Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Communism: Lack of Innovation

TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 11:20:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In our current system of capitalism, new companies with new revolutionary ideas will be started by entrepreneurs that will invest their entire lives to their new venture. They will sink their entire life savings as well as their extended family's. And, then for the next 10-20 years, they will work 120 hours/week to get this new business started. It's the biggest commitment in their lives.

In our current system, it's not easy to figure out what works and what doesn't. What's a good idea and what's bad. Under our current system in which people put their life on the line, only 20% of new ventures are successful. Under communism in which people's life is not on the line, what percentage of new ventures do you think will be successful? I can realistically see the percentage drop to 1% as people whose lives are not in the balance would start making the decisions. This not only would really stifle innovation but also lead to great waste.

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?
Lukas8
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 10:18:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Communism can provide all progress, but to every citizen. Because of the extreme equality its a bit hard to do this if there arent any progressive policies at all. But if there are progressive policies than everybody should/could get the new innovation that the government has to provide. This depends if communism actually owns any progressive policies, it also depends of the government.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 11:01:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Looks like you pulled those numbers out of your rear. First, 80% of businesses fail... Within their first 18 months. Less than 5% actually become worth their investment in the long run.

http://www.forbes.com...

As for the 1% for communism, that is also pulled out your rear. However, I would gladly take the lower chance for success if the cost of failure wasn't longer people's entire lives sunk into it. The reason it would by lower is because with less risk, you take more chances. So you will have more failures, but you will also have more success (in terms of numbers, not odds). If those failures have less impact, that actually sounds pretty good.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:05:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 11:20:58 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
In our current system of capitalism, new companies with new revolutionary ideas will be started by entrepreneurs that will invest their entire lives to their new venture. They will sink their entire life savings as well as their extended family's. And, then for the next 10-20 years, they will work 120 hours/week to get this new business started. It's the biggest commitment in their lives.

In our current system, it's not easy to figure out what works and what doesn't. What's a good idea and what's bad. Under our current system in which people put their life on the line, only 20% of new ventures are successful. Under communism in which people's life is not on the line, what percentage of new ventures do you think will be successful? I can realistically see the percentage drop to 1% as people whose lives are not in the balance would start making the decisions. This not only would really stifle innovation but also lead to great waste.

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?

Do you know what communism is? Here's a hint: It's working for yourself and reaping the direct benefits of your labor.

So, if you invent something new and people like it, like, say, a labor-saving device, then they can copy it. That would allow benefits for all people, wouldn't it? Especially with the public ownership of the means of production.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Lupo
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 10:44:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 3:05:19 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 10/24/2014 11:20:58 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
In our current system of capitalism, new companies with new revolutionary ideas will be started by entrepreneurs that will invest their entire lives to their new venture. They will sink their entire life savings as well as their extended family's. And, then for the next 10-20 years, they will work 120 hours/week to get this new business started. It's the biggest commitment in their lives.

In our current system, it's not easy to figure out what works and what doesn't. What's a good idea and what's bad. Under our current system in which people put their life on the line, only 20% of new ventures are successful. Under communism in which people's life is not on the line, what percentage of new ventures do you think will be successful? I can realistically see the percentage drop to 1% as people whose lives are not in the balance would start making the decisions. This not only would really stifle innovation but also lead to great waste.

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?

Do you know what communism is? Here's a hint: It's working for yourself and reaping the direct benefits of your labor.

So, if you invent something new and people like it, like, say, a labor-saving device, then they can copy it. That would allow benefits for all people, wouldn't it? Especially with the public ownership of the means of production.

Exactly, this means that you will spend hours away from your family and friends, studying and developing an improvement, and in the end the result of your work will be distributed to all (people who even know your name) without any refund to you.

