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.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Byte wrote:
I wonder what the people of North Korea or Cuba have to say? I'm sure its grand!

Doesn't Cuba have one of the best health systems in the world?

North Korea is a military dictatorship run by successive members of a family demanding a god-like cult following.

See "American Korean War", google will work fine. The Cuban refugees I spent 6 months with in GITMO had a different opinion.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Byte wrote:
I wonder what the people of North Korea or Cuba have to say? I'm sure its grand!

Doesn't Cuba have one of the best health systems in the world?.

Wikipedia has a good write up on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba#Contrasting_views_on_Cuba.27s_health_system

It's politically charged of course so YMMV, I would point out that people aren't desperately heading to Cuba in anything that can float, so I'd guess it's probably not that great.

Again, the Cuban refugees I spent 6 months with in GITMO preferred to take their chances in make shift rafts in the open ocean trying to get "freedom".

 Byte wrote:
The Cuban refugees I spent 6 months with in GITMO had a different opinion. ...

The average life expectancy in Cuba is slightly better than in the States, so I'll safely assume that your refugees had a slight bias.

Again, the Cuban refugees I spent 6 months with in GITMO preferred to take their chances in make shift rafts in the open ocean trying to get "freedom".

Since they most likely hate the Cuban government because of the poor handling of the 1990's famine, it'd be good to point out that they are not taking their chances in makeshift rafts across the ocean because of ''FREEDOM!!!!!!'', but because the U.S. simply has a better economical structure.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Since they most likely hate the Cuban government because of the poor handling of the 1990's famine, it'd be good to point out that they are not taking their chances in makeshift rafts across the ocean because of ''FREEDOM!!!!!!'', but because the U.S. simply has a better economical structure.

My point exactly

See subject of thread... "Communism".

 Byte wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Byte wrote:
The Cuban refugees I spent 6 months with in GITMO had a different opinion. ...

The average life expectancy in Cuba is slightly better than in the States, so I'll safely assume that your refugees had a slight bias.

Again, the Cuban refugees I spent 6 months with in GITMO preferred to take their chances in make shift rafts in the open ocean trying to get "freedom".

Since they most likely hate the Cuban government because of the poor handling of the 1990's famine, it'd be good to point out that they are not taking their chances in makeshift rafts across the ocean because of ''FREEDOM!!!!!!'', but because the U.S. simply has a better economical structure.

My point exactly

See subject of thread... "Communism".

Should have said 'stronger' economical structure. The sheer size of the US, it's infrastructure and it's bargaining power probably allows it a much greater resistance to things like famine. A communist country could have the same developped infrastructure, the same bargaining power (given that it doesn't isolate itself completely) and the same size. None of these things run against the tenets of communism.

 Breotan wrote:

 captain collius wrote:
Even if you have Honorable Fair Leadership, there will be laziness elsewhere this cancer spread and hurts the overall group.

Communism can work in small communities of less than 1000 as the number and social pressure work towards keeping the group in one cohesive force moving forwards toward their goal.

Apparently people are not looking at the stuff I pasted into my "spoiler".

I read it. It was sub-Glenn Beck twaddle.



Next!

 Frazzled wrote:
There will always be scarcity. Communism inevitably leads to the joys of a murdering dictatorship.

And it's that kind of nonsense that made me make my original post.

You can have democratic communism, that we haven't says a lot about communism and the fact that most people really just don't want it.

But to claim that any communist system will be a dictatorship shows a vast ignorance of what communism is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 rockerbikie wrote:
Karl Marx himself thought that Russia would be the last country to be communist. Communism is a gradual change over time, Empires to Kingdoms to Democracy to Socialism to Communism. China and North Korea would be just as corrupt if they are "capitalistic". You don't see people calling out the "failing of capitalism" because Libya, Zimbawae and Syria are corrupt. Also, this reminds me of 18th and 19th century when the ruling class thought that democracy is a bad idea. You could say the Russian revolution is like the French Revolution and the first attempt of communism did not succeed. So what? What did we learn? We can learn from past Commmunist societies to improve the ideals and try not to make the same mistakes.

