Oh, and on topic: Communism and even the Socialism that leads up to it, are far better systems than capitalism. I agree 100% with everything that Putin said. Capitalism is a really shifty system. The intense amount of borrowing going on is ridiculous. Currently there are far more loans than physical resources. Someone asking for their money = recession. Another thing is that the system is so easy to exploit it's a joke.

Off topic:
Anything that enters your head affects the way you think, and can therefore be considered brainwashing. How effective it is depends on how long you think about it, and how it compares with other thoughts that have entered your mind. So our current eduction system is brainwashing, news stations brainwash you everyday, what you see on the street brainwashes you, what you are reading is brainwashing you, in particular, brainwashing you to think that brainwashing is okay because we all do it by simply existing within sight range of another person.

"Do you deny the existence of the so-called 'business cycle'? If so you're alone among capitalist apologists who do. Do you deny the existence of repeated recessions of increasing intensity? What explains the Great Depression? Why did a huge war follow the Great Depression?"

I'm not denying the potential evils of capitalism, or that it can and did casue these events...

I simply don't feel your solution is without flaws as well and, given the choice, I feel the evils of capitalism are lesser than the evils of communism; in an irony of ironies, I feel the communist ideology, so commonly extolling the pains of the worker's exploitation, exploits him to an even greater degree...

"The State" becomes a public business, rather than a private one.

For christ's sake, stop philosophizing at me and actually read the arguments. You've made the same "point" about merit/need that I've addressed multiple times now, and you continue to distort my argument into something I'm not saying at all.

@dD

I feel really bad arguing semantics with you but; brainwashing is technically defined as the systematic reforming of a person's beliefs by a variety of means. What you are talking about in the effect that everything we witness has on us, which is no more or less then being influenced by ones surroundings. Brainwashing implies a planned nature with a set goal, rather then a slow mutation based on observation.

@damian:

"Socialism is like an onion.
It smells bad It makes people cry?
No Obi it's got layers; socialism has layers onions have layers.
How about cakes, cakes have layers.
No donkey socialism is like an onion
how about parfait everyone likes parfait.
No Obi socialism is like an onion!"

+1 :)

From the same film, played up...

"Welcome to Eng-Soc,
Such a perfect state,
Now we have some rules,
So take heed, dear mate,
Don't make waves,
Stay in line,
And we'll get
Along fine,
Eng-Soc is perfect State,
Please keep off,
Off of grass,
Shine your shoes,
Keep your--place!
Eng-Soc is,
Eng-Soc is,
Eng-Soc is a
Perfect place...!"

:p

Heh! Cute. Couldn't be more true either really is the perfect place :P

And I've READ your arguments, Putin, I still don't agree, though...

I still feel your responses and your quotes themselves twist around the ideas of "merit" and "need," at least in my understanding of the terms, which ARE formed by my philosophic readings...so philosophizing on a very philosophic idea is inevitable. :)

Nice theory guys. In my country the expression "expropriation without compensation" is becoming fashionable with a certain group of people: communists in the fore. The ideal is "redistribution to the people" In other words: take what you want. Forget their rhetoric: communist politicians are in it for themselves, just like all other politicians.

What country would that be, out of curiosity, tallfred?

How is being influenced by your surroundings and being brainwashed (methods I know include: conditioning, sleep therapy, persuasion, repetition) not the same? The only real difference is the intention and intensity (both rate of change and power of effect), both of which are completely subjective. If you are using some other method I have not heard of, things might be more definable...

dD:

Well I kinda figure that the big deal with Brainwashing is that the intent and intensity is different, from the background effect. Else we might as call everything brainwashing, the word just has a negative implication

Obi: I'm from South Africa.

damian,

"Now don't get me wrong I'm an advocate of freedom for the individual however I think it should follow a policy of you are free to do as you will so long as you harm no other. Which in the name of profits most big wig capitalists ignore. If you can name a single big company where the wage gap between bottom and the CEO is 1:20 I'll consider taking it back however that is exploitation of others just to make more money for yourself."

