Outsourcing Helps the Poor

[SFLRN]

No it isn't. Capitalism is a failed system. I don't understand how people can tolerate the mass poverty it brings. It's like a medicine that has the common side effect of making you puke your stomach out. engineers are considered workers by the way. CEOs have business skills and profit skills which won't be needed in a humane parecon system.




10 dollars is also the average pay of Wal-Mart employees. There was a study done which claculated that at 10 dollars pay and the amount of hours most WM employees work, in 1 year they'd make about 14,000 dollars. 20,000 dollars is the poverty line.



Because they have spent years upon years in there work place and pretty much know how it works. I haven't spent years in a factory. Also I've studied parecon at a basic levels and it's not tough material to learn. You just need to sit down and read for a bit, and then think, and then realize that it makes sense.

Yes but you need managers in a company so things are done more efficiently. Why not give the responsibilities to one person and have them specialize. When people specialize they are more productive (basic concept of economics) so why not have one person manage so that everyone has more time to be really good at one thing?
Mass poverty ? What is it like 15 percent maybe, not even necessarily those who are also permanately poor? Compare that to the poorest countries in the world who have a per capita of around 100 dollars.
Capitalism is not failed. If it has failed in providing a better living then how is it that the United States has the most powerful economy in the world and a relatively high standard of living even for its poor and it is capitalist. If capitalism is so failed, then how is it it that it has worked extremely well in the United States?

10 dollars starting wage. For lower level positions. 10 dollars an hour translates into around 20,000 on a full time schedule, which is what most of the people there worked. 20,000 is the poverty line for a family of 4. Most people who work wal-mart are part time workers. And about only 4-5% of them receive medicaid. This would be consistant with the retail industry average.

 

[128shot]

yet you fail to realize we're not capitalist.


The government more and more seems to equal the economy. If we were a capitalist state then the government policy wouldn't matter.

Not to mention subsidies etc. It has slightly more in common with fascism (look, I know, we're not fascist in a political sense, its economics. Big business and government work togethor all the time..)

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

You see, the choice is simple for America:

1) Outsource, lose some jobs, train in new jobs that are in demand, economy becomes more prosperous in the long term, more jobs with higher real wages in the future.

2) Not outsource, keep current jobs, economy goes bankrupt in the future, real wages decline and most, if not all people lose their jobs in the long term.

 

[SFLRN]

I have already provided you with some. You chose to ignore them. You fail to realize something. First, there are very few communists to start out with so thus there are very few economists who share communist views. Second, communism is a working class ideology and the working class is unable to afford higher education so thus many cannot become economists. However there are those who are able to do just that. Third, most people who are able to afford higher education to become an economist will come from middle or upper class backgrounds which have taught them/brainwashed them to depise communism. Explain to me how my loosing my job to a factory in China is good for me in the long run. Is it good because I have to live in the projects or on the streets now? Is it good for my family who will now go hungry? Please explain. You and MarineCorps seem to be like the only ones eager to outsource the working class who have posted on this thread and your arguements thus far have been pretty wishy-washy.

Marx does not count as a modern day economist. No modern day economist agrees with your point of view. And by and large if the working class supported this so much they would have voted it in. But they have not. Perhaps because history shows us examples like Poland. Who, after moving away from communism was able to put up a booming economy. Take South Korea as well. Take China. They have had massive economic growth. And I have an article and data saying of a 9 percent economic growth.
Furthermore I have 93% of the economic side for me on just tarrifs and quotas , which is an extension of restrictive trade.

Outsourcing benefits us because it creates lower prices. Businesses also sell more so they have greater profits. They expand their companies to make more profit. They hire more people for the IT jobs that come with overseas workers. So we see higher power jobs being created instead of unstable cheap factory work in the U.S.
Next our economy can specialize with more high power jobs since we are better educated. Then China specializes in low skill labor. This means that both get a lot better at each of their respective jobs because china has a comparative advantage in manufacturing whereas the U.S. would be better spent in higher power jobs. Also it pulls many of those poor you proclaim to care about out of extreme poverty and into an income where they dont have to worry about starvation.

lol ohh come on now. I would think a communist like yourself would have at least have a basic knowledge of the communist movement in America. America did once have a great deal of its intelligentsia as pro-communism. This was actually part of the subject of Ayn Rand's the Fountainhead. Maybe you're familiar with The Jungle which would reflect the kind of socialist/communist sentiments of the time. Rich people have been and are in favor of restricted economies. Look into George Soros as an example. A lot of economists used to be more pro planned economics. In fact the World Bank and IMF used to expect developing countries to have a plan for their economies. However, the explosion and sucess of capitalist economies has been overwhelming enough for them switch to extremely pro-free markets, more so than before.

But until you provide legit statistics and not more emotional appeals then do not participate in an economics debate which bases itself on having facts or at least the support of the majority of economists for ones argument to be valid. [/QUOTE]

what statistics do you want? How about statistics which show how standards of living increased after the revolution in Cuba? Do you want statistics of how poverty has virtually disapeared in Scandanavia through progressive socialistic policies?

Yes and for such handouts their economy is able to be less productive and not to mention puts a heavy burden on the hard working middle class so they are forced to support the lower class. I do not see how it is the responsibility of the state to force hard working people to provide more than basic infrastructure, education , health infrastructure and defense. Why should the guy making 20 dollars an hour have to live like the guy making 10 dollars an hour to support that guy making 10 dollars an hour?

emotional appeals? Lack of credibility? what are you talking about. You must have missed my other posts on this thread.



"Well if America does it, than it must be okay".

A few things wrong with that statement. First, it does happen plenty hear but not to the extreme and frequency of capitalist countries in the third world, especially asia.



Wage-Slavery does exsist in America. Anybody who's lived or even seen the ghettos and barrios and gulags where America's poor working class live can vouch for that.

The biggest reason for poverty is lack of human capital. People do have the opportunity to move up. Granted there are cases where mental illness and other uncontrollable disablities come into play. No doubt the government should make it so they can be on the equal playing field. But perhaps you're not familiar with the hard working people who work their butts off to get out of poverty and then have to be hit with heavy taxes that prevent them from moving out in the first place and then hurt them later for earning a higher income so they can pay for the guy who is not working his way up. Why not just lower taxes and give people their own money so they can move up and have the government allow for a solid NGO market?

No it won't. It has been happening for decades upon decades without change. It is the foundation of modern capitalist America. Cheap third world labor. It is what sustains low prices. Without it, the costs of living would soar. Do you think Wal-Mart will naturally pay they chinese gulag laborer more than $0.33 an hour? Not if they have a say. Because then the American consumer will feel the pinch.

Yes by the average 2,000 dollars saved by families from wal-mart. That kind of pinch. Mind you many poor Americans shop at wal-mart. Why dont we get rid of those low prices so people in poverty cannot get decent and cheap clothes for their kids?

You haven't been listening... :roll:



mmmkay... what is this supposed to prove? Some people are doing well thanks to capitalism? big whoop. The overwhelming majority ar now sweatshop workers and plantation farmers. And like the article said, capitalism is really doing them well.





Yeah look at wonderful places like Jamiaca, India, Pakistan, nicargua, and panama. Aren't they just lovely? All that wealth! People living in beatiful tin mansions eating delicious bugs.

