• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What Economic System?

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I just wanted to know what economic system people support.

I support the Communist system(hey, no government to oppress you).
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Comrade Brian said:
I support the Communist system(hey, no government to oppress you).
:rofl

Ohh... I haven't laughed that hard in quite some time.
 

Blackflagx

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan, USA
Well, I also favor a communist system but I shall go into more detail than comrade Brian. Now when I say communist, I do not mean Stalin's USSR. By communism I mean a communal system of production and consumption based on need and directly democratic workers collectives. These workers collectives would be from the bottom up controled directly by the workers by means of direct democracy. Private enterprize would be abolished and the means of production would be owned by the whole of society. The workers collectives would have ties with other collectives for materials needed to make a product, of course. However, these collectives would cooperate rather than compete, eliminating the market. Federations of these collectives would exist to cover larger areas of exchange and make sure the system runs smoothly. The collectives would produce according to need, and people can freely use the goods and services of society without the means of currency. There would be no government in this at all, and the collectives would freely cooperate to meet the needs of the people.

Before this however, there would be socialism. Under socialism, private enterprize would be illegal and all property would be put into the hands of the directly democratic workers state. There would be a state bank and goods would go according to the work done, or how beneficial it is to society. A worker would get paid far more than a manager. This directly democratic state would exist to wipe out the mass consumerism of capitalism and prepare the world for communism. Once social classes and mass consumerism disapeer so will the state by means of it withering away. When the social classes and the state disapeer, we will have communism as outlined above. That is my view of economics and I would like to hear yours. Id love to start a debate of capitalism and communism/socialism.
 

Blackflagx

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan, USA
Pure capitalism.
I respect your opinion, but I dont see how you can support such a top-down hierarchial, exploitative system. When someone purchases a factory he now has control of it. He appoints his workers, managers, etc. This in itself is the antithesis of democracy. Let us continue. The goal of the capitalist is to make a profit. Profit= production-expenses. So, the goal of the capitalist is to make the workers work as hard as possible (increase production), and pay them as little as possible (decrease expenses). Also, the workers are not paid nearly the value of their labor. This is exploitation. The workers have no say in the running of this factory and all power is delegated from above. Capitalism is the opposite of democracy! Is it fair that the boss gets so much more money that the workers? Is it fair that 10% of the population controls 85% of the wealth? Is it fair that a business man who sits in a comfortable office all day makes ten times more than a contruction worker who builds everything we take for granted and risks his life everyday? NO!

You probably say that it is voluntary. Well, technically it is voluntary if i give a robber my money when he has a gun to my head. Capitalism works the same way. The workers must work, or else they will starve or live on the street. They are coerced into working. So they have to struggle to find a master to slave to just so they can eat and support their family. They work hard for you everyday and what do you give them in return? A tiny slice of the wealth they produce? They deserve it all! Capitalism is the most unjust economic system ever, responsible for exploitation, oppression, poverty, crime, starvation, war, sweatshops, the destruction of the environment, and it is the antithesis of democracy. I cannot support such a system.
 
Last edited:

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Democracy has nothing to do with capitalism or communism or socialism or any other form of pecuniary system. A form of government be it a democracy, a constitutional republic (which the US is), a theocracy, a dictatorship, or any other kind is no way tied to it's financial state.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Blackflagx said:
I respect your opinion, but I dont see how you can support such a top-down hierarchial, exploitative system. When someone purchases a factory he now has control of it. He appoints his workers, managers, etc. This in itself is the antithesis of democracy. Let us continue. The goal of the capitalist is to make a profit. Profit= production-expenses. So, the goal of the capitalist is to make the workers work as hard as possible (increase production), and pay them as little as possible (decrease expenses). Also, the workers are not paid nearly the value of their labor. This is exploitation. The workers have no say in the running of this factory and all power is delegated from above. Capitalism is the opposite of democracy! Is it fair that the boss gets so much more money that the workers? Is it fair that 10% of the population controls 85% of the wealth? Is it fair that a business man who sits in a comfortable office all day makes ten times more than a contruction worker who builds everything we take for granted and risks his life everyday? NO!

