Thread: Re-writing Communism

If everybody pools all their money then there is no competition.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

If everybody pools all their money then there is no competition.

There may be a difference in definition, here. My definition of capitalism isn't competition. It is free exchange of money, goods, and services. So there could be no competition, but as long as people had the option not to pool and they were not strong armed into pooling, I don't consider that contrary to capitalism.

The ideal system is one in which basic necessities are evenly distributed and luxury goods are given to those who work hardest and perform the most valued jobs in society. Every human being deserves free food, water, clothing, shelter, health care, and education. However, the doctor should be rewarded with a larger house, a better TV, and and more entertainment opportunities than the individual who chooses not to work and just sit around all day. Should the latter be allowed to starve to death on the street? No, of course not. Everyone deserves basic necessities, and the only institution large enough and powerful enough to collect and distribute such an enormous amount of funds is the government. Tax the wealthy so that the poor can live, but not so much that the wealthy are underprivileged.

That's called socialism. Communism is flawed because those who don't contribute to society are treated the same as those who do and capitalism is [severely] flawed because the poor aren't given an adequate quality of life, and even the hard workers are uncompensated because of their background and lack of economic opportunity.

Originally Posted by GMoney

The ideal system is one in which basic necessities are evenly distributed and luxury goods are given to those who work hardest and perform the most valued jobs in society. Every human being deserves free food, water, clothing, shelter, health care, and education. However, the doctor should be rewarded with a larger house, a better TV, and and more entertainment opportunities than the individual who chooses not to work and just sit around all day. Should the latter be allowed to starve to death on the street? No, of course not. Everyone deserves basic necessities, and the only institution large enough and powerful enough to collect and distribute such an enormous amount of funds is the government. Tax the wealthy so that the poor can live, but not so much that the wealthy are underprivileged.

That's called socialism. Communism is flawed because those who don't contribute to society are treated the same as those who do and capitalism is [severely] flawed because the poor aren't given an adequate quality of life, and even the hard workers are uncompensated because of their background and lack of economic opportunity.

Can the government rationally distribute goods?

That's a question you have to ask, and I'd tend to say yes. While they won't be top quality, they're certainly better than nothing and while there's sure to be some waste, it's worth it if it improves the quality of life and poverty.

Originally Posted by GMoney

That's a question you have to ask, and I'd tend to say yes. While they won't be top quality, they're certainly better than nothing and while there's sure to be some waste, it's worth it if it improves the quality of life and poverty.

Okay. How?

By having high taxes and having food and water be free? Have the government buy all the grocery stores and have all the food be free. Compensate for it with tax money.

The government can build houses, too. Granted, they'll be subpar, but they're a place to live. People who are homeless/unemployed could apply for a free house.

Originally Posted by GMoney

By having high taxes and having food and water be free? Have the government buy all the grocery stores and have all the food be free. Compensate for it with tax money.

The government can build houses, too. Granted, they'll be subpar, but they're a place to live. People who are homeless/unemployed could apply for a free house.

Where does this government get off doing this in the first place, though? What gives it the authority to distribute goods rather than some other government? Force theory?

It would be voted on, democratically.

Originally Posted by GMoney

By having high taxes and having food and water be free? Have the government buy all the grocery stores and have all the food be free. Compensate for it with tax money.

The government can build houses, too. Granted, they'll be subpar, but they're a place to live. People who are homeless/unemployed could apply for a free house.

Why have a system that creates subpar conditions when there is a system that can create more efficient conditions?

Also how does the government know what a just compensation is for a job?

There's a system in which there's no homelessness and people who work get to enjoy luxuries!? Tell me about it and sign me up!

Everyone would have a place to live, and if you don't have a place to live you live in government subsidized housing. No one should be out in the streets.

Can you answer my questions?

Sorry, I misread your question. I thought I did answer you.

You're saying the government is the business owner, setting salaries? No, not at all. In communism that's the case, but in socialism there's still a free market and no price-setting except for basic necessities.

Originally Posted by GMoney

Sorry, I misread your question. I thought I did answer you.

No, you dodged and gave me satire.

You're saying the government is the business owner, setting salaries? No, not at all. In communism that's the case, but in socialism there's still a free market and no price-setting except for basic necessities.

The government wouldn't actually be providing the basic necessities, and so they would employ "private" companies to do so. But now the price control is in power of those who could manipulate it for their own benefit. Sort of a recipe for disaster.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

No, you dodged and gave me satire.