Yeah and due to FDI India's economy has been shooting through the rough. They used to have protectionist policies and they still do, but those are eroding and their economy is exploding.

Consistantly in places like Cuba, Nepal, Columbia, and other countries where the oppressed individuals rise up to applaude capitalism.

How is it oppressing people in a system that lets them choose whether or not to work? That sounds completely free. Communism talks about working so the community has more. Not so you have more. You have less say with what you do and what you earn from what you do. Those places were already pooor and are just now starting to come out. Sure they'll need help along the way but with the proper institutions they will pull out of extreme poverty. Yet again I repeat Jeffery Sachs an actual developmental economists supports free market capitalism. With limits of course.

That's an opinion.

Its not an opinion when over 90 percent of economists are on my side.

No it is capitalism installing the 'dictatorship of the bourgieous'.

People choose this compact how is it a dictatorship? You can choose to leave at any time.


umm years of actual data show that people who live the American dream compared to people who can't escape poverty are one in 100,000 or something.
[/QUOTE]
Still cannot answer why america is so rich despite capitalism?
Data shows world GDPs have skyrocketed with the rise of capitalism.

Africa is overwhelmingly capitalist. And even if it were socialist that would be an unfair comparison considering the size, the population and America's status as the only superpower. A fair comparison would be like Cuba's poor to Jamiaca's or guatamalas or maybe even Costa Rica (A bit to big) because they're about the same size and population, just different systems. And let me tell you, from experience Cuba is alot better off.

Look at Europe. They have capitalist systems and they are doing better than most of the world. Africa does not do well. Economic freedom does not guarantee success if you do not have the basic infrastructure. Thus why I support foreign aid to put in such basic infrastructure. From experience? Do you live in Cuba by chance? Because Cuba is all about the free press and personal freedoms right?

History seems to know **** about the definition of communism. If it did it would know that communism has never exsisted. The closest thing was the Paris Commune which worked splendidly for the few months it was alive and raised worker rights considerably. Sadly, it was crushed by bonapartists which was cause for the military build up in later socialist states like the USSR in order to avoid annihilation. This forced things to be rationed and that brought public unrest.

lol so if you whole philosophy has never actual happened why do you keep using Cuba as an example? Obviously it does not fall under your philosophy so it cannot be used to prove it.

 

[SFLRN]

yet you fail to realize we're not capitalist.


The government more and more seems to equal the economy. If we were a capitalist state then the government policy wouldn't matter.

Not to mention subsidies etc. It has slightly more in common with fascism (look, I know, we're not fascist in a political sense, its economics. Big business and government work togethor all the time..)

Yes it would when the government puts in too many restrictions. Facism is completely authoritarian which would be the opposite of free market economics. Sure we do not have a completely free market economy. And we shouldnt. The government does need to enforce certain regulations and add to infrastructure. But we are, compared to Europe, more capitalist because a great deal less of of our GDP is government spending as a percent.

 

[128shot]

Yes it would when the government puts in too many restrictions. Facism is completely authoritarian which would be the opposite of free market economics. Sure we do not have a completely free market economy. And we shouldnt. The government does need to enforce certain regulations and add to infrastructure. But we are, compared to Europe, more capitalist because a great deal less of of our GDP is government spending as a percent.

Well, aside from what I believe are common sense regulations, I think the buddies in the houses of government and big business get along far too well and that creates a huge problem. its not just restrictions, its government being biased toward one particular business to another.

 

[Synch]

Of course offsourcing helps the poor. The creation of jobs does not equate to hightened productivity per worker, destruction of jobs do. Also, minimum wage increases offshoring...

In 1790, 90% of Americans were farmers... Today its 3%... All those jobs lost... Under a communist regime those farmers would've never lost those jobs! We would be a nation of 90% farmers, wouldn't that be great?

The great depression throughout the world at that time was caused by the gov't intervention in the first place... And WWI..

Stalin was responsible for industrializing Russia. Under Socialism, only complete totalitarianism can keep the nation moving, or else people wouldn't work... Freedom of any sort was not possible, it was basically statism. Showing the zenith of socialism and the lowest point of capitalism is meaningless...

The reason there are few Marxist economists is because they can't support their ideology with the straight face after all the history that have accumulated over the past century that has proven socialism to be impossible. History flies into their face.

There can be no personal freedom without economic freedom. However the opposite is true, modern China has experienced massive market growth after it freed up its markets.. They still have a terrible human rights history, but at least their civilians are living a lot better.

 

[SFLRN]

Well, aside from what I believe are common sense regulations, I think the buddies in the houses of government and big business get along far too well and that creates a huge problem. its not just restrictions, its government being biased toward one particular business to another.

Yes and you end that corruption by severing the power government. Socialist programs give even more economic power to the government by demanding higher taxes. There will be more corruption when the government has more money to give out then if it has less.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Of course offsourcing helps the poor. The creation of jobs does not equate to hightened productivity per worker, destruction of jobs do. Also, minimum wage increases offshoring...

eh? adress how losing your job and being forced to live on the streets is good for the American worker?

In 1790, 90% of Americans were farmers... Today its 3%... All those jobs lost... Under a communist regime those farmers would've never lost those jobs! We would be a nation of 90% farmers, wouldn't that be great?

Firstly, there is no such thing as a 'communist regime'. Second that's silly considering how much was accomplished in Russia. They went from the most backwards and poverty stricken country on the map to a world superpower in the span of 10-20 years.

The great depression throughout the world at that time was caused by the gov't intervention in the first place... And WWI..

Not sure what you're implying. Could you explain it further? I don't see how government intervention caused the great depression. Capitalism and it's insustainability caused the great depression (Keep in mind that the US got it good compared to say england and France). It was 'Late Capitalism'.

Stalin was responsible for industrializing Russia. Under Socialism, only complete totalitarianism can keep the nation moving, or else people wouldn't work... Freedom of any sort was not possible, it was basically statism. Showing the zenith of socialism and the lowest point of capitalism is meaningless...

it was statism. And communism is not statism. It is stateless. Totalitariansim did not keep the nation moving. totalitarianism kept the Nazis out. Workers and Peasants who wanted a better future kept it moving. And in the end they accomplished that because living standards improved drastically. Democracy can exist in socialism. The Paris Commune, Scandanavia, and Venezula are examples. (Scandanavia more social democratic). In fact until Stalin beaurcratized the state because he was paranoid that he'd either be overthrown by trotskyists or attacked by capitalists or fascists, the USSR was run completely democratically through a system of worker councils. Remeber, the USSR stood for Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic Soviet in Russian means council which was the foundation of Lenin's system of Democratic Centralism.

The reason there are few Marxist economists is because they can't support their ideology with the straight face after all the history that have accumulated over the past century that has proven socialism to be impossible. History flies into their face.

It's not impossible, marxism has just experienced failure. That is natural. Democracy failed in Greece and Rome and capitalism has failed all over Africa and Latin America. I don't see how a capitalist economist can keep a straight face if you look at all the slavery and poverty and brutal gulag labor it has brought the world.

There can be no personal freedom without economic freedom. However the opposite is true, modern China has experienced massive market growth after it freed up its markets.. They still have a terrible human rights history, but at least their civilians are living a lot better.

