Economical ideological systems extremes

[ghoul]

Would an economical system where it'd be a pure market or planned economy work? As in, the purest form of capitalism or communism?

Which one would you rather live in, why not the other one, why the one you'd choose?

Is capitalism or communism as evil as some would claim? If you look away mostly from sociohistorical disputes in the reasoning behind these.

But for example, if you would look at the sociohistorical relevance, attempt not too look that much at USA VS Sovjet..

This is a question about economy, not social politics.

So, the question would be:

Which society would you live in where there's pure communism or capitalism, but there's social equality in both? Which one would be more likely to exist and work? Which one's more likely to be corrupted in a horrible way?

[shockkkk]

Neither would work - meaning neither would be close to efficient.

Would much rather live in a purely capitalist economy since I think a purely planned economy would be much more likely to be an economic disaster.

Neither capitalism or communism is evil. People who claim one or the other are just spouting off shit to make their ideological opponents look bad. For the most part, I view communism as a bad theory that has had bad results. I see capitalism as having a huge positive effect on global prosperity, although my idea of capitalism is more along of lines of let the allocation of goods be determined through a price mechanism in the market, rather than having no government regulation in the economy. For example, I consider all those Scandinavian countries capitalist.

[Bad_Mr_Tree]

Both economies are planned, just by different actors.

I often suggest that people first decide where they want to go, before deciding how to get there.

The economic system one chooses is just that, the means of transportation to get you there.

That being said, each particular form imposes its own limitations, some of which are unique to the system and some that are common.

For example, an emphasis on efficiency would be just as damaging in a purely capitalist and purely communist system if they both had a very short-term understanding of sustainability.

Efficiency can change depending on the time horizon used for analysis and what outputs and inputs you are basing you calculation on. For example a field of HYV (high-yielding variety) of rice would produce more marketable rice than a field farmed with say, traditional agricultural methods. But the field of HYV would require many additional inputs that need to be acquired from distant sources, and in addition, greater utilizations of ground water would eventually see the lifespan of the field shortened from a thousand years to just 40 due to salinization.

Often times efficiency is an illusion and means that the effects of the process on surrounding systems isn't fully understood.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Often times efficiency is an illusion and means that the effects of the process on surrounding systems isn't fully understood.

Bingo! And many times the most efficient process is the most expensive one, and capitalist managers will short circuit *that* spending to save money and improve the short-term bottom line so they can get more stock options. Take the money and running, I guess, *is* pretty efficient, but like any upside, it will eventually be balanced by a corresponding downside.

Although it often doesn't seem efficient, The Long Game produces much more sustainable results. But these days, it seems, very few enterprises have the discipline to play The Long Game, and those that do are certainly not the current heavy hitters on Wall St. And I'd bet a lot of efficiency experts wouldn't cotton to Dollar Cost Averaging plays in the stock market. The payoffs for the short term plays are immediate (on the other hand, so are the losses), but all the most successful players year in and year out practice it. Often the 'one hit wonders' make a big fanfare, but then 'Blow Themselves Up' when they don't catch the game changer events that come down the pike.

Also, sometimes the market, driven by human behaviour, doesn't act rationally, making it very difficult to predict exactly what needs to be produced and when. Of course then the efficiency advocates will counter with the 'single piece, Just In Time' production system. Nice trick when it works. Usually JIT stands for Jammed In Trucks. And the skill levels of the people it takes to even approximate it grows exponentially, and those people can then demand and usually get, more money. Sometimes the added expense can be offset, other times it can't. That's one of the reasons a lot of Fortune 500 CEOs are lamenting not being able to find qualified help. Duh. They want people who would have to have multiple Ph.Ds to accomplish that, and who could afford that on a mass scale?

I remember the training I received in this. They were always pointing to Wal*Mart as the paragon of efficiency back then. But if you go to most stores these days, the shelves for the things people want are often empty, you have to wait in checkout lines up to 19 people deep. It's gotten too cumbersome a giant to get the job done, and I'd say its best days are behind it. That 'efficiency' just was not sustainable.

