By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What's Your View On Communism?

sc94597 said:
SvennoJ said:
Cypher1980 said:
I remember being told many years ago.

Capitalism succeeds while Communism fails for the same reason. Human Greed

Yet (current) capitalism is heavily dependent on communism, without China's cheap labor how would capitalism look today. Plus it heavily depends on being able to borrow capital to spend itself out of trouble. USA has $60 trillion debt, yet we call that a succesful system. Capitalism is a giant ponzi scheme, who knows how much longer it can work. At some point the cheap labor or cheap oil will run out.

China's economic system is a market socialist system or state capitalist system, whichever terminology you prefer. It isn't a market-less, command-control, socialist system anymore, and it is certainly, never has been, a classless society called communism. 

The cheap labor found in China has nothing to do with communism anyway. It has to do with the natural destitution that most of the world had faced since the start of humanity and which has only been resolved, in anyway, by free-markets. 

Right now the biggest battle is between those who want to  limit production and increase destitution through mercantilism/state-capitalism and those who want to allow for growth to remove scarcity through free-markets. 

Oil's quantity demanded will likely become far less by the time it runs out as we proceed toward other energy technologies. As for labor - all labor that is necessary to maintain cheap costs will likely be performed by automated machines. Plus, there are plenty of third world countries in the world that can benefit from such opportunities ( African countries, for example.) There is a reason why cheap labor exists in China, and not - say - the United States. The poor in the United States have so many opportunities that they can deny such low wages, and this means that corporations will work toward automated technologies to address this shortage in the supply of cheap labor. There are still many jobs that can be done in other markets, which marxists failed to predict, and continually do so. 

That would be a capitalist utopia if the bottom of the pyramid can be replaced by machines running on solar power. We'll likely have decrease of luxury before that happens. Meanwhile cheap transportation and cheap labor is what is providing us with the luxury we're accustomed to. From the gadgets made in China, to the Mexican seasonal workers harvesting the food, to the child slave labour mining coltan for smart phones. Plus the imf ruining local economies to unlock more cheap labor for our lifestyle.

It's always easy to say how great a system is when you're the one benefitting from it which includes the poor of the western world. I'm not saying communism is any better, just seems less destructive, yet maybe that's just because it never manage to thrive.



Around the Network
SvennoJ said:

That would be a capitalist utopia if the bottom of the pyramid can be replaced by machines running on solar power. We'll likely have decrease of luxury before that happens. Meanwhile cheap transportation and cheap labor is what is providing us with the luxury we're accustomed to. From the gadgets made in China, to the Mexican seasonal workers harvesting the food, to the child slave labour mining coltan for smart phones. Plus the imf ruining local economies to unlock more cheap labor for our lifestyle.

It's always easy to say how great a system is when you're the one benefitting from it which includes the poor of the western world. I'm not saying communism is any better, just seems less destructive, yet maybe that's just because it never manage to thrive.

Honestly, machines replacing workers is actually good for everyone. It allows companies to reduce costs, which reduce consumer prices (assuming a competitive market), or it allows them to invest in other ways, and allows for more high wage positions that would not otherwise exist. It is a gain for capitalists, bourgoise, proleritat, working-class, upper-class, poor, etc, etc. I work at Walmart currently so that I might reduce my student loan dependancy. I would much rather work to help customers in other ways than to do menial mechanical cashiering, that I do now, which is something a machine can do, for example.

There is not a net loss in the amount of jobs with the introduction of machines, just as there wasn't in the industrial revolution, and there wasn't in the internet age, the jobs just change in their nature. The more monetary wealth that exists, the more opportunities to find the job I, you, or anybody else prefers and enjoys doing. That is the difference between the wealthy countries and the less wealthy ones. There are more opportunities, not fewer. 

And for the Mexicans and the Chinese, well life is just better off with these opportunities that exist for them. Chinese persons today, the rich and the poor, are better off than they were under Mao and his strict socialism. Mexicans picking fruit in California are better off in the semi-"Capitalist" United States than they were in the more oppressive markets of Mexico. Hong Kongers (the freest market in the world) are so much better off than the mainland Chinese, and 40 years ago they were in the same financial situation. So I really don't see how communism is better than free-markets (whether or not you want to call it capitalism, is up to you.) 



Much like libertarianism and capitalism, communism presents some useful ideas that can be selectively incorporated into a real, working society.

It's about using the right tool for the job. Some sectors, like insurance and natural monopolies, stand to gain a lot from public ownership. Other sectors really perform best in private hands.

If there's one structure that probably needs more representation in the world today, it's co-operatives. A well-designed co-op will exhibit many of the best features of a private corporation, yet behave as if it were in competition even when it has a monopoly.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

sc94597 said:
SvennoJ said:

That would be a capitalist utopia if the bottom of the pyramid can be replaced by machines running on solar power. We'll likely have decrease of luxury before that happens. Meanwhile cheap transportation and cheap labor is what is providing us with the luxury we're accustomed to. From the gadgets made in China, to the Mexican seasonal workers harvesting the food, to the child slave labour mining coltan for smart phones. Plus the imf ruining local economies to unlock more cheap labor for our lifestyle.

It's always easy to say how great a system is when you're the one benefitting from it which includes the poor of the western world. I'm not saying communism is any better, just seems less destructive, yet maybe that's just because it never manage to thrive.