Yeah those sweatshop-gulag-slavery camps sure have improved the life of Chinese civilians. Also your first staement is false. Here in the US, our economy is regulated yet we have a good amount of civil liberties. Also, look at the Paris commune which was socialist but based on universal suffrage. Look at the USSR under Lenin and the bolshevik worker councils which elected all officials.

 

[128shot]

Yes and you end that corruption by severing the power government. Socialist programs give even more economic power to the government by demanding higher taxes. There will be more corruption when the government has more money to give out then if it has less.

its not just taxes. The government has the authority to ban research, to say yes or no to you owning property, to forcedily take your property (hence why we pay all pay property tax) so on and so forth.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Marx does not count as a modern day economist.

I never said he did. I gave you examples of other economists, yet you ignored them.

No modern day economist agrees with your point of view.

Actually there are a bunch. Off the top of my head; Bob Avakian and Michael Albert. There are other better examples but they've slipped my mind.

And by and large if the working class supported this so much they would have voted it in.

Impossible. Communism cannot be 'voted in'. In case you haven't noticed our system prevents anything that is different. It has two ultra-wealthy parties which squash anything different because these smaller parties lack money and thus cannot campaign and because they can't campaign are nonexsistant. What makes it worse is that communists are mostly working class and the working class are working class because they are not wealthy and can't afford to give money to their party. In the US the two parties are very close and thus any socialists who do vote will vote for the "lesser of the two evils". Most socialists and communists don't vote because they find both parties to be full of **** and don't think anything will be accomplished by voting for one. However, if you look at places like France where they have a representitive system, the socialists are the second largest party. The Communists get around 11%.

But they have not. Perhaps because history shows us examples like Poland. Who, after moving away from communism was able to put up a booming economy. Take South Korea as well. Take China.

It's nice to look at how nicely a select bunch of people now live but c'mon seriously, the working class and peasants live in shitholes. Their pensions are gone and their children wear rags and cannot afford schoolbooks. Try to glamorize that!

Furthermore I have 93% of the economic side for me on just tarrifs and quotas , which is an extension of restrictive trade.

Great! I don't care. They're economists not humanitarians. If they were both, then they'd look at how miserable conditions are for people who work in jobs that are outsourced for such little pay. Sure, there are some jobs which aren't so bad like telemarketer but many jobs are in disgusting workplaces. Besides, you have yet to put up an arguement that makes sense why outsourcing is good. You only seem to repeat yourself and say that 93% of economists agree with you so thus it is law.

Outsourcing benefits us because it creates lower prices.

At what cost? Wages well below the poverty line? Govenrment subisidies? Look at what Wal-Marts outsourcing and low wages have cost American taxpayers and communities.

Your tax dollars pay for Wal-Mart's greed

The estimated total amount of federal assistance for which Wal-Mart employees were eligible in 2004 was $2.5 billion. [The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]
One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year. This cost comes from the following, on average:
$36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
$42,000 a year for low-income housing assistance.
$125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families.
$100,000 a year for the additional expenses for programs for students.
$108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP)
$9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance.
[The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]
Health care subsidies compared to executive compensation

Excluding his salary of $1.2 million, in 2004 Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott made around $22 million in bonuses, stock awards, and stock options in 2004.
This $22 million could reimburse taxpayers in 3 states where Wal-Mart topped the list of users of state-sponsored health care programs, covering more than 15,000 Wal-Mart employees and dependents. [Wal-Mart Proxy Statement and News Articles GA, CT, AL].
Your tax dollars subsidize Wal-Mart's growth

The first ever national report on Wal-Mart subsidies documented at least $1 billion in subsidies from state and local governments.
A Wal-Mart official stated that “it is common” for the company to request subsidies “in about one-third of all [retail] projects.” This would suggest that over a thousand Wal-Mart stores have been subsidized. [“Shopping For Subsidies: How Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Money to Finance Its Never-Ending Growth,” Good Job First, May 2004]
Back to top


Community Impact
Download the Wal-Mart and Community Impact Fact Sheet - PDF

Wal-Mart’s growth negatively impact worker’s wages

The most comprehensive study of Wal-Mart’s impact showed that the stores reduced earnings per person by 5 percent. This 2005 study by an economist from the National Bureau of Economic Research used Wal-Mart’s own store data and government data for all counties where Wal-Mart has operated for 30 years, It found that the average Wal-Mart store reduces earnings per person by 5 percent in the county in which it operates. [David Neumark, The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets 2005]
The Cost of Wal-Mart’s entry into a community can be significant

According to a 2003 estimate, the influx of big-box stores into San Diego would result in an annual decline in wages and benefits which could cost the area up to $221 million [San Diego Taxpayers Association (SDCTA), 2003]
Lower wages mean less money for communities

When an employer pays low wages to its employees, the employees have less money to spend on goods and services in the community, which in turn reduces the income and spending of others in the community. In other words a reduction in wages has a multiplier impact in the surrounding area.
For instance, in 1999, Southern California municipalities estimated that for every dollar decrease in wages in the southern California economy, $2.08 in spending was lost-- the $1 decrease plus another $1.08 in indirect multiplier impacts. [“The Impact of Big Box Grocers in Southern California” Dr. Marlon Boarnet and Dr. Randall Crane, 1999.]

Link

Businesses also sell more so they have greater profits. They expand their companies to make more profit. They hire more people for the IT jobs that come with overseas workers. So we see higher power jobs being created instead of unstable cheap factory work in the U.S.

Well a recent study showed that wal-mart decreases wages in communities it operates by 5% person. Because low payed wal-mart employees can't spend as much in the community and many businesses are forced to close even if they carry better and higher quality porducts due to the low costing slave labored mechandise Wal-Mart offers.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Next our economy can specialize with more high power jobs since we are better educated. Then China specializes in low skill labor. This means that both get a lot better at each of their respective jobs because china has a comparative advantage in manufacturing whereas the U.S. would be better spent in higher power jobs. Also it pulls many of those poor you proclaim to care about out of extreme poverty and into an income where they dont have to worry about starvation.

What happens to those who can't afford higher education and thus will have no job? Starvation? I thought so.

lol ohh come on now. I would think a communist like yourself would have at least have a basic knowledge of the communist movement in America.
America did once have a great deal of its intelligentsia as pro-communism. This was actually part of the subject of Ayn Rand's the Fountainhead. Maybe you're familiar with The Jungle

lol The Jungle was a book about how screwed up our meat industry was. It had nothing to do with socialism besides for the authors political affiliation. But big whoop. Animal Farm was written by a hardcore socialist who fought in the Spanish revolution.

which would reflect the kind of socialist/communist sentiments of the time. Rich people have been and are in favor of restricted economies.

What??? umm yeah "Rich people like being taxed more for social programs".:roll:

Look into George Soros as an example. A lot of economists used to be more pro planned economics. In fact the World Bank and IMF used to expect developing countries to have a plan for their economies. However, the explosion and sucess of capitalist economies has been overwhelming enough for them switch to extremely pro-free markets, more so than before.