The first line of my response was satire; the second line was my answer to your question.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The government wouldn't actually be providing the basic necessities, and so they would employ "private" companies to do so. But now the price control is in power of those who could manipulate it for their own benefit. Sort of a recipe for disaster.

Well, if you call giving out stuff for free "price control," then sure. If all food was free and the government was giving out free food, would that be a disaster? I suppose you're right that farmers, transporters, shelf-stockers, and cashiers would be paid by the government, but that's still a relatively low percentage of the population.

In the United States, primary and secondary education area already socialized. The government sets the pay for the teachers, but students get to go for free. I'm just taking that a step further for the other basic necessities. And regardless of the quality of the education, it's an education nonetheless and it's better students have one than nothing.

Originally Posted by GMoney

Well, if you call giving out stuff for free "price control," then sure.

You said price-setting. That's price-control. And since you agree, isn't it just corporatism?

If all food was free and the government was giving out free food, would that be a disaster?

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Economically, it is a disaster.

I suppose you're right that farmers, transporters, shelf-stockers, and cashiers would be paid by the government, but that's still a relatively low percentage of the population.

So?

In the United States, primary and secondary education area already socialized. The government sets the pay for the teachers, but students get to go for free. I'm just taking that a step further for the other basic necessities. And regardless of the quality of the education, it's an education nonetheless and it's better students have one than nothing.

Yeah, and look at the quality of education...

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Economically, it is a disaster.

Would you rather have people starve to death? There's a moral obligation to save lives whenever possible, and the government certainly has the means to end hunger. You'd rather have millions of people die of hunger than some people abuse the system? It's a small economic price to pay for a huge moral and humanitarian victory.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Yeah, and look at the quality of education...

Do you not like the quality of education? Would you rather those who come from poor families not get education so they can't get good-paying jobs?

Of course not. Complain all you want, it's better that there's universal education than having quality education for only some. If there wasn't universal education, people would be stuck in cycles of poverty without a means through which to improve their quality of living.

Capitalism fails.

Originally Posted by GMoney

Would you rather have people starve to death? There's a moral obligation to save lives whenever possible, and the government certainly has the means to end hunger. You'd rather have millions of people die of hunger than some people abuse the system? It's a small economic price to pay for a huge moral and humanitarian victory.

I wonder if people who ask "would you rather have [insert awful scenario here]" really expect a positive answer.

The government cannot possibly have the means to end hunger since it has no resources of its own. All of its resources come from the productive, private sector. Take away from the private sector and the actual ability to alleviate problems decreases.

Do you not like the quality of education? Would you rather those who come from poor families not get education so they can't get good-paying jobs?

You act like they get a good education now!

Of course not. Complain all you want, it's better that there's universal education than having quality education for only some. If there wasn't universal education, people would be stuck in cycles of poverty without a means through which to improve their quality of living.

Instead of the chance for a quality education for everyone, let's be content with mediocrity for all. Sounds wonderful, really.

Capitalism fails.

Love platitudes.

Mediocrity for all is better than excellence for some and misery for others.

"Excellence for some and misery for others" aptly describes Western civilization since the 1960s, when socialism took root.

Originally Posted by GMoney

Mediocrity for all is better than excellence for some and misery for others.

Why then, exactly, do I owe anyone else my production/time/part of my life and why would they owe me theirs? The utilitarian argument, that everyone being equal is ideal, has at least provided arguments on why it's society is ideal. But it has never answered that question.

Originally Posted by cmind

"Excellence for some and misery for others" aptly describes Western civilization since the 1960s, when socialism took root.

Oh yeah cause society was well balanced in the 1800s when most lived two families to a room and the gentry controlled all possible wealth and work conditions.

So far you win stupidest post of the year.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Oh yeah cause society was well balanced in the 1800s when most lived two families to a room and the gentry controlled all possible wealth and work conditions.

So far you win stupidest post of the year.

Are you describing Europe or America? It sounds like you're describing Europe, which was never a free society.

By the way, here's a tip: Those calling others stupid should probably learn that "stupidest" isn't a word. But you knew that, right?

Are you saying that Europe was in better condition before it began edging towards socialism? Western European life over the last 50 years has been better than it has been over any other 50 year span in history. You can't argue that life was better under feudalism or capitalism.