You probably say that it is voluntary. Well, technically it is voluntary if i give a robber my money when he has a gun to my head. Capitalism works the same way. The workers must work, or else they will starve or live on the street. They are coerced into working. So they have to struggle to find a master to slave to just so they can eat and support their family. They work hard for you everyday and what do you give them in return? A tiny slice of the wealth they produce? They deserve it all! Capitalism is the most unjust economic system ever, responsible for exploitation, oppression, poverty, crime, starvation, war, sweatshops, the destruction of the environment, and it is the antithesis of democracy. I cannot support such a system.
What do the workers do under communism? What is your perspective on that?

Decreasing expenses and increasing production are not factors of capitalism but factors of economics.
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Socialism. Not quite so radical.

I don't think classes need to be outright eliminated, not yet. We need to lessen the gap first. To do this their needs to be controlled capitalism. I don't see how pure communism could work economically. Sorry comrades.
 

Blackflagx

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan, USA
Socialism. Not quite so radical.

I don't think classes need to be outright eliminated, not yet. We need to lessen the gap first. To do this their needs to be controlled capitalism. I don't see how pure communism could work economically. Sorry comrades.
I have to say, I am pretty disapointed. I think this forum has softened you up. You need to understand that capitalism CANNOT be reformed. You can give the workers a bigger slice of the bread, but eventually they will demand the whole thing. Socialism and communism are inevitable. Plus, socialism is not "controled capitalism". Socialism is the democratic rule of the whole of the proletariat. How can you be a socialist and not a communist? I assume that you somewhat follow the theories of Karl Marx. If this is so, you should realize that nothing can stay the same, and that everything changes. Communism can work economically. The workers and consumers coordinate production and consumption and workers produce according to need. There is no money under communism so need primarily determines things. Communism is based on the free association of workers into democratically controled workplaces and a democratic economy planned by the workers and consumers councils. I hope you will reconsider your odd, new, somewhat liberal position and once again see the light of marxism!
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Blackflagx said:
I have to say, I am pretty disapointed. I think this forum has softened you up. You need to understand that capitalism CANNOT be reformed. You can give the workers a bigger slice of the bread, but eventually they will demand the whole thing.
Softened? Haha, I've never been accused of being soft. I'm saying the workers should get a bigger slice, but not the whole thing. Thats greed and that's what I'm against.

Socialism and communism are inevitable. Plus, socialism is not "controled capitalism". Socialism is the democratic rule of the whole of the proletariat.
Inevitable? I don't really think Marx was much of a Nostradamus. Socialism is the period between communism and capitalism where wealth still exists and social classes don't, or at least the gap is severly lessened.

How can you be a socialist and not a communist? I assume that you somewhat follow the theories of Karl Marx. If this is so, you should realize that nothing can stay the same, and that everything changes.
I guess you could call me a pesimisstic communist. I don't see it happening. Sorry. Too utopian for me. Of course things change, not always for the better.

Communism can work economically. The workers and consumers coordinate production and consumption and workers produce according to need. There is no money under communism so need primarily determines things.
Ok....I still doubt it. And no money? You're getting very Utopian-Marxist. People will eventually want things, better things. I don't believe in human "nature", you can't see we are driven towards greed...but competition breeds innovation.

Communism is based on the free association of workers into democratically controled workplaces and a democratic economy planned by the workers and consumers councils
I'm aware. But you honestly see communism occuring anytime soon? Or anytime in your generation?

I hope you will reconsider your odd, new, somewhat liberal position and once again see the light of marxism
Hah. I'm not a straight-edge Marxist. Marxism has disapointed me. It's time for a new approach. You can't wave pictures of Marx and expect much of the world to listen. I'm not soft, I'm a realist. It's hard to be over 18 and still a hard devout communist.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hey, V.I. Lenin, didn't lenin state in The State and Revolution that socialists and reformists are too soft on capitalism, that they are oppurtunists?
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Comrade Brian said:
Hey, V.I. Lenin, didn't lenin state in The State and Revolution that socialists and reformists are too soft on capitalism, that they are oppurtunists?
Yes, but I don't worship the man. Waving a gun around and calling for the death of all capitalists will get me jailed or ignored. This is 2005 America, not 1917 Russia. We have to learn to change.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
shuamort said:
Democracy has nothing to do with capitalism or communism or socialism or any other form of pecuniary system. A form of government be it a democracy, a constitutional republic (which the US is), a theocracy, a dictatorship, or any other kind is no way tied to it's financial state.
You are quite wrong here. Democrtic socialism is a democratic economy, with citizens indirectly controlling their own economy. Capitalism greatly resembles despotism in that power over capital is concentrated into the hands of very few.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gandhi>Bush said:
What do the workers do under communism? What is your perspective on that?