Well, there are a few problems with this. First, ou apparently have an incredibly vague concept of "hurt," which renders your claimed belief vacuous. No big company is "hurting" its lowest run workers by paying its CEO billions of dollars. There is no active invasion of any identifiable, coherent right.

"People act in their own self interest however people crave acceptance and human contact"

They do, it's true. It's why free countries still have active and rich social structure. It is when a society attempts to force this to be the predominant or only important aspect of human experience, as Communism does, that human nature rebels and things go haywire.

"Yes it is absurd I suppose.. it is a hyperbole. However as soon as a person steps from worrying about their self interest into not having a concern for the well being of others they start to harm the planet as a whole."

That is an absurd and alarming claim. Alarming that you could even vaguely believe it. Many great artists, to take only one of a few million examples, have been completely self-engrossed, with no concern for anything but creating art that they like and living a selfish life for themselves. They have hardly harmed the planet in the creation of their masterpieces, however.

I am far from endorsing a Randean position of selfishness as virtue; I think it's a very unappealing personal characteristic. Nonetheless, your claim is pure dogma and couldn't vaguely be supported.

There's nothing great about communism itself. It's only meant to be a gateway to Socialism

i can't see why 'the people' would oppose communism, it gives them wealth directly.

The capitalists one the other hand have much to fear, but decades of propoganda, no doubt funded by these rich kids (both democrat and republican) has turned the world (or at least the side of it touched by western/american media) against the idea.

on the plus side, those people who america has screwed over are now turning against this media and capitalist inspired fear.

As for community in communism, the problem within such communities is that free-rider issue. This is something which the Soviet Union would have dealt with by arrests, imprisonment and KGB style tactics. China is likely a little bit better at protecting the people and only fining people who only break minor rules.

I do not see any issue with the person being valuable only based on their interaction with their community. That very idea is already seen in capitalism (where you sell good or service to your community to survive, and if you're not able to do this you're not valued)

The difference being the sense of entitlement to support from your community. I'm in favour of community building on a small (sub-national) level (for americans, sub-national also means sub-state, perhaps on a county level) where-in the community take not money (taxation) but time (volunteer-ism) from it's members to improve their local area.

No big federal grant, or bureaucracy. Just communism on a local level. I would also like to see local government encourage multi-national corporations to sell off local assets (means of production) to local investors. Then have unionized workers manage their own production and sell it back to the corporation (while the corp can re-invest it's capital elsewhere and help develop new profitable enterprises)

corporations already know that you can't run a division with more than ~150 people (just as the Amish know you can't run a village effectively with more than that number) </rant>

There are means and methods to make a lot of things fail. Be the change you'd like to see.

FYI: local business -

1) a credit union, to lend money to small businesses.
2) an insurance union, to insure it's members against illness and which pays out dividends to all members at the end of the year if a profit has been made. (this limits investments to one policy per person, no other share-holders than the policy holders... unless someone wants to buy me a policy and pay for it every year, then they can take my dividend too!!!)

these ideas are some kind of mix of community based capitalism... i believe refered to as distribute-ism by some.

Orotahaic; "the people" are the expendable material used by "communist" politicians to achieve their aims. They start poor and they end dirt poor or dead.

My thoughts about Communism:

A very grand ideal which unfortunately is impossible to achieve. Capitalism is in itself flawed, for the rich can enhance themselves further while the poor cannot do so at the same degree. However as it is impossible to eliminate all greed in humans, communism, which relies on trust and sharing, does not work. And experience shows that half-baked communism is worse than capitalism.

I am a staunch anti-communist. I think a communist society is the most evil thing humans can establish.

Wow, I go to bed for the evening and... Wow!