In my experience, there is only ONE economic maxim on which one can count 100% upon:

Trees never grow into heaven.

[Guest]

Pure socialism/communism would be tremendously less sucky than pure capitalism (no homeless masses starving in the streets, for starters!), so I'd obviously prefer that as the lesser evil. Pure capitalism can, by definition, not be humane and fair, so that's right out.

But I agree with (part of) what shockkkk said - both models, in their pure/extreme form, are crappy and doomed to fail sooner or later. Some form of mixed economy really is the best option, IMO (and in the long run, the only option that is both humane and realistic). Living in Germany really is pretty okay in that regard; I'm very glad that we have a degree of socialist ideas firmly entrenched both in law, and in the poilitical/philosophical view of the majority of the electorate.... however, I'd certainly like to have a good tad more socialism than we already have (universal basic income... I can't repeat it often enough how strongly I am in support of that model, and would wish it to become political reality sooner rather than later!); but another part of Germany showed pretty blatantly until 25 years ago that a complete abandoment and demonization of capitalism not only just works on paper, but also leaves an economical and infrastructural mess that the former GDR territories still haven't fully recovered from a quarter century later, and that states develop glaring human rights problems of their own when trying to enforce this policy.

Marxism certainly is a beautiful theory, but human nature being as it is, it completely fails to deliver in practice... unless you have a good degree of capitalism anchoring it in reality.

[Arte]

No. Neither would work, but communism is obviously less evil. Communism seems to be about economic equality, which is obviously better than a class system, and the only people who would argue against that aren't in the lower class so of course they would agree with a system that's benefiting them. In an ideal scenario there's a way to have a prosperous communism.

[shockkkk]

Pure capitalism can, by definition, not be humane and fair, so that's right out.

No. Neither would work, but communism is obviously less evil. Communism seems to be about economic equality, which is obviously better than a class system, and the only people who would argue against that aren't in the lower class so of course they would agree with a system that's benefiting them. In an ideal scenario there's a way to have a prosperous communism.

These are neither obvious nor truths. They're just personal opinions on morality.

[Guest]

No, it has nothing to do with morality. In pure capitalism, if you can't carry your weight, you die, end of story. Pure capitalism must neccessarily consider the sick and elderly dead weight that the economy would be better off without ("useless eaters" in the most polemic terms), unless they happen to sit on a pile of cash already. That is an undeniable fact.

[shockkkk]

No, it has nothing to do with morality. In pure capitalism, if you can't carry your weight, you die, end of story. Pure capitalism must neccessarily consider the sick and elderly dead weight that the economy would be better off without ("useless eaters" in the most polemic terms), unless they happen to sit on a pile of cash already. That is an undeniable fact.

Wow, you're take on what pure capitalism necessarily implies is not even close to true. I wonder where you get this utterly absurd impression from. Pure capitalism would not consider the sick and elderly dead weight that should be gotten rid of. They are still able to provide benefits to the economy, albeit, in general, less than other people. Moreover, I'm sure plenty of well off people would support their elderly or sick family or friends through charity. In pure capitalism it is almost certain that these groups would be worse off than they are now, but the characterization of pure capitalism as some eugenics crazed society bent on eradicating the weak is pure bullshit.

Moreover, even if this was true your claims of being inhumane and unfair is absolutely based upon your moral foundatios.

[Guest]

How is it at all an absurd impression? Whoever do you think is going to feed the poor and tend to their health, in a pure capitalist system? (A monolithic, powerful, and reliably tithing church/religion might, but a) we kinda did away with that, b) it comes with a shitload of its own problems, and c) it would be a weird requirement to keep a humane capitalism functional.)

As for moral foundations... well, yeah, I guess one could call a universal right to live and be free from bodily harm that, even though I personally wouldn't (there's a difference between morals and ethics). What is undeniably true is that pure capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with giving a damn about universal human rights... which is enough for me to unhesitatingly side with pure communism in the (false) dichotomy this thread poses.

