Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ENOZONE wrote:

Two things. First: Freedom does not equal Democracy - the Soviet Union, and all of the Soviet Revolutions that occured in Central and South America were revolutions to liberate those who were oppressed. Though many simply traded one dictator for another, for a time people lived a fragile, but nonetheless very real freedom communism promised. Chavez is loved in his country because he is a benevolent dictator that gives the people a working socialist state without curbing their freedoms - he actively tries to give the people what they want: education, healthcare, lower taxes, ect.

Have you actually been to either Cuba or Venezuela?

Because if you have, then you have a very twisted view of what "benevolent" dictators Chavez and Castro really are. There is a very palpable feeling when you talk to people on the streets that if they don't tow the party line, then "BAD things" happen. In Cuba you have people inviting tourists to eat in their homes to help make ends meet and if they are discovered, then they will be sent to jail, for example.

Chavez is beloved by is people in the same way that Kim Jong Il was also beloved by his people in NK and if Venezuela didn't have such extensive oil reserves then their people would be starving just as the NK people are.

 d-usa wrote:
Communism works just as well on paper as Capitalism.

Communism works just as well in real life as Capitalism.

'Proper' capitalism works IMO. But instead, we bail out the failing banks instead of letting new companies fill the void. A proper free market might work. Been listening to economic experts on the news

 rockerbikie wrote:
That argument was probably made about democracy in the 17th and 18th century.

Except anyone saying such would be outright wrong (and stupid) cause the Greeks got along just fine for a century or two.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Communism works just as well on paper as Capitalism.

Communism works just as well in real life as Capitalism.

'Proper' capitalism works IMO. But instead, we bail out the failing banks instead of letting new companies fill the void. A proper free market might work. Been listening to economic experts on the news

A true free market would be insane.

A combination of the two might work brilliantly.

 nomsheep wrote:
A combination of the two might work brilliantly.

It probably would.

 purplefood wrote:

 nomsheep wrote:
A combination of the two might work brilliantly.

It probably would.

Capitamunism

 Peregrine wrote:
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! DOLLARS FOR THE DOLLAR THRONE!

If Khorne is the capitalist, doesn't that imply that Tzeentch is the communist. "Just as planned (economy)" jokes aside, I think Nurgle is the more appropriate choice.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Communism works just as well on paper as Capitalism.

Communism works just as well in real life as Capitalism.

'Proper' capitalism works IMO.

No it doesn't. Raw capitalism is as doomed to failure as raw communism.

In fact there are more examples of failed capitalism than failed communism. There are also more successes but that's by the by

 Testify wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Communism works just as well on paper as Capitalism.

Communism works just as well in real life as Capitalism.

'Proper' capitalism works IMO.

No it doesn't. Raw capitalism is as doomed to failure as raw communism.

In fact there are more examples of failed capitalism than failed communism. There are also more successes but that's by the by

The only reason it's doomed is the governments rather than the economics. Were the governing systems to be sorted out, it would work.

 p_gray99 wrote:
The only reason it's doomed is the governments rather than the economics. Were the governing systems to be sorted out, it would work.

You could say the same of any society throughout human history, so in a discussion about economics it's moot.

 Testify wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:
The only reason it's doomed is the governments rather than the economics. Were the governing systems to be sorted out, it would work.

You could say the same of any society throughout human history, so in a discussion about economics it's moot.

I agree, any economic system with a good enough governing body would probably work. However, as communism is the (arguably) fairest economic system, you could therefore say that it's the best and we should try to build a governing system which will allow it to work. Although I don't believe this myself, I believe we should aim for a far more socialist system.

All of which would be lovely, if wasn't for that pesky personal freedom stuff. Oh, and the fact that socialism de-incentivises sustainable economic activity.

 Albatross wrote:
de-incentivises sustainable economic activity.

While capitalism never cared about sustainability.

Capitalism doesn't 'care' about anything except profit and growth.

And by 'sustainable' I mean 'non-state funded', incidentally.

 Albatross wrote:
Capitalism doesn't 'care' about anything except profit and growth.

Which really arent virtues in themselves. Stability could be preferable to a lot of people.

And by 'sustainable' I mean 'non-state funded', incidentally.

Well, are you talking about marxist socialism, or socialism as in social-democracy? Because if its the first, then there's nothing to say that the State's production cannot be sustained, especially if it cumulates all the means of production (and that those don't suck). If it's the latter, I don't see how social values affect productivity. They just take a larger slice of the public fund pie.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Capitalism doesn't 'care' about anything except profit and growth.

Which really arent virtues in themselves. Stability could be preferable to a lot of people.

No, they aren't, and yes it probably would! However, it's the price of that stability that is the worrying thing. It basically means surrendering your freedom to compete.

And by 'sustainable' I mean 'non-state funded', incidentally.

Well, are you talking about marxist socialism, or socialism as in social-democracy? Because if its the first, then there's nothing to say that the State's production cannot be sustained, especially if it cumulates all the means of production (and that those don't suck).