@damian - two things:

First,

"However I'd say a better reward for innovation would simply be renown instead of profit, after all working to earn respect is a good motivator for a lot of people... especially if they think it increases their chances of getting laid. "

OK, notoriety/fame (and the requisit getting laid) is a good motivator for *some* people, but I defy you to provide concrete evidence it is for "a lot". I work to make money so I can enjoy my time off work. As big an ego as I have, I don't want the fame, just the fortune. And most of the developers I personally know and are friends with are much the same as me. And that is just software innovation. Look at innovation in the electronics industry - the invention of the 8-track tape, cassette tape, CD, consumer grade videotape, DVD, Blu-Ray... These weren't done by someone who had a need and filled it. In the medical and physical science field it is much the same. True, medications would still be innovated (much like software today), but the expensive diagnostic devices are created by engineering firms who want to make money. The engineers there aren't looking to be famous and they didn't need a Open Stand-up MRI for their needs, they just wanted to get rich so they saw someone else's need (who didn't have the skill set to fill it themselves) and filled it. In a communist society like you describe, they would lose that motivation as they don't have the need until they are sop sick they can't fill it and they aren't getting compensated for developing it, so unless they are of an altrustic bent (which I would argue is usually a fame driven motivation), no one is going to innovate those devices. Even the film industry has the monetary motivator. Some actors might work for the fame, but others are in it for the money and most of the crew behind the scenes are about the money.

You can't just brush off how money motivates people. We are physical beings and having our physical desires met is one of our great motivators.

Now, onto the CEO versus the lowest paid employee... Do you really think the max a CEO should ever make is 20 times minimum wage? Nearly every company has someone in the mailroom making minimum wage and that would pretty much limit a CEO's salary to $400K a year in the US. And how does this hurt the minimum wage employee. They chose not to get an education and don't strive to climb the corporate ladder or they don't have the mental capacity to get the education and do the work that would let them climb that ladder. So they get paid based on what they contribute. They are unskilled labor doing a job that any employee in the company above them could do. So, instead of being out of work, they are paid a fair wage for their contribution. That isn't hurting them. Now, if the CEO and the Board decided to somehow take a "cut" of their pay for having hired them or made the employee pay for something that the top management got for free and that is considered a necessity by today's standards (i.e. health insurance, not stock options), then you could argue they were being hurt, but we have laws in place to prevent those types of abuses and the marketplace would kill those companies anyhow. As long as everyone is compensated according to their contribution and treated in an equitable manner - given opportunities to advance the same as everyone else and not discriminated against based on uncontrollable factors when the time comes for consideration for example - then the employee is not being hurt no matter what the various Officers in the company make.

I come here for the Dip, but this is so good I had to jump in.

@Putin - I like the ideal you put forth, but there are many aspects that I don't understand. I hope you can educate me on what happens in your vision with;
1) When you talk about production and need I see workers and factories making things like clothing. But what about non-'needed' items like a unique piece of Art? How would a Sculptor distribute their limited number works? It's possible this is a problem solved with advancing technology, but we are certainly not there yet.
2) Do not discount the advances made or paths opened when someone's project was shut down or they lost their job during a 'business cycle'. I personally know a dozen people who have had a great idea and gone on to success BECAUSE they were let go or hit hard times. Hard times are important for us to learn and grow (I'm talking from experience here). What's the mechanism in full fledged Communism for motivation if it's not competition?

@All - I don't want to hijack the thread, but what about a Dual system government where certain 'products' are handled via Socialism and certain 'products' are handled via Capitalism. I'd put under the Socialist 'system' clean water and 'healthy' food, the availability of minimum level of housing with power, heat/cold, actually, maybe the internet and for good measure some basic clothing. This system would require some regulatory oversight for the quality of the above products. Everyone benefiting from this system would agree to work at the facilities producing the products. This would in effect be the new welfare/unemployment system and could include Education or re-training as well.
Everything else would be 'free market' and 'indulgent' versions of all the above would be available, but the Socialist system would be a safety net against the business cycle.

I'm not economist, but I believe all the criticisms above about either system are not problems with the systems, but highlight the problems with Human Nature (desire for security through hording resources, motivations, jealousy).

Thanks to you guys for starting and continuing such an interesting conversation.

"
Well, there are a few problems with this. First, ou apparently have an incredibly vague concept of "hurt," which renders your claimed belief vacuous. No big company is "hurting" its lowest run workers by paying its CEO billions of dollars. There is no active invasion of any identifiable, coherent right."

