Split Thread Is communism a viable alternative economic system these days?

[Pardalis]

Communist Albania.



What idiot wants to live like that?

Communists?

 

[Virus]

Capitalism can't be that bad if even the Communists don't want to leave.

 

[JihadJane]

This is delusional.

This is an empty assertion.

India before the 1990s pursued Gandhian economics.

I was talking about what happened after the 90s, not before.

 

[Virus]

I was talking about what happened after the 90s, not before.

This?

http://www.google.com.au/publicdata...p_cd&idim=country:IND&dl=en&hl=en&q=india+gdp

 

[WildCat]

by american standards, all of europe is socialist.

No.

But thanks for admitting you're just making stuff up again. Either that or "socialism" is something you know absolutely nothing about and you're just spouting nonsense based on ignorance.

 

[El Greco]

If something keeps going wrong it's likely their is an error in the instruction manual?

There are genuine alternative in the UK it's just nobody votes for them.

In most countries actually. This is exactly what I call "the illusion of free choice". Theoretically you do have the choice, only that those "genuine alternatives" are not exposed enough by the media, are ridiculed by the most powerful parties which subtly spread the idea that if they ever come to power then anarchy and chaos will ensue, and so on.

Then there is also the inherent vulnerability of humans to corruption, meaning that in the rare cases that such an alternative enters the parliament or gains a significant percentage in elections, there will appear the Sirens of power and money who will try to assimilate them into the system. So you often see eg former Greenpeace activists who become extremely conservative politicians or members of small parties who leave them for a most promising position in a big party.

Even if something "revolutionary" happens (like the Communist party winning the elections in Cyprus, for example), then it doesn't matter much. The country needs money and the loans are pledging. The country would have little choice other than continuing to play by the same rules of their predecessors and eventually that "communist" party will be no different from a capitalist one - again, look at Cyprus today.

I don't think that this global crisis can resolve in any way other than a violent one - which is actually how ALL serious social crises resolve eventually, sooner or later.

ETA: The "old" communism will never emerge again because it is a deprecated system. But this won't prevent a "new" communism from emerging. In the "new" communism people will have more apparent freedoms. It won't matter. A few will profiteer and many will be sheep, as always. It doesn't matter how the "new" communism will be like. The "old" communism wasn't "by the book" anyway.

 

[WildCat]

The problem is not communism per se, but the way it has been implemented so far. Meaning that it was like monarchy, with loads of corruption.

There's no other way to implement communism.

 

[A'isha]

But thanks for admitting you're just making stuff up again. Either that or "socialism" is something you know absolutely nothing about and you're just spouting nonsense based on ignorance.

But enough about the GOP.

 

[El Greco]

There's no other way to implement communism.

Yes there is: As I said before, look at Cyprus today: It is governed by a Communist party. That communist party is a capitalist party actually.

By the way, "capitalism" today is as pure as communism was pure in Soviet Union. Where in the "capitalist manual" is it written that taxpayers should be paying so that banks won't collapse ? Where exactly the capitalist manual refers to an enterprise that can't go broke because the taxpayers will always be saving it ? Actually the very foundation of the "western system" looks totally "communistic" to me.

Stupid people, as always. Everywhere, always.

 

[Pardalis]

There's no other way to implement communism.

Well, except maybe in a very small community of no more than 50 people. Beyond that it falls apart.

 

[WildCat]

Yes there is: As I said before, look at Cyprus today: It is governed by a Communist party. That communist party is a capitalist party actually.

But communism is not merely having commuists in power, it is an economic system. And you admit that Cyprus is not communist in that regard.

By the way, "capitalism" today is as pure as communism was pure in Soviet Union. Where in the "capitalist manual" is it written that taxpayers should be paying so that banks won't collapse ? Where exactly the capitalist manual refers to an enterprise that can't go broke because the taxpayers will always be saving it ? Actually the very foundation of the "western system" looks totally "communistic" to me.

Stupid people, as always. Everywhere, always.

Nothing about capitalism precludes politicians doing stupid things. But at least those stupid things can be corrected.

Communism, however, requires a totalitarian approach or it is impossible to implement. It's a social system as well as an economic one.

 

[El Greco]

But communism is not merely having commuists in power, it is an economic system. And you admit that Cyprus is not communist in that regard.

As I said, communism will reform. Not only communists need it to reform, capitalists need it even more. They need an enemy to point at. The "new communism" will have more freedoms because now the political viewpoints of people have evolved. But those who have the power have also evolved, like predators who follow the evolution of their prey.

Saying that communism was this and that has no meaning. Because the communism today will be completely different from what it was 50 years ago. If you talk about communism in the old Soviet Union you may as well talk about Tyranny in ancient Corinth. It doesn't even matter if it will be called Communism; if it does it will be because some people in some countries still believe in it, and so some leaders will try to capitalize on the brand name.

So yes, it may look like capitalism and called communism. As I said, what weestern countries have today is not capitalism either, but nobody cares.

 

[Virus]

As I said, communism will reform.

It's dead. It's deader than the dodo.

 

[WildCat]

As I said, communism will reform.

What sort of reforms did you have in mind?

Not only communists need it to reform, capitalists need it even more. They need an enemy to point at.

This makes no sense at all.

The "new communism" will have more freedoms because now the political viewpoints of people have evolved. But those who have the power have also evolved, like predators who follow the evolution of their prey.

Explain how you can have a communist society with individual freedoms.

