from their emperor's system of governance. In all cases where communism was enacted, there was no organic movement from industrial workers. The movements were kicked off by left leaning intellectuals.
According to Marx, the countries that SHOULD have kicked off the communist revolution were Great Britain (UK?), France and Germany. And even there, Germany may be pushing it because it did not become a unified country until the late 1800s. However, it never happened. And I think it comes back to "greed" (self interest). The standard of living for workers rose sufficiently high enough that people no longer felt the need to kick off the revolution. Maybe the best the marxist ideology could ever hope for would be the rise of labor unions to act as a counterbalance to unfettered capitalism.
![[Image: The+Borg.jpg]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rZ5vAuoX-E8/U5HL5Rt4tYI/AAAAAAAACsg/4bs6W0FqGzM/s1600/The+Borg.jpg)
![[Image: hecnhv.jpg]](http://m.memegen.com/hecnhv.jpg)