Okay I'll say this again. You simply cannot compare a bunch of rag-tag fuedal third world countries who decided to chose communism to the wealthiest country in the world. Trotsky and Marx wrote that in order for communism to work and socialism to survive the way it's supposed to, there needs to be first world support to third world countries. Just like capitalism. Unfortunately there was none and Russia had to ante-up and become the 'man-of-the-house' at 8 years of age. The reason there has been explosive growth in Poland is because of the sudden massive economic aid given to it by the US, far more than the USSR could give since it wasn't really a first world country, just an industrialized 2nd world country.

Yes and for such handouts their economy is able to be less productive and not to mention puts a heavy burden on the hard working middle class so they are forced to support the lower class.

I don't see your logic. There economy is very productive. Also the thing is is that class differences are very small. Also everyone has the ability to pursue there dreams because education through the Ph D level is free and high quality. This why there are so many good hard-working doctors in Cuba.

I do not see how it is the responsibility of the state to force hard working people to provide more than basic infrastructure, education , health infrastructure and defense. Why should the guy making 20 dollars an hour have to live like the guy making 10 dollars an hour to support that guy making 10 dollars an hour?

Yeah I don't see that either. That's why communism abolishes money.

The biggest reason for poverty is lack of human capital. People do have the opportunity to move up.

No they don't. How did you grow up SFLRN? Were you impoverished? If you were are you now middle class? Chances are that it's unlikely because poverty and the ghetto is a trap. You get a poor education in crumbled buildings and if you're lucky to get excepted into a good school you need to come up with the money which is an astronomical amount for a working class family. Thus generations will live the same way because nothing changes. Capitalism is at fault for poverty. It's just a natural byproduct.

Granted there are cases where mental illness and other uncontrollable disablities come into play. No doubt the government should make it so they can be on the equal playing field. But perhaps you're not familiar with the hard working people who work their butts off to get out of poverty and then have to be hit with heavy taxes that prevent them from moving out in the first place and then hurt them later for earning a higher income so they can pay for the guy who is not working his way up.

Firstly, very few people just suddenly work themselves out of poverty and it's not taxes that stop them from getting out. It's lack of opportunity, low wages, high rent, and lack of money to begin with. the graduated income tax doesn't put that much weight on working class people. I personally think it puts to much and that more should be put on the wealthy. Taxes help the poor because they pay for their education and medicaid and welfare even though nowadays all of that stuff is bankrupt and in the gutter.

Why not just lower taxes and give people their own money so they can move up and have the government allow for a solid NGO market?

Sure let's abolish public education, welfare, and medicaid and let people just fend for themselves. That's what we seem to be heading for because social services in this country are terrible. Just one question, how will the poor educate themselves, pay high premiums, and pay for their childrens food and clothing when they make next to nothing? (Nevermind the huge debt the system you propose would get us into).

Yes by the average 2,000 dollars saved by families from wal-mart. That kind of pinch. Mind you many poor Americans shop at wal-mart. Why dont we get rid of those low prices so people in poverty cannot get decent and cheap clothes for their kids?

Why aren't clothes a basic human right? How about that? Along with food and shelter. And your wrong as I proved in this post. Wal-Mart costs people more in the amount of subsidies they get.

How is it oppressing people in a system that lets them choose whether or not to work?

In no system are you really "free" to not work. In any system you're going to starve if you don't. Communism is the same as capitalism. If you are physically and mentally able to work and have the opportunity but choose not to, you'll starve. However in communism unlike in capitalism, everyone has the opportunity to do so.

That sounds completely free. Communism talks about working so the community has more. Not so you have more. You have less say with what you do and what you earn from what you do.

Well in those places, communism didn't exsist and socialism was in a extremely perverted form. In communism and socialism you do have a say in what work you do. You chose it. In those places there weren't a whole lot of options because the communities didn't really need alot of proffessions. The only time you'd have to do mandatory work in communism is one or two weeks a year doing work on jobs that are unpopular.

Its not an opinion when over 90 percent of economists are on my side.

Yeah economists who are upper or upper middle class. I personally have never heard of a 'working class economist' lol. Let's give these economists a couple years of work in a coal mine with a coal miners wage and see what their views are after.

People choose this compact how is it a dictatorship? You can choose to leave at any time.

'dictatorship of the bourgeouis' was first used by Marx. He said that in every system except communism (monarchy, capitalism, and socialism) one class is in control like a 'dictator' over the others. Marxists analyze classes like this. There are three classes. The bourgeouis (ruling class/upper class), Petite-bourgeouis (middle class/ people who aren't working class but aren't ruling class), and the proletariat (working class/communists). Monarchy and capitalism are dictators of the bourgeoius while socialism is a dictatorship of the proleteriat.

lol so if you whole philosophy has never actual happened why do you keep using Cuba as an example? Obviously it does not fall under your philosophy so it cannot be used to prove it.

Because Cuba is the last remaining semi-socialist state. It is very far from communism but its socialistic aspects are good examples.

 

[SFLRN]

eh? adress how losing your job and being forced to live on the streets is good for the American worker?

One way is through savings when the kid who used to wear hand-me downs can buy a few nice clothes at Wal-Mart when he would pay twice the price anywhere else. You claim to care about the poor but what about the poor who all save tons of money from price savings by Wal-Mart?
I already adressed this. If you care so much about the workers and the poor then what about the poor in these other countries? Because, as is a basic principle of economics, which of course you would not know because you yourself have not opened an economics book. Is specialization. By the U.S. specializing in these areas they are able to make more of certain kinds of products and the other countries make the cheaper kind of products and on the whole both have more to trade since they arent dividing resources doing millions of different things, Specialization= Efficiency.

Firstly, there is no such thing as a 'communist regime'. Second that's silly considering how much was accomplished in Russia. They went from the most backwards and poverty stricken country on the map to a world superpower in the span of 10-20 years.

They were a world superpower by their sheer size and how they took all that communal money and put it into weapons. They were never more economically successful than the U.S. 11,000 is their current per capita. If the were the superpower to compare to the the U.S. then 41,800 seems to beat out russia economically. Per capita of Estonia 16,000, and they are right in the same area of russia and do not have the same kind of energy reserves as russia. In fact russia has nearly 35% or more (Econlib) of Europes natural gas and petroleum. So despite all that russia is staying with its controlled economy and doing considerably worse compared to other countries in the region. Once again the statistics and history prove you wrong. Unless you're talking about participatory economics, which of course would mean you could not use russia as an example in the first place.



Not sure what you're implying. Could you explain it further? I don't see how government intervention caused the great depression. Capitalism and it's insustainability caused the great depression (Keep in mind that the US got it good compared to say england and France). It was 'Late Capitalism'.[/QUOTE]

The problems of the Depression were many. One the government did not set up basic procedures and credit to a workable plan. The U.S. economy was not as flexible either. And on the whole the U.S. went after a more isolationist policy on the whole. It was not the government programs that ended the depression either, it was World War II. Market failures and regulations are areas where I am for some amount of government intervention since a good market needs good regulations.

it was statism. And communism is not statism. It is stateless. Totalitariansim did not keep the nation moving. totalitarianism kept the Nazis out. Workers and Peasants who wanted a better future kept it moving. And in the end they accomplished that because living standards improved drastically. Democracy can exist in socialism. The Paris Commune, Scandanavia, and Venezula are examples. (Scandanavia more social democratic). In fact until Stalin beaurcratized the state because he was paranoid that he'd either be overthrown by trotskyists or attacked by capitalists or fascists, the USSR was run completely democratically through a system of worker councils. Remeber, the USSR stood for Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic Soviet in Russian means council which was the foundation of Lenin's system of Democratic Centralism.