Great, isn't ?
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 2:03:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 10:44:51 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 12/1/2014 3:05:19 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 10/24/2014 11:20:58 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
In our current system of capitalism, new companies with new revolutionary ideas will be started by entrepreneurs that will invest their entire lives to their new venture. They will sink their entire life savings as well as their extended family's. And, then for the next 10-20 years, they will work 120 hours/week to get this new business started. It's the biggest commitment in their lives.

In our current system, it's not easy to figure out what works and what doesn't. What's a good idea and what's bad. Under our current system in which people put their life on the line, only 20% of new ventures are successful. Under communism in which people's life is not on the line, what percentage of new ventures do you think will be successful? I can realistically see the percentage drop to 1% as people whose lives are not in the balance would start making the decisions. This not only would really stifle innovation but also lead to great waste.

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?

Do you know what communism is? Here's a hint: It's working for yourself and reaping the direct benefits of your labor.

So, if you invent something new and people like it, like, say, a labor-saving device, then they can copy it. That would allow benefits for all people, wouldn't it? Especially with the public ownership of the means of production.

Exactly, this means that you will spend hours away from your family and friends, studying and developing an improvement, and in the end the result of your work will be distributed to all (people who even know your name) without any refund to you.

Great, isn't ?

Not great from a capitalist standpoint. Innovations, in my mind, ought to be considered a social service, a contribution to the community, not another thing to sell (and another excuse to exploit workers). If innovators truly were concerned with the good of people, why do you think they would make people pay for their product? Clearly their priorities are to make money. I judge people by their priorities first.

Which is not to say that you yourself wouldn't benefit from the innovations you made. Moreover, since the means of production would be collectively owned, you would have access to any innovations made in production, just like everyone else. Your job would become easier.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Lupo
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 4:44:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 2:03:44 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:44:51 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 12/1/2014 3:05:19 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 10/24/2014 11:20:58 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
In our current system of capitalism, new companies with new revolutionary ideas will be started by entrepreneurs that will invest their entire lives to their new venture. They will sink their entire life savings as well as their extended family's. And, then for the next 10-20 years, they will work 120 hours/week to get this new business started. It's the biggest commitment in their lives.

In our current system, it's not easy to figure out what works and what doesn't. What's a good idea and what's bad. Under our current system in which people put their life on the line, only 20% of new ventures are successful. Under communism in which people's life is not on the line, what percentage of new ventures do you think will be successful? I can realistically see the percentage drop to 1% as people whose lives are not in the balance would start making the decisions. This not only would really stifle innovation but also lead to great waste.

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?

Do you know what communism is? Here's a hint: It's working for yourself and reaping the direct benefits of your labor.

So, if you invent something new and people like it, like, say, a labor-saving device, then they can copy it. That would allow benefits for all people, wouldn't it? Especially with the public ownership of the means of production.

Exactly, this means that you will spend hours away from your family and friends, studying and developing an improvement, and in the end the result of your work will be distributed to all (people who even know your name) without any refund to you.

Great, isn't ?

Not great from a capitalist standpoint. Innovations, in my mind, ought to be considered a social service, a contribution to the community, not another thing to sell (and another excuse to exploit workers). If innovators truly were concerned with the good of people, why do you think they would make people pay for their product? Clearly their priorities are to make money. I judge people by their priorities first.

If I spend my time and my effort, I think is unfair those who did nothing take advantage from what I did.
My priorities are my family and my friends, if my effort is dissolved for all, I would only make the minimum required and save my energy to my family and personal objectives.

Which is not to say that you yourself wouldn't benefit from the innovations you made. Moreover, since the means of production would be collectively owned, you would have access to any innovations made in production, just like everyone else. Your job would become easier.

So, my work comes out the hand of a businessman explorer, and goes to an exploitative community.
The difference is that at least in capitalism, if I do not like the boss I can search for a better boss in another company.