[Guest]

In pure capitalism it is almost certain that these groups would be worse off than they are now, but the characterization of pure capitalism as some eugenics crazed society bent on eradicating the weak is pure bullshit.

The decision whether to euthanize them or just let them die off on their own would be made in terms of what turns out to be cheaper. Either way, not a penny is to be given out for keeping them alive, healthy, fed, and with a roof over their head. If they don't know anyone to privately give them charity, then euthanasia would clearly be doing them a favor (but the state might well consider an organized euthanasia program too expensive, unless it saw ideological reasons that outweigh the financial costs to go through with it).

[Sally]

Moreover, I'm sure plenty of well off people would support their elderly or sick family or friends through charity. In pure capitalism it is almost certain that these groups would be worse off than they are now, but the characterization of pure capitalism as some eugenics crazed society bent on eradicating the weak is pure bullshit.

The US is not a pure capitalistic society, but even though that's the case, we still don't help all those who need help. So in pure capitalism, we'd help even less of those needy people -- who generally as a class don't have well-off relatives or friends, so they wouldn't be given crusts of bread in charity. All told, even more people would be hungry, cold, and homeless. Pure capitalistic society = good idea.

[shockkkk]

How is it at all an absurd impression? Whoever do you think is going to feed the poor and tend to their health, in a pure capitalist system? (A monolithic, powerful, and reliably tithing church/religion might, but a) we kinda did away with that, b) it comes with a shitload of its own problems, and c) it would be a weird requirement to keep a humane capitalism functional.)

As for moral foundations... well, yeah, I guess one could call a universal right to live and be free from bodily harm that, even though I personally wouldn't (there's a difference between morals and ethics). What is undeniably true is that pure capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with giving a damn about universal human rights... which is enough for me to unhesitatingly side with pure communism in the (false) dichotomy this thread poses.

You're backtracking now. Equating having a poverty problem to considering poor people dead weight we would be better off without is ridiculous. Having said that, ways the poor could be taken of:

1) Firms providing cheap food, cheap medical assistance. Likely of lower standards, but better than nothing.

2) Charity

3) Private social security net

What is undeniably true is that pure capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with giving a damn about universal human rights

Again, this is not a truth without actually defining what universal rights are. Lot's of people consider economic freedom to be a universal right (in which case communism also becomes incompatible with human rights), and other people don't consider stuff like a living wage to be a universal right. It may be that with your personal morals/ethics capitalism is incomptabile with human rights, but you should at the very least realize that these are not some universal truth.

The decision whether to euthanize them or just let them die off on their own would be made in terms of what turns out to be cheaper. Either way, not a penny is to be given out for keeping them alive, healthy, fed, and with a roof over their head. If they don't know anyone to privately give them charity, then euthanasia would clearly be doing them a favor (but the state might well consider an organized euthanasia program too expensive, unless it saw ideological reasons that outweigh the financial costs to go through with it).

No it wouldn't. This is a grave misunderstanding of how capitalism works. The decision whether such individuals would live would be made by that person individually, and whether or not they decided that death was preferable to living in squalor. It may be a grave situation, but it is definitely not a decision made by some elites deciding which is the most profitable. You also have the misconception, that groups like the elderly are siphoning money out of the economy. This is not true and in fact the truth is the exact opposite. The less fortunate still contribute positive value to the economy.

The US is not a pure capitalistic society, but even though that's the case, we still don't help all those who need help. So in pure capitalism, we'd help even less of those needy people -- who generally as a class don't have well-off relatives or friends, so they wouldn't be given crusts of bread in charity. All told, even more people would be hungry, cold, and homeless. Pure capitalistic society = good idea.