Or we learn from the 130 odd years of history since Marx's death, and realise that while his ideas were a massive stride forward in understanding modern history, they were far from complete, and his predictions in many places wildly inaccurate.

But then, maybe for you its more fun to spew out superficial student political slogans... in which case carry on. Learn nothing, shout more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
The problem was that all the men who were sent were bonded labourers. They had no stake in what they produced. They were bound by contract to put all they produced into a common pool to be used to support their colony as a whole. This was communism in its purest form. Everyone was supposed to work according to ability and take according to need.

That isn't communism. This is fething ridiculous. People just fething make up gak in their head, call it communism and go about discussing the subject.

Communism is a response to an existing capitalist system. It takes the means of production and puts it in the hands of the people, to be used for the common good. That means there needs to be some actual fething means of production... the stuff that needed a capitalist system to produce it in the first place.

Claiming some whacky ass bonded labour agricultural scheme was communism misses the whole point of what communism is. It would mean, stupidly enough, that Tsarist Russia and it's serfs were a kind of communism, given their proceeds were all handed over. And of course, given that system survived for hundreds of years, it means the conclusion of the article that communism destroyed Jamestown is even sillier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 captain collius wrote:
Communism is a pure wonderful idea that can never be carried out because Humans are flawed and greedy. Simply put the flaw of communism is the people attempting it. Even if you have Honorable Fair Leadership, there will be laziness elsewhere this cancer spread and hurts the overall group.

Oh for feth's sake, does no-one fething read anything anymore? They just see 'communism' and think 'fething sweet, here's my chance to dump the information I remember from that lesson in sociology 14 years ago, but I better not read the thread, or the world will be deprived of my insights for at least 14 seconds longer!'

Anyhow, you're wrong and your understanding of communism is flawed.

There is nothing in communism that prevents there being a personal incentive towards work. Higher skilled jobs can be paid more, and more productive workers can be paid bonuses. The lazy can be fired.

To repeat my point from earlier, the place communism fails is with market forces. It removes the entrepreneur, and so society loses the drive that looks to increase efficiency, and deliver a better product. That's why communism works just fine when you're moving from a highly wasteful agrarian economy (just picking up labour resources and dumping them in factories, and accessing coal and other energy resources)... but stagnates as soon as growth becomes dependant on technology. The Soviet Union tracked with the US through the 40s and 50s, but once the USSR had maxxed out on resource exploitation it just stopped. The US kept refining technology, developed better plant and machinery, and left the USSR miles behind.

This seems the appropriate time :

"If you know what 'proletariat' means, do you know what that makes you? Well-read and erudite...for a communist!"

"Citizen! Did you know communists have an organ behind their eyes that converts salt water into fresh water...or is that penguins?"

and of course, the all-time classic : "I smell... sedition!"


- The Book Chute

 Frazzled wrote:
What propaganda?
1. there will always be scarcity. Thats just physics. Duh.

There is nothing in physics about scarcity. Physics wouldn't even comment on the subject. That's just silly. What you are thinking of is unlimited wants, an economic theory that holds, for now, given our current relationship with material goods as a source of utility and (perhaps more importantly in the developed world) as a source of social status.

The point being that as material wealth increases the utility of better products continues to decline, and inevitably declines to the point where better goods just aren't that much better... and as material goods become less scarce then the status of owning them diminishes as well (remember when it was impressive that someone had a mobile phone, well who gives a gak who's got a Samsung Galaxy now?)

And if that happens, well then the whole capitalist system stops making sense. Now, maybe that will happen some where down the line. It's real sci fi stuff. But to just declare that capitalism is forever (when we've only had it a coupel of hundred years) is just silly.

C) to achieve it, it requires massive, unyielding dictatorship and intrusion in all aspects of life.

Communism doesn't require a massive, unyielding dictatorship. That one has come with every communist system says a lot about how unpopular the system is to people, but plain fact is if people wanted it, it'd be no more oppressive than anything else.

D) once the dictactorship gets power, it never gives up power.