In short,
"Who is preparing for the winter will not gonna die of cold, if the wood is equally distributed, I'll spend my time with something else than cutting firewood."
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 4:56:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 4:44:52 PM, Lupo wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:03:44 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:44:51 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 12/1/2014 3:05:19 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 10/24/2014 11:20:58 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
In our current system of capitalism, new companies with new revolutionary ideas will be started by entrepreneurs that will invest their entire lives to their new venture. They will sink their entire life savings as well as their extended family's. And, then for the next 10-20 years, they will work 120 hours/week to get this new business started. It's the biggest commitment in their lives.

In our current system, it's not easy to figure out what works and what doesn't. What's a good idea and what's bad. Under our current system in which people put their life on the line, only 20% of new ventures are successful. Under communism in which people's life is not on the line, what percentage of new ventures do you think will be successful? I can realistically see the percentage drop to 1% as people whose lives are not in the balance would start making the decisions. This not only would really stifle innovation but also lead to great waste.

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?

Do you know what communism is? Here's a hint: It's working for yourself and reaping the direct benefits of your labor.

So, if you invent something new and people like it, like, say, a labor-saving device, then they can copy it. That would allow benefits for all people, wouldn't it? Especially with the public ownership of the means of production.

Exactly, this means that you will spend hours away from your family and friends, studying and developing an improvement, and in the end the result of your work will be distributed to all (people who even know your name) without any refund to you.

Great, isn't ?

Not great from a capitalist standpoint. Innovations, in my mind, ought to be considered a social service, a contribution to the community, not another thing to sell (and another excuse to exploit workers). If innovators truly were concerned with the good of people, why do you think they would make people pay for their product? Clearly their priorities are to make money. I judge people by their priorities first.

If I spend my time and my effort, I think is unfair those who did nothing take advantage from what I did.
My priorities are my family and my friends, if my effort is dissolved for all, I would only make the minimum required and save my energy to my family and personal objectives.

Which is not to say that you yourself wouldn't benefit from the innovations you made. Moreover, since the means of production would be collectively owned, you would have access to any innovations made in production, just like everyone else. Your job would become easier.

So, my work comes out the hand of a businessman explorer, and goes to an exploitative community.
The difference is that at least in capitalism, if I do not like the boss I can search for a better boss in another company.

In short,
"Who is preparing for the winter will not gonna die of cold, if the wood is equally distributed, I'll spend my time with something else than cutting firewood."

What "exploitative community"? "The means of production are collectively owned" does not imply anything about exploitation; in fact, making the means of production collectively owned is meant to be the solution to exploitation. Workers can work for themselves with publicly owned means of production because no one person or people own the means; thus, no workers can be exploited. Unless you count working to earn money for yourself not in the form of wages as exploitation...

And if your priority is your family and friends, well, your family and friends will also benefit from any innovations you make.

In capitalism, your choices are either to exploit or be exploited, regardless of which "better boss" you get.

Also, there is actually a limited amount of people who can become "bosses" in capitalism, because capitalism necessitates wage labor, and requires the worker base to be larger than the owner base in order for the owners to make profits. Thus, a limited number of the exploited can rise to the ranks of the exploiters- but not only that- the majority cannot become business-owners. That's something that capitalists routinely overlook.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Lupo
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 5:35:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 4:56:45 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 4:44:52 PM, Lupo wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:03:44 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:44:51 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 12/1/2014 3:05:19 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 10/24/2014 11:20:58 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
In our current system of capitalism, new companies with new revolutionary ideas will be started by entrepreneurs that will invest their entire lives to their new venture. They will sink their entire life savings as well as their extended family's. And, then for the next 10-20 years, they will work 120 hours/week to get this new business started. It's the biggest commitment in their lives.

In our current system, it's not easy to figure out what works and what doesn't. What's a good idea and what's bad. Under our current system in which people put their life on the line, only 20% of new ventures are successful. Under communism in which people's life is not on the line, what percentage of new ventures do you think will be successful? I can realistically see the percentage drop to 1% as people whose lives are not in the balance would start making the decisions. This not only would really stifle innovation but also lead to great waste.