Your reading comprehension is terrible. Seriously, I want you to read my posts carefully (and maybe even consult someone else) before commenting on them, because there have countless times where you twist my words into something they're not. Notice how I never said every person in need of help would be helped or even how I said it was almost certain that less people would be helped? The point is that the idea that a purely capitalist economy implies the eradication of the less fortunate is bogus. You're post doesn't have anything to do with that post. Go figure.

[Sally]

Having said that, ways the poor could be taken of:

1) Firms providing cheap food, cheap medical assistance. Likely of lower standards, but better than nothing.

2) Charity

3) Private social security net

1) "Firms" don't provide food grown more cheaply, and doctors don't provide cheaper medical assistance, and there's absolutely no way to force them to do so. And would you be willing to eat worse food (perhaps bread with wood chips added to make it cheaper?) and have worse medical care (perhaps an operation done by a nurse instead of a doctor?)

2) Charity already picks up quite a bit of the bill in the US, and it's not enough.

3) Privatized social security depends upon the stock market. Perhaps you didn't notice how badly that went during the Great Depression in the US and in the rest of the world. Many people lost their whole savings. That would mean that with a drop in the stock market, those people who previously at least had Social Security to depend upon would be absolutely penniless.

[shockkkk]

Having said that, ways the poor could be taken of:

1) Firms providing cheap food, cheap medical assistance. Likely of lower standards, but better than nothing.

2) Charity

3) Private social security net

1) "Firms" don't provide food grown more cheaply, and doctors don't provide cheaper medical assistance, and there's absolutely no way to force them to do so. And would you be willing to eat worse food (perhaps bread with wood chips added to make it cheaper?) and have worse medical care (perhaps an operation done by a nurse instead of a doctor?)

2) Charity already picks up quite a bit of the bill in the US, and it's not enough.

3) Privatized social security depends upon the stock market. Perhaps you didn't notice how badly that went during the Great Depression in the US and in the rest of the world. Many people lost their whole savings. That would mean that with a drop in the stock market, those people who previously at least had Social Security to depend upon would be absolutely penniless.

1) Some firms definitely do provide food cheaply. Medical procedures are largely the same price since there is a standard protocol for them.

For 2,3, please refer to my other post, because it is obvious you didn't understand my post. I never said things would be better for these people under pure capitalism, I merely contested the view that pure capitalism necessarily implied that the less fortunate would be destined to starve or be done away with. For the record, I fully believe public social security to be a much better way of achieving redistributive goals, but it doesn't mean that the alternatives are that the poor get nothing.

[Guest]

You're backtracking now.

Nope.

1) Firms providing free food, free medical assistance. Likely of lower standards, but better than nothing.

Fixed that for you. Good luck keeping that firm operational in a pure capitalist society.

2) Charity

Unreliable, unless we bring back monolithic churches. State religions are pretty much a must, I don't see how else you'd wish to handle this fairly and ubiquitously.

3) Private social security net

Unaffordable to the people who need it most.

Again, this is not a truth without actually defining what universal rights are. Lot's of people consider economic freedom to be a universal right (in which case communism also becomes incompatible with human rights)[...]

People who would consider paying taxes to be an impedement of their human rights, maybe. I could hardly care less about these, though. It's the job and duty of the state to take its share from them and redistribute it to those in need.

As long as people are starving, homeless, and unable to get medical help, whining about "lack of economic freedom" is pure entitlement culture. Any state I'd consider worth living in needs to curbstomp that attitude in its citizens. "Property obliges to serve the welfare of the communality", as our (German) constitution puts it... if you don't like that, you are of course free to leave the country.

and other people don't consider stuff like a living wage to be a universal right.

I never said it was. It is, however, fully compatible with UHR, unlike pure capitalism.

It may be that with your personal morals/ethics capitalism is incomptabile with human rights, but you should at the very least realize that these are not some universal truth.

UHR are not universal truth - no form of ethical or morality is, they all are arbitrary human constructions, with no objective substantiality - but it is an absolute, undeniable truth that UHR and pure capitalism are incompatible. If one is in effect, then logically the other cannot be.