If it is stateless then we have seperate entities trading or not trading? If they are trading then what keeps this from being capitalism? And if it is stateless then who will impose participatory economics on the people?
If people are without a state we revert one to a natural state where there are no laws and two what keeps people from doing what they want with their own stuff which they currently do in capitalism.
How are businesses to start if it is simply run by the workers.
? Obviously no one can plan to run a company they started under your plan because they would be an evil CEO. How do you propose people start businesses under your philosophy? Which yet again lacks any actual economists save Marx.

It's not impossible, marxism has just experienced failure. That is natural. Democracy failed in Greece and Rome and capitalism has failed all over Africa and Latin America. I don't see how a capitalist economist can keep a straight face if you look at all the slavery and poverty and brutal gulag labor it has brought the world.

If it is has brought more poverty. And it is not taking place in Africa. How is it that the U.S. poor significantly better off than the African poor? How is it that world GDPs and per capitas have skyrocketed if capitalism has failed?
It has not failed in Latin America. People are choosing against it but that does not mean Bolivia, as an example, was not able to put in the proper reforms to start on a more sucessful road. Capitalism fails in africa because they do not have the basics required to run a capitalist system. They need disease control and basic infrastructure. Since they are burdened with debt I take the view of Jeffery Sachs, once again an actual economist, that we up our aid so the ycan participate in the free market. Marxism has no one example that is more successful economically than a comparable country.

Yeah those sweatshop-gulag-slavery camps sure have improved the life of Chinese civilians. Also your first staement is false. Here in the US, our economy is regulated yet we have a good amount of civil liberties. Also, look at the Paris commune which was socialist but based on universal suffrage. Look at the USSR under Lenin and the bolshevik worker councils which elected all officials.

My statement is not false. China has had a 9% growth rate and a booming economy. I have statistics that prove the people are better off you have your own logic which lacks statistics.
The problem is that the right to property is not present under any communist system and John Locke presented that as an inalienable right. This bit on alienable rights forms the basis for hte U.S. government. It is against someone rights when you start overregulating just what they can do with what they earned.

 

[SFLRN]

its not just taxes. The government has the authority to ban research, to say yes or no to you owning property, to forcedily take your property (hence why we pay all pay property tax) so on and so forth.

Thus the reason for less state and just have the state enforce Locke's inalienable rights.

 

[SFLRN]

I never said he did. I gave you examples of other economists, yet you ignored them.



Actually there are a bunch. Off the top of my head; Bob Avakian and Michael Albert. There are other better examples but they've slipped my mind.
.

Could not find much actual economic work from Avakian, at least he had a theory on parecon, not actual rigorous statistical work however. But of course you had to love the idea of throwing up insurgencies in third worlds to achieve his ends. Does this of course go along with human rights? Achieving political means by killing others to do so? Furthermore you cannot suppose to overthrow the basis of modern day economics with 2 men and statistics showing capitalism as superior. How is a council of people voting on all company decisions more efficient then one person specializing in such? Furthermore, governments already cover the conflicts of interests ideas present in parecon. Your parecon also subjects a minority to a majority making decisions for them and that is less comparably free than someone deciding for themselves on personal economic issues. With these councils does everyone participate? How do they go about electing such people? Or if it is stateless does everyone show up? How would this work in a large setting?

Impossible. Communism cannot be 'voted in'. In case you haven't noticed our system prevents anything that is different. It has two ultra-wealthy parties which squash anything different because these smaller parties lack money and thus cannot campaign and because they can't campaign are nonexsistant. What makes it worse is that communists are mostly working class and the working class are working class because they are not wealthy and can't afford to give money to their party. In the US the two parties are very close and thus any socialists who do vote will vote for the "lesser of the two evils". Most socialists and communists don't vote because they find both parties to be full of **** and don't think anything will be accomplished by voting for one. However, if you look at places like France where they have a representitive system, the socialists are the second largest party. The Communists get around 11%. .

I don't support the party system particularily either. If most communists are working class what percent of them are represented in public opinion polls. What percent of americans support parecon?
Yes and in France, where it can be voted in, it isn't. Perhaps it is because even when theres the chance it is voted in these countries are well off enough they do not want communism since it has yet to provide a better economic situation historically.
Communists are working class? Like the rich intelligentsia who supported it after World War II? Like Marx who came from a middle class family? Maybe Bob Akavian? Ohh no he was the son to a judge and went to Berkley, one of the top Public schools in the nation. Seems a lot easier to rebel against society when it puts you in such a harsh situation right? I imagine the reason his parents were able to pay for his college education was because they worked hard like his immigrant ancestors before him. Thus they could pay the college fees to send their kid to school. He was then able to become a radical disgarding the fact that the only reason he was in such a situation was because his family embraced capitalism and moved up in the world else they could not afford college. Under the capitalist system he would have the kind of free market of ideas to spread his revolutionary thoughts and he would be able to find a niche market to sell it to. How would an activist like him survive in a society of participatory economics where everyone is supposed to chip in?

It's nice to look at how nicely a select bunch of people now live but c'mon seriously, the working class and peasants live in shitholes. Their pensions are gone and their children wear rags and cannot afford schoolbooks. Try to glamorize that!.

They still have more disposable income historically then they did before. Get statistics that prove that with the rise of capitalism there has been lower overall purchasing power.

Great! I don't care. They're economists not humanitarians. If they were both, then they'd look at how miserable conditions are for people who work in jobs that are outsourced for such little pay. Sure, there are some jobs which aren't so bad like telemarketer but many jobs are in disgusting workplaces. Besides, you have yet to put up an arguement that makes sense why outsourcing is good. You only seem to repeat yourself and say that 93% of economists agree with you so thus it is law..

I do not care if you care. This is not a debate on moral philosphy which would be great for humanitarian talk, its economics, thus we use actual economists to justify our arguments.
My statistic would be worthless if more than 1 percent of economists support parecon.
of course they're not humanitarians. They do not need to be when a mutually beneficial system consistantly shows to create more wealth and better standards of living for more people. I;ve used the argument of specialization, a principle of modern day economics. If you wish to throw it out go right ahead. Humanitarians can proclaim to know how to help the poor but do they know through actually working with the poor like a developmental economist such as Jeffery Sachs does or do they talk like Mr. Albert on a theoretical system that might help the poor.

At what cost? Wages well below the poverty line? Govenrment subisidies? Look at what Wal-Marts outsourcing and low wages have cost American taxpayers and communities..

Yeah as I said earlier they save about 2,000 per family on average. Get one ounce of actual statistics from reliable sources. There is also another source that suggest 1,300 savings per family from wal-mart for a more conservative estimate

Link

Well a recent study showed that wal-mart decreases wages in communities it operates by 5% person. Because low payed wal-mart employees can't spend as much in the community and many businesses are forced to close even if they carry better and higher quality porducts due to the low costing slave labored mechandise Wal-Mart offers.

lol bahhah. And how is it then that those small businesses go out of business. Because People actively choose to go them, not because wal-mart bombs the other buildings. If the people do not shop at a store the store does not have what they want and thus the majority of consumers tell them what to produce just like they would in parecon, except this way is actually proven. Furthermore if businesses meet a service or sell a product that is in demand that wal-mart cannot get then they will still be sucessful because wal-mart will not be competing in the same markets as them.
They can spend in much in the community because they have greater purchasing power. About one point nationally, from these lower prices and thus even if there was a decline in overall wages it would not offset the net savings.

lol which study might that have been? if you are claiming to use an anti-wal-mart site to argue against wal-mart, Is it okay then if I use my libertarian think tank to go against you?