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?

Do you know what communism is? Here's a hint: It's working for yourself and reaping the direct benefits of your labor.

So, if you invent something new and people like it, like, say, a labor-saving device, then they can copy it. That would allow benefits for all people, wouldn't it? Especially with the public ownership of the means of production.

Exactly, this means that you will spend hours away from your family and friends, studying and developing an improvement, and in the end the result of your work will be distributed to all (people who even know your name) without any refund to you.

Great, isn't ?

Not great from a capitalist standpoint. Innovations, in my mind, ought to be considered a social service, a contribution to the community, not another thing to sell (and another excuse to exploit workers). If innovators truly were concerned with the good of people, why do you think they would make people pay for their product? Clearly their priorities are to make money. I judge people by their priorities first.

If I spend my time and my effort, I think is unfair those who did nothing take advantage from what I did.
My priorities are my family and my friends, if my effort is dissolved for all, I would only make the minimum required and save my energy to my family and personal objectives.

Which is not to say that you yourself wouldn't benefit from the innovations you made. Moreover, since the means of production would be collectively owned, you would have access to any innovations made in production, just like everyone else. Your job would become easier.

So, my work comes out the hand of a businessman explorer, and goes to an exploitative community.
The difference is that at least in capitalism, if I do not like the boss I can search for a better boss in another company.

In short,
"Who is preparing for the winter will not gonna die of cold, if the wood is equally distributed, I'll spend my time with something else than cutting firewood."

What "exploitative community"? "The means of production are collectively owned" does not imply anything about exploitation; in fact, making the means of production collectively owned is meant to be the solution to exploitation. Workers can work for themselves with publicly owned means of production because no one person or people own the means; thus, no workers can be exploited. Unless you count working to earn money for yourself not in the form of wages as exploitation...

And if your priority is your family and friends, well, your family and friends will also benefit from any innovations you make.

In capitalism, your choices are either to exploit or be exploited, regardless of which "better boss" you get.

I'm not exploited, i have a contract where I exchange service for money.
When its not worth anymore, I leave or make another contract.

Also, there is actually a limited amount of people who can become "bosses" in capitalism, because capitalism necessitates wage labor, and requires the worker base to be larger than the owner base in order for the owners to make profits. Thus, a limited number of the exploited can rise to the ranks of the exploiters- but not only that- the majority cannot become business-owners. That's something that capitalists routinely overlook.

In capitalism only a few can be bosses, in communism everybody is worker.
You speak as if an employer was a slave master, this does not make any sense at all.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:32:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 3:05:19 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 10/24/2014 11:20:58 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
In our current system of capitalism, new companies with new revolutionary ideas will be started by entrepreneurs that will invest their entire lives to their new venture. They will sink their entire life savings as well as their extended family's. And, then for the next 10-20 years, they will work 120 hours/week to get this new business started. It's the biggest commitment in their lives.

In our current system, it's not easy to figure out what works and what doesn't. What's a good idea and what's bad. Under our current system in which people put their life on the line, only 20% of new ventures are successful. Under communism in which people's life is not on the line, what percentage of new ventures do you think will be successful? I can realistically see the percentage drop to 1% as people whose lives are not in the balance would start making the decisions. This not only would really stifle innovation but also lead to great waste.

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?

Do you know what communism is? Here's a hint: It's working for yourself and reaping the direct benefits of your labor.

Wrong. It's working for the community, and getting back part of what you earn... Which would work great in a small town, but not a large nation. Working for yourself would fit under anarchy, not communism. It fits Capitalism more than Communism though.

So, if you invent something new and people like it, like, say, a labor-saving device, then they can copy it. That would allow benefits for all people, wouldn't it? Especially with the public ownership of the means of production.