[Sally]

You know what, Shockkk, and frankly everyone else who uses this excuse, disagreement with you does NOT mean that we didn't understand your posts. It means we disagree. Deal with it. That's what happens in discussions.

[shockkkk]

shockkkk, on 27 Nov 2014 - 9:29 PM, said:

You're backtracking now.

Nope.

How enlightening.

shockkkk, on 27 Nov 2014 - 9:29 PM, said:

1) Firms providing free food, free medical assistance. Likely of lower standards, but better than nothing.

Fixed that for you. Good luck keeping that firm operational in a pure capitalist society.

Snarky "fixes" do not make your argument right. Maybe on tumblr, but not here.

shockkkk, on 27 Nov 2014 - 9:29 PM, said:

2) Charity

Unreliable, unless we bring back monolithic churches. State religions are pretty much a must, I don't see how else you'd wish to handle this fairly and ubiquitously.

shockkkk, on 27 Nov 2014 - 9:29 PM, said:

3) Private social security net

Unaffordable to the people who need it most.

Read what I said to sally. They don't have to be effective to refute your claim that pure capitalism necessarily implies the less fortunate will done away with. You're comments on the private social security are also show you don't really understand how markets work. The assumption that they would be unaffordable is just conjectrue.

shockkkk, on 27 Nov 2014 - 9:29 PM, said:

Again, this is not a truth without actually defining what universal rights are. Lot's of people consider economic freedom to be a universal right (in which case communism also becomes incompatible with human rights)[...]

People who would consider paying taxes to be an impedement of their human rights, maybe. I could hardly care less about these, though. It's the job and duty of the state to take its share from them and redistribute it to those in need.

As long as people are starving, homeless, and unable to get medical help, whining about "lack of economic freedom" is pure entitlement culture. Any state I'd consider worth living in needs to curbstomp that attitude in its citizens. "Property obliges to serve the welfare of the communality", as our (German) constitution puts it... if you don't like that, you are of course free to leave the country.

Again, completely based on your personal ethics.

shockkkk, on 27 Nov 2014 - 9:29 PM, said:

and other people don't consider stuff like a living wage to be a universal right.

I never said it was. It is, however, fully compatible with UHR, unlike pure capitalism.

Except, you never actually acknowledged the point I made. Pure capitalism is only uncompatable with your personal view about what constitutes universal rights.

shockkkk, on 27 Nov 2014 - 9:29 PM, said:

It may be that with your personal morals/ethics capitalism is incomptabile with human rights, but you should at the very least realize that these are not some universal truth.

UHR are not universal truth - no form of ethical or morality is, they all are arbitrary human constructions, with no objective substantiality - but it is an absolute, undeniable truth that UHR and pure capitalism are incompatible. If one is in effect, then logically the other cannot be.

Lol, just lol at this statement. There is no definition of what UHR are, but they can't be compatiable with capitalism. This makes no absolutely no logical sense, and is pure ideological dirvel.

However, I see no point wasting my time discussing this matter with a stubborn idelogue like yourself.

You know what, Shockkk, and frankly everyone else who uses this excuse, disagreement with you does NOT mean that we didn't understand your posts. It means we disagree. Deal with it. That's what happens in discussions.

Umm, when you're trying to argue with me by refuting points I didn't make at all, it absolutely does mean you didn't understand it.

[Sally]

Umm, when you're trying to argue with me, refuting points I didn't make at all, it absolutely does mean you didn't understand it.

You made those points I refuted (and Mysticus refuted) directly before we each replied. Read your own posts.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was issued by the United Nations in 1948. It was a pretty good definition; you may find it on-line quite easily.

[Guest]

@shockkkk.... Was writing a reply, but it's obviously not worth it. You clearly don't understand capitalism, and I have better things to do with my time than "discussing" the points of people arguing in favor of stuff they are clueless about, themselves, and resort to cheap flaming to cover this up.

Nighty-night, dude.