Saying that communism was this and that has no meaning. Because the communism today will be completely different from what it was 50 years ago. If you talk about communism in the old Soviet Union you may as well talk about Tyranny in ancient Corinth. It doesn't even matter if it will be called Communism; if it does it will be because some people in some countries still believe in it, and so some leaders will try to capitalize on the brand name.

We know what communism is, we've known it ever since Marx and Engels published their manifesto. And so long as human beings continue to be human beings the only way to achieve communism is a Soviet-style autocracy. Because the hive doesn't function unless the drones do the bidding of the queen.

So yes, it may look like capitalism and called communism.

So it won't really be communism?

As I said, what weestern countries have today is not capitalism either, but nobody cares.

Of course it is capitalism, what makes you think differently?

 

[El Greco]

So it won't really be communism?

No, exactly like capitalism is not capitalism today.

Of course it is capitalism, what makes you think differently?

I explained it before: Banks are being saved by the people. A private enterprise operates with taxpayers' money. Banks are the foundation of the economy today, and they are a business that can't fail. Is this communistic in essence, yes or no ? Oh wait, there is a difference: At least in the old communist countries they would had probably executed someone who failed so spectacularly in a business which was operating with taxpayers' money. In today's "capitalistic" environment they will probably send him to Bahamas with a fat pension and a huge bonus. How "capitalistic" is it for huge failures to be rewarded like this ?

BTW, what are you doing? Are you following the old CFLarsen system of debate ?

 

[WildCat]

No, exactly like capitalism is not capitalism today.

Of course capitalism is still capitalism. What makes you think otherwise?

I explained it before: Banks are being saved by the people. A private enterprise operates with taxpayers' money. Banks are the foundation of the economy today, and they are a business that can't fail.

And yet hundreds of banks have failed in the last few years. Would youl ike to try again?

Is this communistic in essence, yes or no ?

No, it's not. While all communist policies may be bad, not all bad policies are communist.

Oh wait, there is a difference: At least in the old communist countries they would had probably executed someone who failed so spectacularly in a business which was operating with taxpayers' money.

Evidence? Usually that only happens when someone goes off the reservation, no longer toes the party line. Then they get accused of anti-revolutionary activities or something.

In today's "capitalistic" environment they will probably send him to Bahamas with a fat pension and a huge bonus. How "capitalistic" is it for huge failures to be rewarded like this ?

Bailouts have nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism neither requires or forbids such things, it's not a political system.

BTW, what are you doing? Are you following the old CFLarsen system of debate ?

Only if I see someone with a gun on a plane...

 

[El Greco]

Evidence? Usually that only happens when someone goes off the reservation, no longer toes the party line. Then they get accused of anti-revolutionary activities or something.

Let me understand this: You want evidence that failed bankers receive huge bonuses and fat pensions ? Will this do ? I suspect not, you will keep asking for evidence until the sun evaporates.

Bailouts have nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism neither requires or forbids such things, it's not a political system.

Ok, now this is just wordplay. The current economical system sucks and bailouts are a huge part of it. You may say that capitalism has nothing to do with this, but even if you were right -and you are terribly wrong, of course- the mere fact that capitalism ALLOWS for such a mess tells a lot. The current banking system is based on capitalism.

Banks that "fail" actually are being bought by other banks who then receive bailouts. The taxpayer ends up forking out money for the sum of failures. This is the gist of the matter.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

Communist Albania.



What idiot wants to live like that?

Somebody who's having a bad time living like this? Happy X-mas lol

 

[WildCat]

Let me understand this: You want evidence that failed bankers receive huge bonuses and fat pensions ? Will this do ? I suspect not, you will keep asking for evidence until the sun evaporates.

No, I'm asking you for evidence that under communism executives were executed for poor company performance.

Ok, now this is just wordplay. The current economical system sucks and bailouts are a huge part of it.

I guess it depends on how broadly you define the "economic system". You rail against capitalism, but all your complaints seem to be about the regulatory environment created by politicians.

You may say that capitalism has nothing to do with this, but even if you were right -and you are terribly wrong, of course- the mere fact that capitalism ALLOWS for such a mess tells a lot. The current banking system is based on capitalism.

Again, you seem to be confusing capitalism with a political system. Capitalism doesn't allow for anything, it merely exists within the framework society constructs for it.

Banks that "fail" actually are being bought by other banks who then receive bailouts. The taxpayer ends up forking out money for the sum of failures. This is the gist of the matter.

They're not bought by other banks, the FDIC finds another bank to assume their deposits and usually buy their assets, but the bank itself is not bought. The bank is history, and the FDIC is on the hook for any losses incurred. Those losses would be far greater if they didn't find other banks to buy assets of the one that failed.

 

[Humes fork]

This is an empty assertion.

No. There is a reason anti-capitalists ideologies went out of business. And they are extremely unpopular with voters, which is why you don't find anti-capitalists getting elected in democracies.

Whenever capitalist economies run into a bump, anti-capitalists cheerfully declares its end. But the utter failure of the alternatives are completely ignored. The bar of failure for capitalism is set very low, the bar of failure for the alternative is set infinitly high.

I was talking about what happened after the 90s, not before.

India has gotten a lot more prosperous since. Yes, there has been more inequality, but the country as a whole has become better. Gandhian economics was a disaster, and Gandhi in general is overrated.

I'd rather prefer a prosperous country with inequality than an equal but poor country. And I think most people do so.