Sounds great on paper... Part with little historical evidence that it works like this. While some innovation exists, most communist nations have historically seen stagnating innovation. Why make a new idea? What do you get out of it? Other people's happiness? Not a good profit for most people.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:43:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 11:01:50 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Looks like you pulled those numbers out of your rear. First, 80% of businesses fail... Within their first 18 months. Less than 5% actually become worth their investment in the long run.

That's because of owner stupidity... Not the type of economy. Most business failures are caused by bad planning.

http://www.forbes.com...

As for the 1% for communism, that is also pulled out your rear. However, I would gladly take the lower chance for success if the cost of failure wasn't longer people's entire lives sunk into it. The reason it would by lower is because with less risk, you take more chances. So you will have more failures, but you will also have more success (in terms of numbers, not odds). If those failures have less impact, that actually sounds pretty good.

The first problem here is that "entire lives" is a huge exaggeration. Most, if not another everyone, survives a bad business venture. And in Communism, it may be cheaper at first to start up, but taxes are typically far higher, on the person and the business.

As for your reason for less success, it doesn't work. You're forgetting that failures cost money. At a 99% failure rate, it takes some damn good successes to make up for that. So if I do 100 projects, and 1% works, I've most likely made a massive loss. And you're forgetting ratios. In reality, if the risk is less, than the rate of success should be higher, regardless of how many tries you make. This principle is why we use per capitas and proportions. If you do do twice the number of ventures, your ratio should still be the same. If you double the number of ventures, you double the number of losses, as well of the number of wins, keeping the ration the same. In fact, your rate of success should be increasing with experience.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 11:27:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 11:20:58 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
In our current system of capitalism, new companies with new revolutionary ideas will be started by entrepreneurs that will invest their entire lives to their new venture. They will sink their entire life savings as well as their extended family's. And, then for the next 10-20 years, they will work 120 hours/week to get this new business started. It's the biggest commitment in their lives.

Okay. What's the purpose of this statement? Working hard and taking risks is not moral or immoral behaviour, it does not seem.

In our current system, it's not easy to figure out what works and what doesn't. What's a good idea and what's bad. Under our current system in which people put their life on the line, only 20% of new ventures are successful. Under communism in which people's life is not on the line, what percentage of new ventures do you think will be successful? I can realistically see the percentage drop to 1% as people whose lives are not in the balance would start making the decisions. This not only would really stifle innovation but also lead to great waste.

There is this element of 'survival of the fittest' in capitalism, but I think you will find that what determines the winners and the losers is the degree to which they are profitable, and profit is not identical to the satisfaction of human need. 'The fittest' in capitalism, then, are not the fittest because they satisfy human need, but because they make profit. Where there is a difference between satisfying human need and making profit, the capitalist is incentivised to choose the latter.

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?

If the economy was directed towards human need, and not towards profit, then clearly the 'best new ideas' are the ones which enable us to satisfy the most need with the least amount of work. The incentive for developing new farming techniques is that the farmers will have to work less and fewer people will have to work on the farm, meaning their work can be used in other industries, meaning that even if we do not need more food, more efficient farming leads us to having more of other things, or just more leisure - and isn't the whole point of work to provide for our leisure?

Contrast this to the profit model, and we can see the advantages immediately. Who knows whether an innovation is actually any good? All the system determines is what is profitable. It's a false goal.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 11:55:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 4:44:52 PM, Lupo wrote:
In capitalism only a few can be bosses, in communism everybody is worker.
You speak as if an employer was a slave master, this does not make any sense at all.

He's like a slavemaster who rents his slaves, effectively. There is no democracy in the workplace. The owner and the employer alone has the power to make decisions. The contract of your rented enslavement is that you will do whatever is stipulated, or you will not receive your wage. The capitalist workplace is not one in which equals come together to complete a project, but in which the capitalist uses his capital to make more of it. The argument Abraham Lincoln gave in defence of employment, recognising its inhumanity, is that you might one day become an employer yourself, which is clearly an invalid argument. Just apply it to any other action, e.g. rape, torture, tyranny, whatever.

