Oh yes, Communism is a definite failure. I fully agree there. I do get tired of Americans talking about the greatness of America all the time. I was born in and lived 30 years of my life in America and I now live in Europe and while I don't live in one of better of Europe's countries life here is still better. The problem here is that in America we're constantly telling ourselves how great we have things but very few of us have ever experienced anything else. With much higher poverty rates, murder rates, crime rates, drugs, untreated sick, uneducated persons, etc than any EU country I really don't understand the great part. I associate Capitalism with these things. It leads to the mentality that everything is alright as long as it makes a profit. This, in my opinion, is not civilized.

@ Jimgov: "@Jamiet99uk - So, its up to you whether the economic blockade of Cuba is illegal?"

The United Nations has repeatedly condemned the US blockade of Cuba. Please can YOU demonstrate why the blockade is justified?

"We are one of the largest economies in the world, with the one of the largest militaries in the world"

In what way does the fact that the USA has a big army prove that you have the best economic system? China has a big army too. Talking about military strength is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the point I was making.


@ TGM: "These apply to both China and Russia:
1. It is still less economically free than America
2. We can still look at the fact that when they actually were communist, it didn't work."

In response to point 1. you seem to be claiming that any system which does not offer completely free markets is communism. This is obviously not the case. As for point 2. I would say the evidence is not as clear as you make out. Firstly, communism brought massive real-terms increases in living standards to people in the USSR. You have to remember that Russia had barely left the medieval era at the point when communism took over, so the gains that were made were actually very impressive. For most of the cold war, also, the USSR was spending around 2/3 of its GDP on the military. Imagine what might have been achieved if more of these resources could have been employed on boosting living standards.

"I'm not just talking about money, but about wealth. If you made a poor person wealthier to a sum equivalent to 1 penny (by giving him a sweet, say), but at the same time made all the rich men own 100 times as much stuff, or 1,000, or 1,000,000 etc. would there come a point where the equality was so intolerable that you wouldn't allow it?"

Well, clearly if I was in a position where I had the power to "allow" or "not allow" such a distribution of wealth, I would actually take action to redistribute things in a fair manner.

Ok, orathaic, I've been in two different discussions here, asserting two claims.

1. That a price mechanism is *necessary* even in a society of altruists.
2. That there is no moral argument against selfishness (Individual selfishness).

One is economics, the other is ethics, and we need to keep the discussions separate.

1. I think you've agreed with.

2.

"i do feel superior to you...as an optimist who sees the world as it could be and strives for it"
I see what my life could be and strive for it. I am hugely optimistic, the difference is that I am selfishly optimistic, optimistic about things that make me happy doing well.

""it would mean that everyone was better off, but inequality increased." - by your very own prized pricing mechanism everyone would have a greater supply of money and the price of all goods and services would increase to match. (or as jamie put it, inflation for all!)"

As my previous post said, I was talking about giving people wealth not money. Give, my example says, the poor man a penny's worth of goods, but at the same time multiply the estates of the richest by 100 or 1000 or 1,000,000 etc... does there come a point when the inequality is intolerable.

"equivalent to 1 penny (by giving him a sweet, say)" - this would amount to either giving them something they can trade for which there is demand or giving them something for which there is little or no demand.

In any case you can infact increase overall consumption (and thus drive up demand) and 'benifit' all. So your arguement is that even if the richest live in perfect luxury and have whatever they desire, so long as you give the poor a penny sweet once in a while they are better off?

Well i guess it is great to live in a dictatorship where the most of the power is in the hands of the few, but everyone else is safe because the dictator can protect them, make speedy decisions and react without his hands being tied by all the democratic baggage.

But still economically you are assuming it is possibly to simply increase production - as it happens we live in a finite world and while we harness a tiny fraction of the power output of the sun right now increased production is simply unsustainable.

And no matter how many penny sweets you happen they still feel like they are as downtrodden as those with no voting rights/say in a dictatorship (maybe they should b happy about this?) Never-the-less inequality will always cause social unrest and deprive the poor of the opportunities which the rich enjoy - if you don't have the same educational or economic opportunities as everyone else you are living in a class-stratified society where the poor have little hope of ever becoming anything else. (and maybe they should be happy about this so long as their standard of living is higher than the people living in Cuba - though at least they get free health care)

TGM i sent you a pm, totally unrelated to this convo, but yeah

"The United Nations has repeatedly condemned the US blockade of Cuba. Please can YOU demonstrate why the blockade is justified?"
Appeal to Authority, yay!

"you seem to be claiming that any system which does not offer completely free markets is communism. This is obviously not the case."

