This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Communism - can it work? A mature discussion on improving the welfare of all.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
oneforthemoney
I was under the impression capitalism was started by the Arabs centuries ago. It started with the industrial revolution? That's surprising.
Our modern day conception of capitalism, yes. It used to be nearly all profits were tied to the land, and therefore the people who owned the land owned it. That's how you had nobility and why empires were always swallowing more territory. More useful land, more things you can do with it, more profit. And it all needed to be within easy reach. Your feudal lord wasn't just a ruler. He was also a manager. Modern capitalism is light years from medieval, because everything the average person bought was produced within a few miles reach, aside from the odd trader wandering through.
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
But that isn't capitalism. Money existed, but our modern day capitalism isn't anywhere close to ancient "capitalism." Hell, we went through a pretty big period of mercantilism, which is pretty much the opposite of the capitalism which followed, which is pretty different from our version of capitalism.
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
oneforthemoney
Well, for one, corporations. It used to be that the only businesses were in the hands of a collection of a few people rather than the massive network of shares now. There's a reason they call them faceless corporations. Traders lived on the periphery, only maybe rising to middle class, and were generally family run. No mass butcher chains or things like that because, for one, poor communication around, and two, there wasn't the technology base to have factories. It was all cottage industry, because there wasn't a choice. Guilds were basically skilled tradesmen banding together to make general decisions and policies, but not as a single company. There wasn't branding, per se. There was Jim, the guy who slaughtered cows and who you bought beef from, but he slaughtered them right there because there was no refrigeration. You couldn't transport things from a warehouse to the store. You had to drive your cattle to fair and sell them, and these were your cattle, rather than the lord's who owned a certain amount of your land, labour, and, well, you.
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
But corporations have been around for thousands of years
Really, thousands of years? I'd love a source on that.
This ties back into communism nicely. If a corporation provides a lousy service, their value decreases as demand decreases and investors don't invest in them, choosing instead to invest in other corporations. In this way, corporations are a form of meritocracy. They cannot require that you invest. When the state controls all use of force, and provide a lousy service, you cannot opt to invest in another form of government and expect those in power to bow out gracefully.
Except that's also what happens when corporations get a monopoly, which they would do in "pure capitalism." During the industrial revolution and the gilded age, companies had no incentive to provide you with the best product simply because you had nowhere else to go.
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Roman law recognized corporations which is from a Latin word. Google it so I don't have to copy paste.
Why don't you give me your links? You're the one trying to prove something here.
As for pure capitalism, no one is talking about that as a viable alternative to communism. Why must the most perfect imaginable example of communism be compared to the worst imaginable example of capitalism.
Funny, you seemed to be giving the worst imaginable examples of communism earlier.
Besides, you are factually incorrect. Monopolies aren't what happens in the absence of government regulation. In fact, government regulation can create monoploies. See Bell Telephone history, which is a contender for the most terrifying monopoly in modern history, which gained it's monopoly through legislation.
And that's why Teddy Roosevelt encouraged the creation of so many monopolies.
Oh wait, his administration actively interfered in the creation of monopolies and broke several of them up. It's almost as if a government agency was created to stop the creation of monopolies (the FTC), which has actively worked to ensure that several tech giants haven't combined recently. It's also almost like the FCC stopped Time Warner and Comcast from combining to form an internet monopoly.
And it's also almost like many monopolies came to fruition in the Gilded Age, when capitalism was allowed to run around unfettered.
So no, I'm not the factually incorrect one here.
Also the east India company was a monopoly sanctioned by the crown. The largest monopolies in history didn't come into existance despite government, but BECAUSE of it. Such a popular misconception.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mercantilism
In a sense, communism is a corporation, with an absolute monopoly, over the entirety of the economy, and military/police force. One cannot both decry monopolies and rationalize communist values.
One absolutely can. How can putting the means of production in the hands of the workers make a monopoly? By definition, it spreads ownership among multiple people instead of combining it into the hands of one small group of individuals.
Also, to head off any potential discussion on this end: I'm not a communist. Nowhere close. However, this debate has been so dishonest that I felt the need to step in.
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Maurvyn
From investopedia:
DEFINITION of 'Monopoly'
A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.
According to a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm. In such instances where a single firm holds monopoly power, the company will typically be forced to divest its assets. Antimonopoly regulation protects free markets from being dominated by a single entity.
Read more:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp#ixzz3aVEHHNR6
I can see that fox is attempting to argue that in a true communist ideal (i.e. the state of everything being owned by the collective), it equates to a de facto monopoly.
In practice, however, the populous owned means of production is very different from a corporate monopoly on said means. For instance, the results of labor would be shared, rather than concentrated in the hands of a few.
Also, the intent is different, wherein a corporate monopoly has the direct intent of manufacturing as much profit from a market as is feasible without regard for product integrity or production impacts, in order to most benefit those at the top of the ladder; a true communal organization would have the goal to provide as best it can for the people with the resources at hand, in order to ensure that everyone is provided for equally.
IMHO -
In either case, these are straw-men. Whether or not BEIC was mercantilist or capitalist is irrelevant to the discussion here. We do not live in the same world as even our grandparents did; we should not build society based on what our forebears used to do. Attempting to legislate a country with the economic trends from two centuries ago is ludicrous.
True Communism is unfeasible because it cannot exist except in a complete vacuum of other ideals. Everyone has to be working toward the same goals or it breaks down quickly.
We're just the wrong kind of People.
True Capitalism does not work because people, and therefore markets and even corporations rarely behave rationally or logically, or are educated enough to make informed decisions about consumption; I can't argue that market forces should be allowed full reign when there is no evidence that the people behind those market forces even know what they're doing. It is unsustainable in any case, as the inherent goal of Capitalists (Step 3: Profit!) is ultimately defeated by the limits of resources.
There is some data to support that moderate Socialist, Democratic institutions tend to be the most successful for the most people.
An example.
The top 10 countries on the Legatum Index routinely score very highly on most international metrics, and are also highly socialized nations, with higher taxes, but also universal education and heath care, and high levels of personal, economic, and societal freedom.
These same countries tend to have very low GINI scores for income inequality, which is another indicator that the general population tends to be more successful. Perhaps your entrepreneurs and corporate executives make less in these countries, but your average joe does significantly better.
These same ten or twelve countries also tend to score higher on environmental issues, citizen engagement, and "Happiness" metrics.
It is possible that it is entirely coincidental that the same types of systems tend toward similar results, but statistically unlikely.
Post by
1458157
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Crimminy
Labor is an asset. It can be stored. It's value fluctuates based on scarcity relative other commodities. Arbitrarily controlling it's value on the supply side hurts the suppliers of labor, not the owners. They just raise/lower the net price of the good. The raising of the price of the good hurts the consumer, who is usually also the supplier of the labor.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.