I'm not exploited, i have a contract where I exchange service for money.

In order to turn a profit, the capitalist must give you less than you make for him. In order to profit from a transaction, one party must be 'exploited'.

"Who is preparing for the winter will not gonna die of cold, if the wood is equally distributed, I'll spend my time with something else than cutting firewood."

Every real life example confutes this completely. Every human being on this planet is capable of understanding that if you do not chop wood, then there is going to be less wood to burn, and that if we are going to say that people are equally entitled to firewood, then it will be expected that people are equally expected to contribute. No family member, friend or stranger is going to observe your laziness and proceed to smile and carry on chopping wood. In other words, the argument you make is quite silly. You notice that we do not approve of the use of force to compel people to work for us, and conclude that this is a 'weakness', because a hypothetical lazy, stupid sociopath is someone we cannot force to work. This, however, is already the case.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:11:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 10:32:18 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Sounds great on paper... Part with little historical evidence that it works like this. While some innovation exists, most communist nations have historically seen stagnating innovation. Why make a new idea? What do you get out of it? Other people's happiness? Not a good profit for most people.

This sounds great on paper, but there is no evidence whatsoever to confirm it. Would you care to give any examples of the 'communist nations' to which you refer? You clearly have no understanding of communism, or, indeed, even of reality. Your innovation means you have to do less work, or that the work of others can be directed towards producing other things so that you can enjoy them. This is direct enjoyment of the consequences of your work. What is laughable is that in the system you laud, capitalism, the innovator is often robbed. His employer pays him a small wage, and proceeds to make millions. Indeed, innovation is greatly hindered in capitalism. One way is in which innovators are made to compete. In medical research, independent teams of researchers will research the same compounds, and independently identify them as useless. They cannot share their research, because this might lead to other company making a profit instead of their own. So they all waste their time carrying out the same research, not knowing that others have already discovered their research to be a dead end. Furthermore, innovation is expensive. It took decades of government-sponsored research for computers and the internet to become profitable enterprises. Private investors would have to be insane to invest their money in that.

And in Communism, it may be cheaper at first to start up, but taxes are typically far higher, on the person and the business.

I have no idea what the f*ck you're talking about here. There is no such thing as 'capital' in communism. There is no state to perform taxation, and no capital to be taxed.
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 4:24:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 11:27:45 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/24/2014 11:20:58 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
In our current system of capitalism, new companies with new revolutionary ideas will be started by entrepreneurs that will invest their entire lives to their new venture. They will sink their entire life savings as well as their extended family's. And, then for the next 10-20 years, they will work 120 hours/week to get this new business started. It's the biggest commitment in their lives.

Okay. What's the purpose of this statement? Working hard and taking risks is not moral or immoral behaviour, it does not seem.

In our current system, it's not easy to figure out what works and what doesn't. What's a good idea and what's bad. Under our current system in which people put their life on the line, only 20% of new ventures are successful. Under communism in which people's life is not on the line, what percentage of new ventures do you think will be successful? I can realistically see the percentage drop to 1% as people whose lives are not in the balance would start making the decisions. This not only would really stifle innovation but also lead to great waste.

There is this element of 'survival of the fittest' in capitalism, but I think you will find that what determines the winners and the losers is the degree to which they are profitable, and profit is not identical to the satisfaction of human need. 'The fittest' in capitalism, then, are not the fittest because they satisfy human need, but because they make profit. Where there is a difference between satisfying human need and making profit, the capitalist is incentivised to choose the latter.

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?

If the economy was directed towards human need, and not towards profit, then clearly the 'best new ideas' are the ones which enable us to satisfy the most need with the least amount of work. The incentive for developing new farming techniques is that the farmers will have to work less and fewer people will have to work on the farm, meaning their work can be used in other industries, meaning that even if we do not need more food, more efficient farming leads us to having more of other things, or just more leisure - and isn't the whole point of work to provide for our leisure?