Decreasing expenses and increasing production are not factors of capitalism but factors of economics.
Of course, but cannot the capital created by redistributed by the government, ensuring collective benefit? The stagnation of business can be predicted, so that the government cannot overdo it. You misunderstand that under capitalism production is too great, always, always a surplus, a great one, is produced. Thus a larger market is in constant need. Under socialism, with attitudes beginning to shift to production for need rather than profit, working hours can be reduced, just enough, to ensure that all needs are met. With the help of the state, a market could be kept under control, ensuring needs, probably more than that, are met, ensuring a comfortable life for all. The free market will not llow this, however, we need a state controlled economy. I disagree with the capitalists, and rather I look at historical examples and say that socialism, even in a poor country like the USSR, generates economic growth, enough growth to sustain the economy certainly. Now that is a poor country. If a rich country were socialist, prospects look even greater. The problem with socialism is to keep the politicains under control, something the authoritarian USSR couldn't do. Too much state power, without checks, can lead to imperialist desires that were seen. Democracy, I suggest, can be a very efficieant form of these 'checks' on the government.
 

stump

Member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
anomaly said:
Of course, but cannot the capital created by redistributed by the government, ensuring collective benefit?
If the capital created is redistributed evenly what is the incentive to produce? Whether I am great at my job or lousy at my job I receive the same benefit.

To answer the original question I prefer Adam Smith's vision. Not the laissez-faire system that Ayn Rand has promoted but the system originally published in the Wealth of nations.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
stump said:
If the capital created is redistributed evenly what is the incentive to produce? Whether I am great at my job or lousy at my job I receive the same benefit.

To answer the original question I prefer Adam Smith's vision. Not the laissez-faire system that Ayn Rand has promoted but the system originally published in the Wealth of nations.
Actually, I'd say they support the same system, while emphasizing different aspects of capitalism. Rand emphasizes freedom, while Smith emphasizes utility, but both emphasize individualism, and the goodness of selfishness. Once again, I must stress that the disparity of wealth is not eliminated but reduced. Socialism does not mean total equality of wealth, and any idea of equality of wealth is idiotic.
 

stump

Member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
anomaly said:
Actually, I'd say they support the same system, while emphasizing different aspects of capitalism. Rand emphasizes freedom, while Smith emphasizes utility, but both emphasize individualism, and the goodness of selfishness. Once again, I must stress that the disparity of wealth is not eliminated but reduced. Socialism does not mean total equality of wealth, and any idea of equality of wealth is idiotic.
But Smith wants government interference to make sure the playing field is kept as level as possible.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
stump said:
But Smith wants government interference to make sure the playing field is kept as level as possible.
If he wanted to make sure the playing field was kept level, then he must have wanted a planned economy, or atleast a policy of redistribution. But thetruth is, Smith wanted neither. Smith wanted government out except to ensure monopolies do not arise. Do you have anything that suggests Smith wanted this amount of government iterference, because to the best of my knowledge, I don't think he did.
 

stump

Member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
anomaly said:
If he wanted to make sure the playing field was kept level, then he must have wanted a planned economy, or atleast a policy of redistribution. But thetruth is, Smith wanted neither. Smith wanted government out except to ensure monopolies do not arise. Do you have anything that suggests Smith wanted this amount of government iterference, because to the best of my knowledge, I don't think he did.
Smith wanted government out because government promotes inequity. But he was a strong proponent of public education which is in fact a form of
redistribution. Or more precisely a way of leveling the field.

This allows people to choose what income they want and how hard they wish to work.

Giving the drunkard and the workaholic the same amount of resources is not keeping the playing field level. It is giving the drunkard an advantage. And that is why communism fails. It tilts the playing field towards those who work less.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
stump said:
Smith wanted government out because government promotes inequity. But he was a strong proponent of public education which is in fact a form of
redistribution. Or more precisely a way of leveling the field.