This is were you are in fact incorrect. I have rather large definition of hurting people perhaps however. While you are right in that they are not violating fundamental rights they are hurting their workers. You can try and just imagine the first world all you like however abusive factory conditions and dirt cheap wages are the reality for most international corporations these days. This is exploitation, and abuse of these people in the name of profit, they could easily improve conditions or pay for the workers, in exchange for a bit less profit.

Paying a ceo billions of dollars is not only ridiculous and unnecessary it is damaging to society as a whole thanks to the continued affects of money running from the bottom to the top of our economic pyramid and forcing debt based spending on the lower and middle classes.

So while it doesn't violate a fundamental right (save for safe working conditions) it is still harmful.

"They do, it's true. It's why free countries still have active and rich social structure. It is when a society attempts to force this to be the predominant or only important aspect of human experience, as Communism does, that human nature rebels and things go haywire."

There are examples of this working out fine and for the benefit of others, the Jewish frontier communes in early Isreal come to mind. As for our rich country having an active social culture. We have a social culture however compared to countries who are much poorer then us, people are generally less close together, more selfish and communicate less particularly face to face.


"That is an absurd and alarming claim. Alarming that you could even vaguely believe it. Many great artists, to take only one of a few million examples, have been completely self-engrossed, with no concern for anything but creating art that they like and living a selfish life for themselves. They have hardly harmed the planet in the creation of their masterpieces, however."

Sure. However they are still living with concern for others, and their lives. Even if it is just apathy towards the rest of the world, they aren't trying to harm others, or showing sociopathic tenancies which is a text book case of having no concern for others. If a self absorbed artist abused someone to get his painting just so, then we would say he had no concern for their well being. Just ignoring other humans is not an act that shows a disregard for their well being.

"
You can't just brush off how money motivates people. We are physical beings and having our physical desires met is one of our great motivators."

That's the point though isn't it. What can wealth do; provide status or allow us to meet our needs/desires.

While communism doesn't quite provide for the second, I'm go to start arguing from my point of view. A socialist society should be providing for the needs of it's people. Renown based rewards help deal with the first use for money, as you still gain status for good work, so the only thing really missing is an ability to fulfil your desires. Which is part of the reason I tend to support small businesses within the framework of a socialist society so people can create luxury goods so desires can also be satisfied.

20:1

I picked this ration at random, however there are a lot of benefits over the current 1:400 model in america and the 1:1000000 model you see in third world countries. You have a more equal distribution of wealth, which cycles back around to have people put more money back into the economy so the companies continue to grow, ceo's should take a pay cut, however I think to help keep their pay higher they should start paying everyone else higher, which would help reduce individual deficit spending. During the golden age in Japan the salary gap was 1:13 and it was one of the most productive nations on there.

But raising everyone's salaries to reduce the CEO/lowerclass gap causes inflation because the cost of goods at every step along the manufacturing path goes up. First, raw materials go up because the steel mill workers are making more so the steel mill has to charge more. Also, shipping the raw materials goes up because the driver and the packer and the fork lift operator all got raises so the shipping company has to charge more. Then parts go up because the raw materials and shipping went up plus the fabricators got pay raises. Shipping those parts goes up because, as we already showed, shipping has gone up. Finally, at the first level (this is a cycle as I will show shortly) the finished product goes up because the assemblers got pay raises, and the parts cost more and their shipping cost more.

And the cycle is because each step along the way typically requires finished equipment which has gone through this process as well.

And this doesn't even cover the cost of distribution and sales staff to get it out where the public can buy it.

So, giving all the lower income payraises is going to raise the cost of goods such that you have just hurt them and everyone else at the same time. Then they will scream for another pay raise because now their 20 per hour (we'll call it the new minimum) won't buy near what it used to. It's a nasty little cycle you enter into when you start trying to close the gap by raising the pay of the minimum wage or even middle class workers.