No, there is a scale, at one end is free-market capitalism, at the other is communism. If you place Capitalism at 0 and communism at 1, say, America might be at 0.25, whilst China and Russia are at around 0.75. ie America is a relatively close approximation to capitalism, and China and Russia are relatively close approximations to communism. I am defending the broader claim that, in general, the freer an economy, the stronger that economy.

As for your claim that communism did well for the USSR, that is just absurd. Take for example that the USSR GDP just short of doubled in the 70s, China's did slightly better than doubling. In the same time period, America's increased by 2.7 times, and Hong Kong saw its economy grow from 3.8 million dollars to 28.8 million dollars.

""I'm not just talking about money, but about wealth. If you made a poor person wealthier to a sum equivalent to 1 penny (by giving him a sweet, say), but at the same time made all the rich men own 100 times as much stuff, or 1,000, or 1,000,000 etc. would there come a point where the equality was so intolerable that you wouldn't allow it?"

Well, clearly if I was in a position where I had the power to "allow" or "not allow" such a distribution of wealth, I would actually take action to redistribute things in a fair manner. "

You've just dodged the question. Would you, if you had a choice between doing nothing or getting a sandwich for a poor man and necessarily at the same time increasing the estate of the rich man 1,000,000, which would you decide.

@ orathaic, it wasn't a question of economics, but one of ethics, to get at the idea of inequality being a bad thing. The core of the question is, if you could make everyone richer, but necessarily at the same time dramatically increase inequality, with no other effects, would you choose to make everyone richer or not?

1. That a price mechanism is *necessary* even in a society of altruists.
...
1. I think you've agreed with.

no, not necessary - useful, and the best system we have for determining the value of goods and services. On certain scales i would say it is the only system which we should even consider using, but that doesn't mean it is the only useful system, but generally yes i do agree with you.

"As my previous post said, I was talking about giving people wealth not money. " - apologies this was not understood correctly - wealth would not directly cause inflation, but by increasing wealth you also increase demand, thus still having a similar effect on the pricing.

That and i am still confused in my own mind - is this wealth enough that is produces more value so long as it continues to exist? (like a profitable factory which provides dividends to it's owners each year) or is it used up when consumed (like a loaf of bread?) Because the poor usually have to consume their wealth right away and the rich have the luxury of investing in the future. Perhaps i am still misunderstanding your idea, though i think you are over-simplifying to get your point across.

That said you are argueing in favour of in-equality - and i have claimed that this lead to dissent (crime, other unfavourable conditions) you should also claim that the greater the difference the more motivation the poor have to enrich their own lives!

"I am selfishly optimistic, optimistic about things that make me happy doing well." - ok well as i've said i can imagine a world where we identify self with others and strive to make others happy aswell. I do imagine a world where this is possible - even as you imagine a world where it is possible to give wealth to all and improve their standard of living - i don't think i my version of the world is morally superior.

"The core of the question is, if you could make everyone richer, but necessarily at the same time dramatically increase inequality, with no other effects, would you choose to make everyone richer or not? "

If then maybe, i would be faced with a difficult question of should i - given that people have a sense of fairness increasing inequality only distances the poor from the rich and their ability to catch up - it still has an inflationary effect due to a net increase in the amount of trade-able goods (thus decreasing the value of all trade-able good) OR simply increases total consumption which is unsustainable.

In the real world I would not make an unsustainable choice even if in the short term it seemed to improve the quality of living of all.

"That said you are argueing in favour of in-equality - and i have claimed that this lead to dissent (crime, other unfavourable conditions) you should also claim that the greater the difference the more motivation the poor have to enrich their own lives!"

I'm arguing not *in favour of inequality* but rather than equality/inequality is neither good nor bad (in moral terms), that, essentially, it isn't an issue.

Arguments about crime or whatever are different.


As regards the perfect world, mine would be where everyone provides earnestly for themselves, and is rationally selfish, respecting each other's property etc.

"Would you, if you had a choice between doing nothing or getting a sandwich for a poor man and necessarily at the same time increasing the estate of the rich man 1,000,000, which would you decide. " - put this way - definitely NO. The poor man tomorrow will be precisely as poor and the rich man will still be 1,000,000 times as wealthy (and not actually change the system which left the poor man in need of a sandwich to begin with) - now a company share which provided dividends to pay for a sandwich every day for the poor man might be a different question.

Orathaic, you aren't quite getting the point of the thought experiment, so I'll ask it another way:

If you could make everyone in the world wealthier, with no ill effects about sustainability or crime or whatever, but it would massively increase inequality, would the inequality ever be grounds not to take that action?