 

[SFLRN]

What happens to those who can't afford higher education and thus will have no job? Starvation? I thought so.

They will not have no jobs. Trade skills will also be needed for building in the United States and will expand as U.S. business expands and builds more. That way people who might not be able to handle college can still have a good paying jobs. If people cannot afford education then yes the government would need to make sure that the market is in itselt free enough and that they are not over encumbering it. If they are not encumbering the market then there will be a multitude of affordable colleges opening up because more people will be going to college and thus there will be new markets for affordable college as compared to the more limited market today of more middle and upper class. People would jump on the profit making opportunities by making affordable colleges more people could go to.


lol The Jungle was a book about how screwed up our meat industry was. It had nothing to do with socialism besides for the authors political affiliation. But big whoop. Animal Farm was written by a hardcore socialist who fought in the Spanish revolution.

lol yes if you did not care to read the end of the Jungle then that it was just about the meat-packing industry. It was a whole rant against capitalism . How is it that you're the proclaimed communist and I know more about one of the most popular socialist/communist books out to date?

What??? umm yeah "Rich people like being taxed more for social programs".:roll:

If you do not want to admit the fact that there was a strong anti-capitalist movement among the intelligentsia you are free to do so but it did in fact happen. George Soros is a modern day example.



Okay I'll say this again. You simply cannot compare a bunch of rag-tag fuedal third world countries who decided to chose communism to the wealthiest country in the world. Trotsky and Marx wrote that in order for communism to work and socialism to survive the way it's supposed to, there needs to be first world support to third world countries. Just like capitalism. Unfortunately there was none and Russia had to ante-up and become the 'man-of-the-house' at 8 years of age. The reason there has been explosive growth in Poland is because of the sudden massive economic aid given to it by the US, far more than the USSR could give since it wasn't really a first world country, just an industrialized 2nd world country.

If capitalism is so failed then would the money even matter? I mean would that not make them more capitalist and create more poverty under your assumptions?
Yes the U.S. wasnt a first world country all the time either economically. But it became one through capitalism.
Yeah and the former superpower which had plenty of energy resources and plenty of people picked communism and did not even come close. Yes it is the wealthiest country in the world. Do you have another explanation of how it is that this wealthy country happens to be capitalist, what could it be that made the U.S. so powerful economically if not their economic system?


I don't see your logic. There economy is very productive. Also the thing is is that class differences are very small. Also everyone has the ability to pursue there dreams because education through the Ph D level is free and high quality. This why there are so many good hard-working doctors in Cuba.

Yep its doing so great that the average per capita is around a whopping 3,500 dollars. Comparable Jamacia has around 4,440 without such handouts.

Yeah I don't see that either. That's why communism abolishes money.

hmm at what point did currency become bad?


No they don't. How did you grow up SFLRN? Were you impoverished? If you were are you now middle class? Chances are that it's unlikely because poverty and the ghetto is a trap. You get a poor education in crumbled buildings and if you're lucky to get excepted into a good school you need to come up with the money which is an astronomical amount for a working class family. Thus generations will live the same way because nothing changes. Capitalism is at fault for poverty. It's just a natural byproduct.

No I was not impoverished I lived in a middle class home where both parents worked and were able to achieve a better standard of living for their family. Poverty and the ghetto can be a trap. But there are ways to get out. And if we want people to get out then why don't we do that by providing social mobility? Why don't we provide them with that and then not take away so much in taxes so they can spend money on saving up for college. It is hard but there are many determined people who do make it out of poverty.
Oprah Winfrey makes billions she got out of poverty. But thats just one example, many people are able to work their way out . lol yeah nothing changes. Just like my friends who parents went from living in a New York Ghetto to houses well over 400,000 dollars.



Firstly, very few people just suddenly work themselves out of poverty and it's not taxes that stop them from getting out. It's lack of opportunity, low wages, high rent, and lack of money to begin with. the graduated income tax doesn't put that much weight on working class people. I personally think it puts to much and that more should be put on the wealthy. Taxes help the poor because they pay for their education and medicaid and welfare even though nowadays all of that stuff is bankrupt and in the gutter.

If you want opportunity why not let the business world give it to them by lessening uneccessary restrictions on them? Many people do work themselves out of poverty even if it is slow.

Sure let's abolish public education, welfare, and medicaid and let people just fend for themselves. That's what we seem to be heading for because social services in this country are terrible. Just one question, how will the poor educate themselves, pay high premiums, and pay for their childrens food and clothing when they make next to nothing? (Nevermind the huge debt the system you propose would get us into).

if anythign we have more social services. I did not say abolish public education. But the question is why is it that there are people who do not have health insurance and make 40,000 a year but have to pay taxes to give the guy whos making 10,000 a year to make sure he has health insurance?


Why aren't clothes a basic human right? How about that? Along with food and shelter. And your wrong as I proved in this post. Wal-Mart costs people more in the amount of subsidies they get.



In no system are you really "free" to not work. In any system you're going to starve if you don't. Communism is the same as capitalism. If you are physically and mentally able to work and have the opportunity but choose not to, you'll starve. However in communism unlike in capitalism, everyone has the opportunity to do so.



Well in those places, communism didn't exsist and socialism was in a extremely perverted form. In communism and socialism you do have a say in what work you do. You chose it. In those places there weren't a whole lot of options because the communities didn't really need alot of proffessions. The only time you'd have to do mandatory work in communism is one or two weeks a year doing work on jobs that are unpopular.




Yeah economists who are upper or upper middle class. I personally have never heard of a 'working class economist' lol. Let's give these economists a couple years of work in a coal mine with a coal miners wage and see what their views are after.

There is actually an economist who works at Harvard who lived in an impoverished home. I can give you the name in an upcoming post. Yeah there is an economist named jeffery sachs who has been to third world countries and works with them who supports aid along with free markets.


'dictatorship of the bourgeouis' was first used by Marx. He said that in every system except communism (monarchy, capitalism, and socialism) one class is in control like a 'dictator' over the others. Marxists analyze classes like this. There are three classes. The bourgeouis (ruling class/upper class), Petite-bourgeouis (middle class/ people who aren't working class but aren't ruling class), and the proletariat (working class/communists). Monarchy and capitalism are dictators of the bourgeoius while socialism is a dictatorship of the proleteriat.



Because Cuba is the last remaining semi-socialist state. It is very far from communism but its socialistic aspects are good examples

sorry for the shaky format.

 

[128shot]

Thus the reason for less state and just have the state enforce Locke's inalienable rights.

while that'd be great, it still doesn't solve the problems...


I advocate anarcho capitalism personally. In gradual steps of course..

 

[LeftyHenry]

SFRLN, you forgot to use quotes. Please do that because I'm not gonna spend 30 minutes separating who wrote each thing.