The redistribution inherent in such a system would make it very easy to out-compete a nation adopting it. It would kill exports. The collapse of nationalised British heavy industry in the 70s is a good example of this in microcosm.

If it's the latter, I don't see how social values affect productivity. They just take a larger slice of the public fund pie.

...and allow for greater worklessness amongst the population, which affects productivity. It's also a black hole fiscally, because each generation of a family that doesn't work costs the state progressively more. You have to break the cycle at some point.

 Albatross wrote:
No, they aren't, and yes it probably would! However, it's the price of that stability that is the worrying thing. It basically means surrendering your freedom to compete.

Only if by "compete" you mean "recklessly trade future survival for short-term gains". I don't know about you, but I don't really think that vulture capitalism, trashing the environment to make a bit of extra profit, pyramid-scheme-in-all-but-name investing, etc, are really good for society. I don't care if removing them costs the richest people some freedom to become even richer, they can just deal with being comfortably rich instead of obscenely rich.

The redistribution inherent in such a system would make it very easy to out-compete a nation adopting it. It would kill exports. The collapse of nationalised British heavy industry in the 70s is a good example of this in microcosm.

And the lesson we can learn from that collapse is "when capitalism fails, the government should step in and save industry". For example, they canceled their fighter jet program and the aerospace industry collapsed, and now they have to import their planes, putting them in a weaker strategic position. But of course this is exactly the problem with capitalism: it cares about short-term gains, not long-term potential, and considers it better to trash a nation's industrial capacity and move it to China than to pay higher prices.

...and allow for greater worklessness amongst the population, which affects productivity. It's also a black hole fiscally, because each generation of a family that doesn't work costs the state progressively more. You have to break the cycle at some point.

Yeah, that whole idea that otherwise-productive people would rather be lazy and collect a welfare check than work and have a more comfortable life? It's a stupid one.

 Albatross wrote:

...and allow for greater worklessness amongst the population, which affects productivity. It's also a black hole fiscally, because each generation of a family that doesn't work costs the state progressively more. You have to break the cycle at some point.

There will always be a certain percentage of the population that either chooses not to work, cannot work, or finds itself unable to find work. The last is inevitable in any capitalist system, though the problem becomes increasingly worse as specialization increases*. The second is simply a fact of life, though certainly any disability system must be carefully monitored. The first, however, relates to several different factors, among them unemployment rate, the efficacy of securing a living by criminal means, and the level of benefits relative available employment opportunities.

Its a balancing act, and a delicate one, but ultimate any effective solution that mollifies the lower economic rungs of society (which is what economic hardship benefits do) requires some form of state aid.




*Arguably much of the reason for the high unemployment rate among recent college graduates in the United States stems from the difficulty of entering a field without a [i]very[i] specific set of qualifications. To guarantee yourself a job you essentially have to dedicate yourself to an educational and work path that is specific to a given field (The dread '3-5 years industry experience required' line.), meaning that often entry-level positions in related fields become closed to you; limiting options for employment. This is even more problematic if you have to work your way through college, and therefore cannot take on internships as readily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Yeah, that whole idea that otherwise-productive people would rather be lazy and collect a welfare check than work and have a more comfortable life? It's a stupid one.

The point being made, largely specific to the UK, is that welfare benefits have exceeded or matched work compensation that the recipients might otherwise receive.

That said, disenfranchisement is another thing to consider, as there is very little reason to work if you see no practical means of improving your circumstances. The myth that hard work and hope are sufficient to improve one's lot in life died long ago, and rightly so.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
No, they aren't, and yes it probably would! However, it's the price of that stability that is the worrying thing. It basically means surrendering your freedom to compete.

Only if by "compete" you mean "recklessly trade future survival for short-term gains".

Which I don't, so I'm just going excise all the sub-Occupy, populist 'Robin Hood' nonsense in the rest of your post and see if there's anything left that's worth replying to.

The redistribution inherent in such a system would make it very easy to out-compete a nation adopting it. It would kill exports. The collapse of nationalised British heavy industry in the 70s is a good example of this in microcosm.

And the lesson we can learn from that collapse is "when capitalism fails, the government should step in and save industry".

You have it completely the wrong way round! They were state-run industries that failed, so capitalism stepped in and saved them (where appropriate).




I think we're done here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

...and allow for greater worklessness amongst the population, which affects productivity. It's also a black hole fiscally, because each generation of a family that doesn't work costs the state progressively more. You have to break the cycle at some point.

There will always be a certain percentage of the population that either chooses not to work, cannot work, or finds itself unable to find work. The last is inevitable in any capitalist system, though the problem becomes increasingly worse as specialization increases*. The second is simply a fact of life, though certainly any disability system must be carefully monitored. The first, however, relates to several different factors, among them unemployment rate, the efficacy of securing a living by criminal means, and the level of benefits relative available employment opportunities.

Its a balancing act, and a delicate one, but ultimate any effective solution that mollifies the lower economic rungs of society (which is what economic hardship benefits do) requires some form of state aid.