This allows people to choose what income they want and how hard they wish to work.

Giving the drunkard and the workaholic the same amount of resources is not keeping the playing field level. It is giving the drunkard an advantage. And that is why communism fails. It tilts the playing field towards those who work less.
College education has varying costs, and for some careers, one must attend a private university to succeed. If one cannot afford it, one fails. Is this the fault of the individual? The laws of competition ensure that only very few people actually 'succeed', economically speaking. In the US, we have a little thing called life chances, which are an individual's chances of succeeding. A rich child has a much greeater chance at success than a poor child. In poorer countries, poor children have no poortunity whatsoever, all while living in a capitalist country. No matter how many successful people there are, competition, in the end, decides how many of the are economically successful. Your point is completely irrelevant in poor countries.

Do you even know what communism is? Communism is the withering away of the state and along with it the entire monetary system and social class. Therefore success is not measured in economical terms, but rather by how many people your work helps. But communism is so far off it isn't even worth discussing at this point. Rather, socialism is what we should discuss. And socialism does not eliminate wealth disparity, but raher reduces it, to ensure that all citizens earn enough capital to live.
 

stump

Member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
anomaly said:
College education has varying costs, and for some careers, one must attend a private university to succeed. If one cannot afford it, one fails. Is this the fault of the individual?
What career must someone attend a private university?

But you're right, life isn't fair. Not everyone can make a million dollars. Not everyone can be beautiful. Not everyone can be tall.

anomaly said:
A rich child has a much greeater chance at success than a poor child. In poorer countries, poor children have no poortunity whatsoever, all while living in a capitalist country. No matter how many successful people there are, competition, in the end, decides how many of the are economically successful. Your point is completely irrelevant in poor countries.
Not at all. How about we compare North Korea and South Korea. Which former poor country is doing better? How about China and Hong Kong? Which system was better for their poor people? Is not China's economy growing quickly now that they're making capitalist reforms?

You're system is all theory. There's no practical application for it. Perhaps I'm missing something. Is/was your system in practice anywhere on a large scale? Is there something similar?

anomaly said:
Do you even know what communism is?
I am well versed in economic principles.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
stump said:
What career must someone attend a private university?

But you're right, life isn't fair. Not everyone can make a million dollars. Not everyone can be beautiful. Not everyone can be tall.
Socialism is all about making things more fair. And you must realize that a person who attended Harvard, for example, has a great advantage over someone who attended Indiana University.



stump said:
Not at all. How about we compare North Korea and South Korea. Which former poor country is doing better? How about China and Hong Kong? Which system was better for their poor people? Is not China's economy growing quickly now that they're making capitalist reforms?
China and North Korea are run by dictators. Since socialist economies are nationally planned, how can an economy run by a dictatorship succeed? Tyrannical socialism is fundamentally flawed, therefore your points are irrelevent.

stump said:
You're system is all theory. There's no practical application for it. Perhaps I'm missing something. Is/was your system in practice anywhere on a large scale? Is there something similar?
No, democratic socialism has never existed anywhere except on paper. I am confident, however, that some day some country, probably not the US anytime soon, will be a democratic socialist state.



stump said:
I am well versed in economic principles.
You certainly hide it well.
 

stump

Member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
anomaly said:
Socialism is all about making things more fair. And you must realize that a person who attended Harvard, for example, has a great advantage over someone who attended Indiana University.
True, and how would that change in your economy?

anomaly said:
You certainly hide it well.
Ah, insults. Great.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
stump said:
True, and how would that change in your economy?
I would offer complete government funding, based on a graduated scale, much like the income tax is based on. The poorest students would receive the most funding, and so on.



stump said:
Ah, insults. Great.
I merely describe what I see from you. I apologize if you take it as an insult.
 

stump

Member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
anomaly said:
I would offer complete government funding, based on a graduated scale, much like the income tax is based on. The poorest students would receive the most funding, and so on.
But how is that fundamentally different from America today? Student aid and scholarships go to those who have greater needs. I assume you mean it would be on a grander scale but that's not fundamentally any different than today's system.

And students who go to Harvard would still be better off than those going to Indiana U.
 
Top Bottom