 

[LeftyHenry]

One way is through savings when the kid who used to wear hand-me downs can buy a few nice clothes at Wal-Mart when he would pay twice the price anywhere else. You claim to care about the poor but what about the poor who all save tons of money from price savings by Wal-Mart?
I already adressed this. If you care so much about the workers and the poor then what about the poor in these other countries? Because, as is a basic principle of economics, which of course you would not know because you yourself have not opened an economics book. Is specialization. By the U.S. specializing in these areas they are able to make more of certain kinds of products and the other countries make the cheaper kind of products and on the whole both have more to trade since they arent dividing resources doing millions of different things, Specialization= Efficiency.

Firstly, that's not true. I used to shop at Wal-Mart. The prices for clothing aren't THAT much better. Maybe 5-10 dollars cheaper than in other places but the quality was ****. My clothes would rip and stain easily and I ended up throwing outmost of my Wal-Mart clothes in a couple of months. Also a kid who wears wal-mart cheap brands willbe laughed at in school because of how materialist-consumerist kids become at a young age here.

Secondly, I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over again and you ignore and ignore me again. I provided you with a source which proves that Wal-Mart costs more to taxpayers in subsidies than it saves people money. Also that Wal-Mart decreases annual income in it's area of operation by about 5% per person. Yet you continue to claim I use "emotional appeals" and don't have any "facts". Here are your facts

Third, it is prescisly because I care for the workers why I hate companies like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart brutally exploits their workers in gulag conditions for slave wages. Until they improve there conditions and pay there workers a living wage I will be Anti-Wal-Mart. It is preposterous for you to claim that Wal-Mart is good for the poor when it is Wal-mart that contributes to putting them there with their always low wages policy.

Lastly, how would you know an ounce about me? You don't so don't make silly assumptions like "You have never opened ad economics book". I have and I have also take courses on economics. I came to the the political affiliation that I am after I considered whether or not the economics would work, and I'm convinced they can. Specialization is definately efficient. No one questions that. However the real question is at what cost? Inhumane wages and conditions? A displaced American working class? What's the solution to that? increase wages and make conditions nicer? We can't do that because then we'll have to raise prices a penny per dollar. Tell the American working class to get an education? You're forgeting that little thing called 'money'.

The estimated total amount of federal assistance for which Wal-Mart employees were eligible in 2004 was $2.5 billion. [The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]
One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year. This cost comes from the following, on average:
$36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
$42,000 a year for low-income housing assistance.
$125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families.
$100,000 a year for the additional expenses for programs for students.
$108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP)
$9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance.
[The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]
Health care subsidies compared to executive compensation

Excluding his salary of $1.2 million, in 2004 Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott made around $22 million in bonuses, stock awards, and stock options in 2004.
This $22 million could reimburse taxpayers in 3 states where Wal-Mart topped the list of users of state-sponsored health care programs, covering more than 15,000 Wal-Mart employees and dependents. [Wal-Mart Proxy Statement and News Articles GA, CT, AL].
Your tax dollars subsidize Wal-Mart's growth

The first ever national report on Wal-Mart subsidies documented at least $1 billion in subsidies from state and local governments.
A Wal-Mart official stated that “it is common” for the company to request subsidies “in about one-third of all [retail] projects.” This would suggest that over a thousand Wal-Mart stores have been subsidized. [“Shopping For Subsidies: How Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Money to Finance Its Never-Ending Growth,” Good Job First, May 2004]
Back to top


Community Impact
Download the Wal-Mart and Community Impact Fact Sheet - PDF

Wal-Mart’s growth negatively impact worker’s wages

The most comprehensive study of Wal-Mart’s impact showed that the stores reduced earnings per person by 5 percent. This 2005 study by an economist from the National Bureau of Economic Research used Wal-Mart’s own store data and government data for all counties where Wal-Mart has operated for 30 years, It found that the average Wal-Mart store reduces earnings per person by 5 percent in the county in which it operates. [David Neumark, The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets 2005]

Source

They were a world superpower by their sheer size and how they took all that communal money and put it into weapons. They were never more economically successful than the U.S. 11,000 is their current per capita. If the were the superpower to compare to the the U.S. then 41,800 seems to beat out russia economically. Per capita of Estonia 16,000, and they are right in the same area of russia and do not have the same kind of energy reserves as russia. In fact russia has nearly 35% or more (Econlib) of Europes natural gas and petroleum. So despite all that russia is staying with its controlled economy and doing considerably worse compared to other countries in the region. Once again the statistics and history prove you wrong. Unless you're talking about participatory economics, which of course would mean you could not use russia as an example in the first place.

First, I am not wrong. Second, Russia is capitalist now. Third it did becoem a superpower through military might however one cannot ignore how Russia went from a peasant nation to an industrialized nation which brought things that the peasants had never heard of before like free education, healthcare, and retirement.

 

[LeftyHenry]

The problems of the Depression were many. One the government did not set up basic procedures and credit to a workable plan. The U.S. economy was not as flexible either. And on the whole the U.S. went after a more isolationist policy on the whole. It was not the government programs that ended the depression either, it was World War II. Market failures and regulations are areas where I am for some amount of government intervention since a good market needs good regulations.

The Depression was caused by uncontrolled and rampant capitalism. Marx said that capitalism is insustainable and that it is inevitable that eventually it will collapse. It collapsed in the thrities but through progressive well funded social programs and mass civil works projects the US got back on it's feet. The closest the US ever got to socialism came in order to save capitalism lol.

If it is stateless then we have seperate entities trading or not trading? If they are trading then what keeps this from being capitalism? And if it is stateless then who will impose participatory economics on the people?

LOL anthing that's participatory cannot be imposed. It's like saying let's impose democracy on the people. In communism, there are no nation-states because Marx stated that all nations do is divide the proletariat which is another reason why Stalin wasn't a communist. Every communist society would work together and trade together but it would not be capitalist because there are no classes.

If people are without a state we revert one to a natural state where there are no laws and two what keeps people from doing what they want with their own stuff which they currently do in capitalism.

Well you see, Communists aren't anarchists simply because of this.

Anarchists believe this Revolution>communism

Communists believe this Revolution>socialism>Communism

Socialism is the period during which there is still a state and after a long periods of time, and all the figuring out is done, a state will not be necessary because people know what to do like clockwork. There will still be local councils which form a federation and discuss problems which may arise. But for the most part there is no state.

How are businesses to start if it is simply run by the workers.
?

Based on need. The community elects a council and they decide that in order to survive there is a need a plant farms so thus they funnel resources to building a farm. If they decide that a Candy paradise is needed when people have no shelter or food, then the people will recall the delegates and replace them with others through popular referendum just like in the Paris Commune.

Obviously no one can plan to run a company they started under your plan because they would be an evil CEO. How do you propose people start businesses under your philosophy? Which yet again lacks any actual economists save Marx.

No there are actually quite a few unfortunately I don't sit around all day searching for Marxist economists. A 'company' would be run by the workers. For example, continuing on what I said last paragraph, the coucil would ask for volunteers to work on the farm. If no one volunteered then they'd pick people to take shifts and work one month a year or whatever on the farm for the community.

If it is has brought more poverty. And it is not taking place in Africa

Africa is impoversished because Capitalism IS taking place in Africa.