Yep, no argument here whatsoever. It's a sliding scale, and we definitely need a social safety-net.

I think sometimes you mistake me for a US conservative! I'm a British one - we're a different (and arguably more sensible) beast.

 dogma wrote:

The point being made, largely specific to the UK, is that welfare benefits have exceeded or matched work compensation that the recipients might otherwise receive.

This set off my bs alarm.

Unemployment benefit for over 25s in the UK is £65 a week, minimum wage is £6.12 (ish) an hour. So you'd have to work like 11 hours a week for work to pay better than benefits. A full time job is 40 hours a week, or £244, which is much higher. The notion that people are better off on benefits is an entirely fabricated lie, used to justify all sorts of bs right-wing policies by this government, and supported by their cronies in the press.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

While capitalism never cared about sustainability.

Well...it's still going. Which is more than can be said for communism.

If you want to compare it to feudalism then be my guest

Unemployment benefit for over 25s in the UK is £65 a week, minimum wage is £6.12 (ish) an hour. So you'd have to work like 11 hours a week for work to pay better than benefits. A full time job is 40 hours a week, or £244, which is much higher. The notion that people are better off on benefits is an entirely fabricated lie, used to justify all sorts of bs right-wing policies by this government, and supported by their cronies in the press.

Well I'm not sure how it works in Britain, but in Ontario you get your rent paid for up to 500 a month, you get food stamps so you don't have to pay for groceries, and on top of that you get about 50 bucks a week for general spending money and a free bus pass. Sell a little weed on the side and all of a sudden your quality of living is pretty much the same as a person who works minimum wage full time. Except for you everyday is saturday.

That's all on top of EI as we call it here.

Housing benefit in the UK is available regardless of employment benefit.

Honestly if i lived in the conditions you describe i wouldn't work though I guess having kids is pretty much impossible.

 Testify wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

While capitalism never cared about sustainability.

Well...it's still going. Which is more than can be said for communism.

If you want to compare it to feudalism then be my guest

You make a good point, however I'm not certain that the fact it's still going shows that it's either more sustainable nor better than communism. What I mean is that it's been given a much better chance than communism and in circumstances when communism wouldn't have worked. Sure, currently it's far more sustainable. However, it is leading to destruction of rainforests, et cetera, I'm not going to bore you with the details that everyone over the age of 3 knows... And when both are competing, capitalism will win due to being built around competition. However, in a world of pure communism, with the right government, communism would work towards sustainability rather than a vulture-like society where any weakness (including the inability of the rainforests to protect themselves) are used to help that business rather than helping everyone.

My point is that communism works towards helping the people in the long term, which is surely what everyone wants. Capitalism, however, works towards helping a small group of individuals, for a relatively short period of time. If you could choose between the two objectives without any knowledge of who would be the winner in the capitalist society, which would you opt for?

 Testify wrote:

This set off my bs alarm.

Unemployment benefit for over 25s in the UK is £65 a week, minimum wage is £6.12 (ish) an hour. So you'd have to work like 11 hours a week for work to pay better than benefits. A full time job is 40 hours a week, or £244, which is much higher. The notion that people are better off on benefits is an entirely fabricated lie, used to justify all sorts of bs right-wing policies by this government, and supported by their cronies in the press.

I was under the impression that the unemployed could also secure significant benefits in the form of housing and utilities.

They can, which is how people end up 'earning' more on benefits than they would in work. My sister is entitled to around £600 in housing benefit, plus child benefit for three kids, plus Income support (iirc, it may be Jobseekers Allowance) because she doesn't work, all of which adds up to more than she could realistically expect to get by working for a living. And she's not even TRYING to game the system.

Yeah. I've heard also (though I'm definitely taking this with more than a pinch of salt) that due to families being given more money if they have kids, they have more kids, to trick the system...

But anyway, this discussion shouldn't be about how the UK system works, it should be about how it should work. I reckon we've pretty much discussed this to death, TBH.

 p_gray99 wrote:
Yeah. I've heard also (though I'm definitely taking this with more than a pinch of salt) that due to families being given more money if they have kids, they have more kids, to trick the system...

But anyway, this discussion shouldn't be about how the UK system works, it should be about how it should work. I reckon we've pretty much discussed this to death, TBH.

Families can get larger houses part of fully funded by the state..

The system should work as it is, it does support those in need, you will always get chancers exploiting loopholes in any system.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:
Yeah. I've heard also (though I'm definitely taking this with more than a pinch of salt) that due to families being given more money if they have kids, they have more kids, to trick the system...

But anyway, this discussion shouldn't be about how the UK system works, it should be about how it should work. I reckon we've pretty much discussed this to death, TBH.

Families can get larger houses part of fully funded by the state..

The system should work as it is, it does support those in need, you will always get chancers exploiting loopholes in any system.

Not looking for a job is a loophole in the system, and as far as I can tell there's more than just a few "chancers" exploiting it. There's whole neighborhoods doing this, and a society of it being uncool to work.

What did the OP accidentally do to 30 million people?