Honestly, machines replacing workers is actually good for everyone. It allows companies to reduce costs, which reduce consumer prices (assuming a competitive market), or it allows them to invest in other ways, and allows for more high wage positions that would not otherwise exist. It is a gain for capitalists, bourgoise, proleritat, working-class, upper-class, poor, etc, etc. I work at Walmart currently so that I might reduce my student loan dependancy. I would much rather work to help customers in other ways than to do menial mechanical cashiering, that I do now, which is something a machine can do, for example.

There is not a net loss in the amount of jobs with the introduction of machines, just as there wasn't in the industrial revolution, and there wasn't in the internet age, the jobs just change in their nature. The more monetary wealth that exists, the more opportunities to find the job I, you, or anybody else prefers and enjoys doing. That is the difference between the wealthy countries and the less wealthy ones. There are more opportunities, not fewer. 

And for the Mexicans and the Chinese, well life is just better off with these opportunities that exist for them. Chinese persons today, the rich and the poor, are better off than they were under Mao and his strict socialism. Mexicans picking fruit in California are better off in the semi-"Capitalist" United States than they were in the more oppressive markets of Mexico. Hong Kongers (the freest market in the world) are so much better off than the mainland Chinese, and 40 years ago they were in the same financial situation. So I really don't see how communism is better than free-markets (whether or not you want to call it capitalism, is up to you.) 

I full agree machines benefit society. Although not so sure about the self checkout systems in super markets, they always prove more trouble than they're worth so far. "Put the item on the tray, put it back in the cart, put only one item on the tray at a time, leave the item on the tray, please wait for assistance. Sorry you can't place your bags on the tray, it messes up the scale" Screw that. Walmart wouldn't give you another task anyway, just like the grocery baggers you would simply be looking for another job. Robot cashiers would be frigging cool though :)

Creating jobs in low wage countries can help those countries. It's a double edged sword though. It can also disrupt local economies. For example by flooding the market with left over subsidized food products in return, next to making countries dependent on hiring out its workforce instead of creating a sustainable economy of their own. It's usually the (corrupt) government that benefits most from imf deals, and plenty of dicatators have gotten support from the western world for stable access to cheap resources and labor.

(Mostly) free markets are the best we have atm, better than a closed border policy. The rich and powerful will always skew the system in their favor whenever possible. Yet hungry western consumers are the best option for developing countries right now. The western world got where it is on the back of colonialism, slavery and exploitation of vast resources. Those doors are closing fast.



OK,

LET ME SUMMARIZE MY OPINION IN ALL CAPS, ABOUT "COMMUNISM"

....THERE IS NOBODY IN THE USA OR EUROPE WHO CROSSES THE BORDER TO ENTER A COMMUNIST COUNTRY....

THERE ARE NO AMERICANS BOARDING SHITTY ASS BOATS TO GET TO CUBA....NOR ARE ANY EUROPEAN CITIZENS JUMPING ON A TRAIN HEADED TO RUSSIA !!!!!

CAN SOMEONE ELABORATE TO ME THE PROBLEM OF AMERICANS FLEEING ACROSS THE TEXAS BORDER, HELLBENT ON STARTING A NEW LIFE IN MEXICO ???

IF YOU THINK YOUR LIFE WOULD BE BETTER IN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY, THAN FOR CHRISTSAKES......MOVE THE FUCK OVER THERE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I WONT HOLD YOU BACK, JUST LEAVE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Around the Network
Nighthawk117 said:
OK,

LET ME SUMMARIZE MY OPINION IN ALL CAPS, ABOUT "COMMUNISM"

....THERE IS NOBODY IN THE USA OR EUROPE WHO CROSSES THE BORDER TO ENTER A COMMUNIST COUNTRY....

THERE ARE NO AMERICANS BOARDING SHITTY ASS BOATS TO GET TO CUBA....NOR ARE ANY EUROPEAN CITIZENS JUMPING ON A TRAIN HEADED TO RUSSIA !!!!!

CAN SOMEONE ELABORATE TO ME THE PROBLEM OF AMERICANS FLEEING ACROSS THE TEXAS BORDER, HELLBENT ON STARTING A NEW LIFE IN MEXICO ???

IF YOU THINK YOUR LIFE WOULD BE BETTER IN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY, THAN FOR CHRISTSAKES......MOVE THE FUCK OVER THERE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I WONT HOLD YOU BACK, JUST LEAVE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Russia hasn't been communist for 20 years now and Mexico hasn't been communist, ever.



Russia is still run by a government led economy, otherwise known as "communism".

Yes, I know Mexico is not communist, but I admit I combined communism with illegal immigration.

So, sue me.



Communism is evil. America fought it, and beat it.



Ask stefl1504 for a sig, even if you don't need one.

Nighthawk117 said:
Russia is still run by a government led economy, otherwise known as "communism".

Yes, I know Mexico is not communist, but I admit I combined communism with illegal immigration.

So, sue me.

State capitalism is not communism or else you would have to add countries like Brazil, Singapore and the Middle Eastern states to the list of "communist states". Or states like Nationalist Spain and the Estado Novo which were state capitalist countries which fought against communists, labeling them as communists wouldn't make any sense.



Well then, Leadified....

Enlighten me...

Is Russia, and Cuba, for that matter....State Capitalist or Communist, in your opinion??

I believe they are communist...So is North Korea....

Moving along.....I believe Brazil and Singapore are autocratic...what say you?

I think, in regards to the Middle East, Syria is communist, Iran is a religious, dictatorship regime. And you say?