Not reading the whole thread, just glanced at your most recent post Draug, wanted to make a point:

Raising salaries of workers won't increase the cost of goods if the company itself is willing to make less of a profit. It's a question of priorities. As the CEO, what do you care about more: People or money? Unfortunately in our capitalist system, the answer is too often Money.

Fag-Naur posted, ..." They are unskilled labor doing a job that any employee in the company above them could do. So, instead of being out of work, they are paid a fair wage for their contribution. That isn't hurting them."
################################################################

Many unskilled NON-UNION labourers would argue that they are NOT being paid a fair, or even a living, wage. As far as not being hurt; spare me. Their bodies are in almost constant pain. However, most of them are not whiny little pussies, like you, so they don't broadcast it.

You assume that C.E.O.s et al are fair-minded and, somewhat, benevolent. That's a simplistic assumption(even for you, Fag-Naur, you cock-sucking moron).

I was a C.E.O. of sorts(factory owner really. I never craved a snotty title). I am a greedy fuck, and it was only the fact that I was handcuffed by the union that I paid the workers what I did. I've done well for myself, but I'm not CRAZY rich like I could have been, given other opportunities.

@ Kalel Chase
"@Putin - I like the ideal you put forth, but there are many aspects that I don't understand. I hope you can educate me on what happens in your vision with;
1) When you talk about production and need I see workers and factories making things like clothing. But what about non-'needed' items like a unique piece of Art? How would a Sculptor distribute their limited number works? It's possible this is a problem solved with advancing technology, but we are certainly not there yet."

You raise a good question. The Soviet system and certainly socialism in general did not only consider physical/material needs. The Soviets also believed that workers had cultural needs as well. These weren't necessarily "material" or something that could be physically quantified and distributed. The Soviets greatly supported culture and the arts in order to meet people's cultural needs. They did this by first of all organizing all producers of art into associations or unions, and subsidizing them to make sure they were able to live and devote time to their work. They did this by secondly promoting the individual who made the work instead of using the work to promote the profits of a corporation. In Soviet Union, if you invented something, your name was attached to it. The Kalishnikov rifle is a famous example. In the West, if you invented something, it quickly becomes the property of a corporation and the corporation gets credit for it. That is an essential difference. People claim that capitalism respects the individual and his work more than socialism. This is completely false. Under capitalism, the artist very often cannot function to their full potential because the market does not reward his or her creativity. The stereotype of the "starving artist" is well known. The artist has to do other work in order to make ends meet and often cannot devote the time necessary to the arts. Few artists are lucky enough to be rewarded by the market, and the market usually only rewards inferior, cheap, consumerist art. Indeed, I'd argue that under capitalism the ordinary person has no artistic voice whatsoever. Art is the privilege of the rich.There's a reason why even under a market economy, museums and cultural heritage are supported and protected by the state. If left to the market they wouldn't exist. As it is, in my hometown they want to close down a historic military fort that has existed since the French and Indian war. Capitalism has no regard for history or culture, and this is another aspect of socialism's superiority. Thanks for asking this question.


"2) Do not discount the advances made or paths opened when someone's project was shut down or they lost their job during a 'business cycle'. I personally know a dozen people who have had a great idea and gone on to success BECAUSE they were let go or hit hard times. Hard times are important for us to learn and grow (I'm talking from experience here). What's the mechanism in full fledged Communism for motivation if it's not competition?""

Well yes, misery is a powerful motivator. But it is usually a motivator to survive, not to take risks or innovate. I think the typical scenario is that people stay in jobs they don't like, that alienate them from their potential, because they dare not take other less secure jobs that might not provide health insurance, among other things. How many people are staying in low paying, menial jobs even though they have the potential to law school and become lawyer, but don't because of the cost? (This is exactly what my wife is doing). How does a person who is working and raising a family have time to invest in his project or great idea? Furthermore, which "great ideas" end up getting support from the market, as I mentioned before? One of the greatest inventors in America, if not the world, died broke. His ideas were stolen by rich capitalists. That man's name is Nikola Tesla. For every story the defenders of capitalism come up with someone getting 'lucky' and making it big despite hardship, there are thousands of stories of people who did not get the chance to live up to their full potential because of the pressures of capitalism.