[shockkkk]

@shockkkk.... Was writing a reply, but it's obviously not worth it. You clearly don't understand capitalism, and I have better things to do with my time than "discussing" the points of people arguing in favor of stuff they are clueless about, themselves, and resort to cheap flaming to cover this up.

Nighty-night, dude.

Look, you have a very poor grasp of basic economics, and how markets work. Sorry if this isn't what you want to hear, but it is true. You're arguments in this thread contradict a number of elementary economic principles. The extent of your understanding of the subject seems to be limited to wild strawman theories about capitalism, so I wouldn't be talking about being clueless about capitalism.

You made those points I refuted (and Mysticus refuted) directly before we each replied. Read your own posts.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was issued by the United Nations in 1948. It was a pretty good definition; you may find it on-line quite easily.

You didn't refute my points though, because you attempted to refute something I never said. I don't get how you can not understand that. You just argued that charity, private social security, and private medicare would be ineffective at helping the less fortunate. Guess fucking what, I agree. However, the existence of all of the above contradicts the absurd opinion that pure capitalism implies that those who can't make it on their own will be left to die.

Universal human rights can also refer to human rights in general (from an ethical standpoint). This is the first time a specific declaration has been brought up. If that specific declaration was what mysticus was talking about, he should have made that clear.

[Sally]

Please refer to #17 above. I'll say good night also.

[shockkkk]

Please refer to #17 above. I'll say good night also.

Lol, good answer. Can't address that you wildly misinterpreted my post, so just scream "No, I just disagree!"

[brightberry]

I think that as a concept, communism is a good idea. However, no one has ever (and I doubt ever will) create a communist state that actually functions well.

So I'd prefer the capitalism.

[Guest]

I think that as a concept, communism is a good idea. However, no one has ever (and I doubt ever will) create a communist state that actually functions well.

That much, I wholeheartedly agree to, btw.

[Bad_Mr_Tree]

I prefer anarchism: decision making being made my consensus by those parties most affected by the decision.

The more layers of organization and bureaucracy you introduce, the more opportunities you give for the divergence of interests of the public officials and the people they are intended to serve. And if a person doesn't have the same interests as you, you will need to create an even more complex system to compensate for that.

Analyze a system to see what values and interests it privileges; if you don't agree with them don't try to turn it into something it's not, try to create of find a system that does privilege your same values. If one doesn't follow this path, the path they travel will result in the creation of "essential" jobs that are a waste of everyone's time: so much more paper pushing, 9-5 slaving... a social rube goldberg machine that employs too many people in the most meaningless of tasks.

[Lia]

Please keep the discussion civil and free of snips towards other members.

Lia

Administrator

[5_♦♣]

Capitalism, no contest.

[Arte]

Anyone who thinks PURE capitalism is a good idea, is either unaware or has forgotten how MUCH the government actually intervenes in the economy. In PURE capitalism there would be NO MINIMUM WAGE, CHILD LABOR, SWEATSHOPS, AND RAMPANT MONOPOLIES. If that sounds better to you than EVERYONE being employed, NO homelessness, and EQUALITY, then there's nothing I can say to you. You see, the problem here is that people think because in the scenario that there both the extreme ends of the spectrum that their equivalently bad, but that's just clearly not true. Of course pure communism has its flaws, I'm not saying it's what I WANT, but pure capitalism is simply a HORRIBLE idea, and there isn't a third option in the scenario.

[Bad_Mr_Tree]

There is always a third option, a fourth and fifth, etc.

I'm always for broadening discussions, especially when it comes to things as critical as economic systems and sexuality. Narrow spectrums and false binaries are inherently destructive and do much to limiting our freedoms and creativity.

A pure communism, if articulated with the Marxist understanding of value, would lead to longterm inequality between those who exploit natural resources sooner and those who exploit them later; between parents and children. This would also be true in a pure capitalist system as both means of conceptualizing the world view the resources of the planet as income and not capital.