@Ghostmaker: "China and Russia are relatively close approximations to communism"

No, no, NO! Communism is a particular political and economic system. Russia's system is NOTHING LIKE communism. If you can't understand this there is no point talking to you as you do not understand the terms you are using.

I hereby quit this debate.

rationally selfish could mean stealing to provide for yourself - that is if it is the easiest route to take it is the rational one to choose - so your system is one which encourages people not to engage with the system, right?

"would the inequality ever be grounds not to take that action?" No but "no ill effects about sustainability or crime or whatever" is an unrealistic situation.

If i misunderstand it is because i assume you are argueing for some kind of trickle down effect - that even if the rich get richer the poor get richer too. So i am bringing up the real problems with this theory - not that it doesn't have overall societal benifits - increased wealth for all is great because even if you feel like the poverty gap is bigger you also feel like your own life has progressed so your personal circumstances have improved.

I just don't see what your thought experiment has to do with the real world, it can either increase consumption OR cause inflation. Either is potentially bad.

"No, no, NO! Communism is a particular political and economic system. Russia's system is NOTHING LIKE communism. If you can't understand this there is no point talking to you as you do not understand the terms you are using."

It is a broadly state controlled economy, just as communism is a totally state controlled economy...

I might as well throw a tantrum and point out all of the government regulation in America too. Communists always do this, saying that nothing on earth is anything like communism, so therefore the claim that state-control doesn't work is invalid. It's a stupid argument to make.

My point is that state control doesn't work.

"rationally selfish could mean stealing to provide for yourself - that is if it is the easiest route to take it is the rational one to choose - so your system is one which encourages people not to engage with the system, right?"

No, for two reasons
1. I qualify, rationally selfish whilst respecting the property right (which, in its broadest definition, I consider to be the only human right)
2. I am not a materialist, and do not think that anyone can actually achieve what I consider to be "the good" by stealing it.

""would the inequality ever be grounds not to take that action?" No"

Good, I agree. My point is that inequality is not of itself important.

"i assume you are argueing for some kind of trickle down effect "

No, I'm not, I'm arguing that the fact that there is inequality in America (as Jamiet bemoans) is not an issue.

ok this is kinda late but to Jamiet99uk
The definition of greed is to want to posses more than what one needs.
I mean come on, answer honestly. Have you ever felt at all that you wanted more in a situation? Even though you had all the basic necessities of life?
I'll admit that there is no way to prove that greed is inseparable from the human mind but that also means that there is no way to prove the opposite.
So far however I have not met one person who wasn't greedy for something once in their life.

Now I'm not one of those megalomaniacs who think "oh the entire world is corrupted" but I do believe in choice, and I'm pretty sure people want to have what they want more than not. There are selfless people in this world but most people have second thoughts about giving up something of their own for another persons gain.

"inequality is not of itself important." - yeah, i can agree but such simplification, or reductionism to 'by itself' is not useful in this circumstance.

inequality exists as part of a society which claims to offer each citizen an equal opportunity in life. Thus is part of society as a whole. Your point is not incorrect it is simply not useful.

man this thread is so off topic...

"1. I qualify, rationally selfish whilst respecting the property right (which, in its broadest definition, I consider to be the only human right)
2. I am not a materialist, and do not think that anyone can actually achieve what I consider to be "the good" by stealing it. "

ok, that is fair, in your head at least i respect the system you support.

That said the qualifiers are an issue in that some people in your society may think 'rational greed' should supersede the 'right to property'

If in your society the question was raised 'is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family' how would you respond?

also ontopic, those witches just created communists to distract us from their satanic rituals, and those communists just created multi's to distract us from their nefarious propaganda on the forum... you see it is all a bolshevik-jewish-capitalistic conspiracy which the witches are trying to stop!

"That said the qualifiers are an issue in that some people in your society may think 'rational greed' should supersede the 'right to property' "

Egoism is derived from the right to property. In brief, if you have a right to property and yourself, no moral rule can demand that you sacrifice it. Thus you kinda default to egoism. Anyway, there is no room for confusion, since the property right comes first logically, and so supersedes self interest

"If in your society the question was raised 'is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family' how would you respond?"

Yes, it is wrong.

but when necessary for the survival of Person A and not necessary for the survival of Person B how do you expect a hungry man to accept your judgement on what is right?

I'm not even claiming every person has a right to life, just that desperate needs require desperate measures. For example a drug users will more desperately seek his next fix to sate his addiction and therefore resort to crime if necessary. Thus in any society where some are forced into poverty some of those will inevitably turn to crime to support their needs - and beyond immediate survival, need is something which is culturally influenced - so what one feels they 'need' depends on the society which they grew up in. (not that this is the only reason crime exists - the rich often avoid paying tax because it is so high - they see a much greater reward than the poor who are paying so much less - if it is the same crime in everyone's mind to dodge paying taxes the rich are more likely to do it because the reward is so much higher...)

further i don't understand this: "In brief, if you have a right to property and yourself, no moral rule can demand that you sacrifice it." - i can come up with many morale rules that would demand you sacrifice it.