Now, there's the argument that without the pressure to survive that is inherent in capitalism, there won't be any motivation to work, to produce things of quality, etc. That to me is a fundamental misreading of human "nature". The core of human nature is to produce - this is what separates us from every other animal. If monetary reward and the threat of starvation was the only thing that motivated people to invest in talent, it is a wonder why thousands of athletes invest their time and energy into athletics knowing full well they have no chance at becoming one of the "lucky" few who becomes a professional. It is a wonder why almost every person I've ever met has some kind of hobby, a hobby which requires substantial investment of time and often requires substantial skill. How many people do you know that spend their free time engaging in arts and crafts or music, with no expectation of any monetary reward whatsoever? I ask the same question about volunteers who donate their time to help people. You see many people choose careers because their main desire to help people. Under socialism they will be better able to fulfill that desire. And under socialism, it is not as if people who produce works of art will not be monetarily rewarded. It's also not as if there wouldn't be a 'competition'. The only difference is that their work wouldn't be dependent on the fickleness of the market and the monetary support of the superrich. Engineers and scientists still compete with each other to see whose name will be associated with the next great innovation, or who can contribute most to society.

@Orotahaic; "the people" are the expendable material used by "communist" politicians to achieve their aims. They start poor and they end dirt poor or dead.

Tallfred - the world is what you make of it. The Soviet Union is not an ideal socialist paradise, but you're blind if you can't see any advantage in their policies.

You're also blind if you can't see any failings of the capitalist system.

Communism: "A very grand ideal which unfortunately is impossible to achieve." - but an ideal is not what we live in, there are practical possibilities in-between ideologically pure capitalism or communism.

One thing seems strange or at least inconsistent that is a common current throughout all the objections raised here.

1 - There is the repeated claim that greed or self-interest is an unchanging and eternal part of 'human nature' and can never be changed or eliminated. Ok, accepting that, how does it follow then that we must build our entire economic system in such a way that rewards greed explicitly? In fact, the greedier you are, the supposedly better you'll do? How does that follow? Why don't we do the same thing with war, which is also claimed to be a fundamental part of human nature? Why don't we construct an international system that rewards military aggression? To a certain extent we do, but our international laws say otherwise. Acquiring territory by conquest is explicitly banned. So what explains this?

2 - Why are people so fatalistic when it comes to human beings? Is this a result of Christian thinking? Oh, we're so very evil and nothing can change this? [Incidentally speaking of ideals which have a hopeless chance of ever being implemented - try religion] It's as if humans have never been able to progress beyond our brutish animalistic instincts. And not only can we never progress but we need to incentivize brutishness. You'd think that slavery was still a widely accepted practice, if what you people were saying was true.

3 - You can't simultaneously claim that human nature is this greedy thing while expressing disgust or shock that a system you defend which rewards such behavior leads to terrible social ills. Either you believe humans are these vile nasty creatures or you don't. If you do, then why make any effort to address social ills at all? Just let the poor and the weak die, they're a Darwinian mistake and undermine the gene pool.

4 - It seems unfathomable to me how you can claim humans are greedy, nasty, etc and this can't be helped, but most of you believe in some kind of religion that preaches against this sort of behavior. If humans are inevitably evil, why bother trying to create a society based on Judeo-Christian principles? Obviously that is doomed to failure. The golden rule is a fraud or an unnecessary obstacle to the greedy nature of humans which, if allowed to operate freely, will lead to better outcomes.

"The fact remains, nothing vaguely like Stalin or Mao or Hitler ever happened within a major capitalist country."

To avoid loaded terminology, the American government did attempt over multiple presidencies the elimination of Native Americans.

Capitalism promotes dictatorships in the form of CEOs where democracies replace dictators with "the system." It is true that dictators are very very uncommon in democracies. Socialist states tend to prefer forms of democracies as much as capitalist states. While capitalism can do great things for societies, a significant risk is the greed that creates situations where the death of some is acceptable provided profit is enough.