THe USSR gave up power. For Christ's sake, just enough already. Stop making stuff up in your head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
The world, at the moment, is massively overpopulated (in my view anyway, have you tried getting through Dubai Mall on a Friday afternoon?). As a result, there's great competition to gain resources among people and countries. This is demonstrated by the world's inequality.

fething seriously, I'm not saying this because I like typing the word - communism does not attempt absolute equality. Dear Party Leader gets more than his secretary. Doctors get more than labourers.

There remains competition and reward for greater skill and greater effort.

All the system lacks, compared to capitalism, is markets and the profit motive.

No amount of technology will prevent scarcity, especially now, where there are billions of people in the world who have the greed of Mr Smith.

Now, sure. 1,000 years from now, with tech that can capture energy straight from the sun, and replicators that can transform that into whatever we want, not so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Should have said 'stronger' economical structure. The sheer size of the US, it's infrastructure and it's bargaining power probably allows it a much greater resistance to things like famine. A communist country could have the same developped infrastructure, the same bargaining power (given that it doesn't isolate itself completely) and the same size. None of these things run against the tenets of communism.

Did you read my post replying to your original comment on Cuban medical care? Because I pointed out in that that looking purely at medical care, when political oppression is intense... is a pretty screwy way of looking at things.

 sebster wrote:


Did you read my post replying to your original comment on Cuban medical care? Because I pointed out in that that looking purely at medical care, when political oppression is intense... is a pretty screwy way of looking at things.

This is the first page I post on in this thread, and I do not see a reply from you directed at me... Am I missing something? My only reply on the subject was to point out that Cuba had a higher life expectancy then in the U.S. which, without pretending to be an expert, I imagine would be a good indicator as for the quality of healthcare they get.

The idea wasn't to balance out the fact that they have little political freedom with the fact that they have good healthcare (although that could be an argument, if health wasn't the only value looked at), but to counter the idea that people fleeing from the country means that they can't have that great of a healthcare. Cuba could have the best healthcare system in the world and still suck at keeping its people fed.

EDIT : That was Howard Tree Song you were replying to.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
This is the first page I post on in this thread, and I do not see a reply from you directed at me... Am I missing something? My only reply on the subject was to point out that Cuba had a higher life expectancy then in the U.S. which,

Ah, mistake. I saw you responding to Byte, who was responding to Howard A Treesong, and mistakenly thought it was you and not Howard that made the original comment. My apologies.

without pretending to be an expert, I imagine would be a good indicator as for the quality of healthcare they get. The idea wasn't to balance out the fact that they have little political freedom with the fact that they have good healthcare (although that could be an argument, if health wasn't the only value looked at), but to counter the idea that people fleeing from the country means that they can't have that great of a healthcare. Cuba could have the best healthcare system in the world and still suck at keeping its people fed.

Its like pointing out that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Just the act of mentioning something quite minor like that in the scope of all the hardship inflicted on the people basically has to end up being wildly misleading.

EDIT : That was Howard Tree Song you were replying to.

Yeah, my bad.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
This seems the appropriate time :

"If you know what 'proletariat' means, do you know what that makes you? Well-read and erudite...for a communist!"

"Citizen! Did you know communists have an organ behind their eyes that converts salt water into fresh water...or is that penguins?"

and of course, the all-time classic : "I smell... sedition!"


- The Book Chute

The Commies have eyes everywhere, Citizen! And that means they're not just Commies, they're Peeping Toms!

I always figured that I will show you Communism that works when you show me Capitalism that works.

 d-usa wrote:
I always figured that I will show you Communism that works when you show me Capitalism that works.

I think capitalism works so long as there's well thought out restraints that are in place.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I always figured that I will show you Communism that works when you show me Capitalism that works.

I think capitalism works so long as there's well thought out restraints that are in place.

And Communism works so long as there's well thought out restraints that are in place.

 d-usa wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I always figured that I will show you Communism that works when you show me Capitalism that works.

I think capitalism works so long as there's well thought out restraints that are in place.

And Communism works so long as there's well thought out restraints that are in place.

Not really, as sebster makes a good point about how Communism encourages technological and economic stagnation.