"but when necessary for the survival of Person A and not necessary for the survival of Person B how do you expect a hungry man to accept your judgement on what is right?"

Assuming that Person A is able-bodied (necessary if he is able to steal), it would be possible for him to get work that could feed his family.

"further i don't understand this: "In brief, if you have a right to property and yourself, no moral rule can demand that you sacrifice it." - i can come up with many morale rules that would demand you sacrifice it."

My point is that if I have a right to object A, my keeping object A cannot be deemed immoral. If I were morally required to sacrifice object A, I cannot be properly said to have owned it.

"it would be possible for him to get work that could feed his family."

This assumes there is work, and assuming no minimum wage he could work for very little, this would increase the supply of labour and decrease the average wage - reducing the income of everyone (ok skilled labour is actually harder to dilute but you can get 10 unskilled labourers to do a job for less then you still increase the supply)

There are over 14 million unemployed people in America today, are you saying that none of them want to work or is it only the 7 million who were unemployed in 2007 who able but unwilling?


"My point is that if I have a right to object A, my keeping object A cannot be deemed immoral. If I were morally required to sacrifice object A, I cannot be properly said to have owned it." - and do you deem prior agreement to transfer ownership of goods as sacrosanct?

So, say, If i were to buy all the food in the world would it be morally right for me, as the owner, to deny anyone else use of the food, even if it meant that they all starved? (or ate cardboard and whatever else they could find)

I think you are taking an idea to be perfect - any rational application of an ideology pushed to the extreme can be immorale in my mind - Whether it is Totalitarian Communism, pure free market Capitalism or Fascism.

So to go back to my point about the poor man stealing bread; if you want to guarantee that it is possible for such a person to find work then you would have to require the holders of the bread must find work for the poor man to do in order to earn his bread.

Of course such a system is complicated and it is much easier to tax the income of those who can afford it and dole out a minimum living standard to all. (included those who don't need it, but you can do that via tax returns if that simplifies things for you...)

"but when necessary for the survival of Person A and not necessary for the survival of Person B how do you expect a hungry man to accept your judgement on what is right?"

If I was Person B, then I think I would voluntarily help out Person A, but that is my own perogative. If I was a third party Person C, it is certainly not my place to take what is Person B's and give it to Person A.

"all the people drive towards personal gain alone THEN you will not have a 'perfect' society."

I believe the fact that scarcity is the main barrier to a 'perfect' society, not the economic systems. If scarcity didn't exist than it wouldn't matter what economic system would be used as there'd just plain be enough to go around and economics would be a moot point. Even in a communist society you're making due with limited resources and manpower. Capitalism, I believe, simply makes the best of what is available, and especially since ideals of perfect worlds are subjective and vary from individual to individual, letting people strive for their own personal ideal is the best you can do. I mean, who are you to tell someone else what they ought to strive for?

"I have hope in a better world and you are happy with what you see before you."

That's just unfair to TGM. It's quite clear that the world can be improved, and is it not obvious that as a capitalist he would at least support improving the world by making its markets more free? Of course the world can be bettered, it's just that the most efficient engine of wealth creation and improvement of living standards, I believe comes from capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system, there is nothing in there to tell you that you have to spend money on yourself. You can spend it on your family, you can give it to the poor of the world, the point is that you can do with it as you want to, not as somebody else, or the government wants you to.

"i can come up with many morale rules that would demand you sacrifice it. "

Can you come up with a moral rule that demands that somebody else sacrifices it? I can easily think of many personal morals where I would voluntarily give up some of my wealth for the betterment of others, but I can certainly not think of one where I would demand that somebody else give up their own wealth for the betterment of others. You can do what you want with your own property, and if your own personal morals ask that you sacrifice some of it then that's fine and doesn't infringe on anyone's right to property.

Jamie, do you really think that it is not true that most people are mostly self interested? I know you were arguing against Reaver's idea of greed, but I people only need to be self interested, not necessarily greedy, for capitalism to be superior than communism. If you have a problem with TGM's definitions than suggest some because I think in the end he's arguing the same thing, you can give it a different name if you like, but it's still the same thing. In my mind, communism is purely on the economic spectrum of things, but it's true that in practice many people use communism to designate both a political and economic system. Either way, what ever you call one end of the economic spectrum, this is what TGM is arguing against.