How is it that the U.S. poor significantly better off than the African poor?

:roll: "how is that the US poor are so much better off then that boulder in over there's GDP?"

I mean C'mon. We've been over this thousands of times. The US is the wealthiest country in the world. It has accomplished that by exploited the poor in resource-rich places like Africa.

It has not failed in Latin America.

I've lived briefly in Mexico and Costa Rica and from what I've seen, heard, and read while I was there and while I wasn't, Latin America is one of the most impoverished regions of the world and it is almost completely capitalist aside from the wealthiest country in the region which is socialist. Capitalism has sotomized the people there. People live in shacks and eat bugs and the government has never and will never help, however in Cuba the government provides housing, healthcare, food, and jobs for it's people to survive and actually gives a damn what happens to it's people. That's why Cuban standards of living are better than in other Latin American countries despite the embargo.

People are choosing against it but that does not mean Bolivia, as an example, was not able to put in the proper reforms to start on a more sucessful road.

Bolivia now has a pro-Chavez government and now is one of the largest natural gas producers in Latin America thanks to a Chavez funded project. The project will bring money to Bolivia and it's impoverished people like never before.

My statement is not false. China has had a 9% growth rate and a booming economy. I have statistics that prove the people are better off you have your own logic which lacks statistics.
The problem is that the right to property is not present under any communist system and John Locke presented that as an inalienable right. This bit on alienable rights forms the basis for hte U.S. government. It is against someone rights when you start overregulating just what they can do with what they earned.

9% growth rate simply means that there are more people who are now wealthier. Big whoop. What I'm saying is that the standards of living for the average Chinese person haven't changed since Mao's great leap forward.
Read this article

Great Leap Forward Article

 

[Synch]

snip

I love this Marxist attitude of complete ignorance of history and its patterns.

"This has never been done, and those who tried it have always failed, but we can do it!"

The living standards in the Soviet Union were abysmal, there was no freedom ,and the only economic growth and industrialization was pushed by Stalin's iron force and slave labor in conjunction with Russia's rich natural resources.

Time and time again communist regimes have tried exactly what you proposed, and they have always failed at the stage of socialism. After the October revolution Russia's output in 1922 was 13% of what it was in 1914. Time and time again so called communists are forced to turn to capitalism, first with the NEP and the Deng's Orwellian "Chinese Socialism".


A free socialism is an oxymoron and dichotomy.

Communist experiments are failing even today, look at Zimbabwe. It's a disaster.

This was taken in 2005.

The Depression was caused by uncontrolled and rampant capitalism. Marx said that capitalism is insustainable and that it is inevitable that eventually it will collapse. It collapsed in the thrities but through progressive well funded social programs and mass civil works projects the US got back on it's feet. The closest the US ever got to socialism came in order to save capitalism lol.

You do not care to explain the cause of the Great Depression specifically... However this man does.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4989202889946003008&q=free+to+choose&hl=en

Try to keep an open mind here.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I love this Marxist attitude of complete ignorance of history and its patterns.

"This has never been done, and those who tried it have always failed, but we can do it!"

So what if it failed! Every system fails! I've said this before because it's the truth! Capitalism has failed almost everywhere except for North America and europe and continues to do so. Democracy failed in Rome and Ancient Greece! Does that mean we should scrath democracy? No it doesn't and the same applies to communism. The reason for failure of communism in Russia and it's sateillites is that the revolution was hurried. It was a minority revolution and many were against marxism. If Lenin had waited longer the party would have grown because of food shortages and the realization of how terrible life was under the Czar, but instead he saw his chance in WWI and jumped on it without full support. A people's revolution should be supported by the majority of the people.

The living standards in the Soviet Union were abysmal, there was no freedom ,and the only economic growth and industrialization was pushed by Stalin's iron force and slave labor in conjunction with Russia's rich natural resources.

That's bullshit propaganda. First, living standards did improve. Peasants suddenlly had tractors. Villages suddenly had stores where you buy things like clothes instead of having to make them yourself. Everyone had shelter. Everyone had much more food than before. Everyone had free and quality healthcare, and in general things that Russians had never even dreamed of now exsisted and were easily accessable. The idea that you weren't aloud to speak is bullshit propaganda. People would argue and talk about the issues surrounding them everyday amongst each other. worker's councils elected representitives who would make desicions for he community and nation as a whole. Under Stalin however, things did tighten and worker councils power was consolidated, but I'm sure if you asked anyone who lived in the USSR during the Czars and during the SU they would take the SU anyday because of how it turned a backwards impovrished nation into world super power whose people now had access to plenty.

Time and time again communist regimes have tried exactly what you proposed, and they have always failed at the stage of socialism. After the October revolution Russia's output in 1922 was 13% of what it was in 1914. Time and time again so called communists are forced to turn to capitalism, first with the NEP and the Deng's Orwellian "Chinese Socialism".

Time and time again capitalist regimes have attempted what you advocate and time and time again they fail and don't bring anything but poverty to countries all over the middle east, Africa, Latin America, and Asia. I would like to see a source which proves that Russia's out put was 13%. And not from some neo-con website. Living standards in both Russia and China increased drastically thanks to socialism. In China for example during the period of Mao, life expectancy nearly doubled from 35 years to 65 due to widespread and quality healthcare. In fact it is only because China was socialist that maybe 100 million people didn't die. The terrible famine and droughts which were common in China would've been far more devasting if food and water and other things weren't rationed. Let's face it, although there has never been communism, those countries who strive towards it always end up increasing living standards an astonishing amount.

A free socialism is an oxymoron and dichotomy.

No it isn't. Look at Venezula for example.

Communist experiments are failing even today, look at Zimbabwe. It's a disaster.

What are you alking about? Zimbabwe isn't communist. They are a free market oreintated economy. They are an example of failed capitalism.

This was taken in 2005.

So what? There's a video of Rumseld shaking hands with and hugging Saddam Huissein. What's the point of that picture?

You do not care to explain the cause of the Great Depression specifically... However this man does.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4989202889946003008&q=free+to+choose&hl=en

Try to keep an open mind here.

I'm afraid google video and youtube don't work on my computer. The sound goes faster than the video for some reason. Do you have a text? However from what I heard in the beginning he said that it was because of too much government regulation. He must be joking. The 1920's was one of the ost capitalistic times in our history. What does this guy propose? A pre-teddy roosevelt era capitalism where Corporations would work together to keep prices high? And there were no worker's rights? Does he propose that those unskilled workers who worked for minimum wage fend for themselves with the next to nothing money they have? I always hate people who believe in pure capitalism or anarcho-capitalism. They seem to have no idea of how people live in our own country with welfare and social programs and labor laws. Take that away and it would be a catastrophe.

 

[SFLRN]

while that'd be great, it still doesn't solve the problems...


I advocate anarcho capitalism personally. In gradual steps of course..

I am all for a limited gov but I think we do need some form of regulation for externalities and the protection of rights.

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

I am all for a limited gov but I think we do need some form of regulation for externalities and the protection of rights.

Yup totally agree with you here too. You do need some government regulation in the economy.

 

[128shot]

Yup totally agree with you here too. You do need some government regulation in the economy.

if people are to govern themselves and themselves only. Then they must regulate the economy themselves no?