Without restraints Capitalism can result in technological and economic stagnation as well though. You have to fix Capitalism for it to work.

 d-usa wrote:
Without restraints Capitalism can result in technological and economic stagnation as well though. You have to fix Capitalism for it to work.

I think it causes lots of exploitation if left unrestrained but capitalism by it's nature leads to a very competitive market restrained or not.

It's competitive until you reach a monopoly, and then it stagnates.

Remember the awesome choice of telephones before the Bells were broken up?

 d-usa wrote:
It's competitive until you reach a monopoly, and then it stagnates.

Remember the awesome choice of telephones before the Bells were broken up?

But won't some private company eventually come up with a new product that trumps the monopoly regardless if there's restraints in place?

When there are no restraints and a company owns all the telephone lines and can control what you are allowed to plug into their lines, then a new company has a hard time building their own phone network next to yours just so they can sell a nicer phone than you.

When you become so big that nobody can ever compete with you, where is your incentive?

 d-usa wrote:
When there are no restraints and a company owns all the telephone lines and can control what you are allowed to plug into their lines, then a new company has a hard time building their own phone network next to yours just so they can sell a nicer phone than you.

Fair enough, makes sense to me.

I don't really see what the big deal is. I think it is a decent show with a strong cast, especially Joel McChale and Donald Glover. Sure it is stinks that Dan Harmon was forced out, and you can tell, but it still is fun to watch. And let's face it the women on the show are easy to look at.

 Ahtman wrote:
I don't really see what the big deal is. I think it is a decent show with a strong cast, especially Joel McChale and Donald Glover. Sure it is stinks that Dan Harmon was forced out, and you can tell, but it still is fun to watch. And let's face it the women on the show are easy to look at.

Um, what?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
When there are no restraints and a company owns all the telephone lines and can control what you are allowed to plug into their lines, then a new company has a hard time building their own phone network next to yours just so they can sell a nicer phone than you.

Fair enough, makes sense to me.

Now I'm not saying that Communism is better than Capitalism, just that in their pure form both are wishful thinking .

 d-usa wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
When there are no restraints and a company owns all the telephone lines and can control what you are allowed to plug into their lines, then a new company has a hard time building their own phone network next to yours just so they can sell a nicer phone than you.

Fair enough, makes sense to me.

Now I'm not saying that Communism is better than Capitalism, just that in their pure form both are wishful thinking .

Dude, you don't need to tell me it's clear by your avatar and sig that you're a fascist.

I just don't wanna get baned...

 d-usa wrote:
Without restraints Capitalism can result in technological and economic stagnation as well though. You have to fix Capitalism for it to work.

Yes, but capitalism is fixable. You can put restraints on the markets to protect the weak and vulnerable, to limit monopoly and oligopolies, to reduce information assymetry and all the other problems... and still have something with the best parts of capitalism, just without the excesses.

But if you modify communism it still doesn't work. The Soviets attempted all kinds of modifications to the system and none of them ever improved things much. One of the most famous was the private lots they allowed, where collective farmers were allowed 10% of the land as private plots, where whatever was grown was owned by that farmer. Those private plots produced as much produce as the rest of the collectives combined.

Fundamentally, there's nothing you can do to modify communism so that it encourages innovation and technological development, and still be left with something called communism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
I don't really see what the big deal is. I think it is a decent show with a strong cast, especially Joel McChale and Donald Glover. Sure it is stinks that Dan Harmon was forced out, and you can tell, but it still is fun to watch. And let's face it the women on the show are easy to look at.

I love that show.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I always figured that I will show you Communism that works when you show me Capitalism that works.

I think capitalism works so long as there's well thought out restraints that are in place.

Its that type of moderated thinking that has no place here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I always figured that I will show you Communism that works when you show me Capitalism that works.

I think capitalism works so long as there's well thought out restraints that are in place.

And Communism works so long as there's well thought out restraints that are in place.

You can't have restraints on communism. It inevitably turns to killing, usually very very quickly.

And capitalism turns to passive letting people die unless they pay. It can go both ways.

Again, not saying communism is the answer. Just saying that pure unregulated capitalism isn't the answer either.

Everything's a hybrid one way or another these days.