Contrast this to the profit model, and we can see the advantages immediately. Who knows whether an innovation is actually any good? All the system determines is what is profitable. It's a false goal.

Your post shows a complete lack of understanding how a business/economy operates. You think it's simple to determine what society needs. It's definitely not. For example, how are you going to determine whether we need to make iPads or more cars? Try to answer this simple question.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 5:03:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 4:24:22 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:27:45 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/24/2014 11:20:58 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
In our current system of capitalism, new companies with new revolutionary ideas will be started by entrepreneurs that will invest their entire lives to their new venture. They will sink their entire life savings as well as their extended family's. And, then for the next 10-20 years, they will work 120 hours/week to get this new business started. It's the biggest commitment in their lives.

Okay. What's the purpose of this statement? Working hard and taking risks is not moral or immoral behaviour, it does not seem.

In our current system, it's not easy to figure out what works and what doesn't. What's a good idea and what's bad. Under our current system in which people put their life on the line, only 20% of new ventures are successful. Under communism in which people's life is not on the line, what percentage of new ventures do you think will be successful? I can realistically see the percentage drop to 1% as people whose lives are not in the balance would start making the decisions. This not only would really stifle innovation but also lead to great waste.

There is this element of 'survival of the fittest' in capitalism, but I think you will find that what determines the winners and the losers is the degree to which they are profitable, and profit is not identical to the satisfaction of human need. 'The fittest' in capitalism, then, are not the fittest because they satisfy human need, but because they make profit. Where there is a difference between satisfying human need and making profit, the capitalist is incentivised to choose the latter.

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?

If the economy was directed towards human need, and not towards profit, then clearly the 'best new ideas' are the ones which enable us to satisfy the most need with the least amount of work. The incentive for developing new farming techniques is that the farmers will have to work less and fewer people will have to work on the farm, meaning their work can be used in other industries, meaning that even if we do not need more food, more efficient farming leads us to having more of other things, or just more leisure - and isn't the whole point of work to provide for our leisure?

Contrast this to the profit model, and we can see the advantages immediately. Who knows whether an innovation is actually any good? All the system determines is what is profitable. It's a false goal.

Your post shows a complete lack of understanding how a business/economy operates. You think it's simple to determine what society needs. It's definitely not. For example, how are you going to determine whether we need to make iPads or more cars? Try to answer this simple question.

Lmfao. It's a ridiculously easy question to answer. It's called science. Instead of trying to get the virtues of the benevolent capitalist system to produce and distribute goods intelligently, which as can be seen by its inability to replace fossil fuels with green energy and the fact that half the world is starving, it cannot do, we'd look at actual statistics. We'd gather data. We'd communicate. We'd organise. That right there is a scientific, democratic process, not the dogmatic religious process wherein you pray to the gods of the free market so that they may influence people to end poverty and stop destroying the planet. I mean really, the fact is that these things are actually wrong, and it isn't a completely legitimate choice to continue perpetuating them.
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 4:52:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 5:03:40 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 4:24:22 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:27:45 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/24/2014 11:20:58 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
In our current system of capitalism, new companies with new revolutionary ideas will be started by entrepreneurs that will invest their entire lives to their new venture. They will sink their entire life savings as well as their extended family's. And, then for the next 10-20 years, they will work 120 hours/week to get this new business started. It's the biggest commitment in their lives.

Okay. What's the purpose of this statement? Working hard and taking risks is not moral or immoral behaviour, it does not seem.

In our current system, it's not easy to figure out what works and what doesn't. What's a good idea and what's bad. Under our current system in which people put their life on the line, only 20% of new ventures are successful. Under communism in which people's life is not on the line, what percentage of new ventures do you think will be successful? I can realistically see the percentage drop to 1% as people whose lives are not in the balance would start making the decisions. This not only would really stifle innovation but also lead to great waste.

There is this element of 'survival of the fittest' in capitalism, but I think you will find that what determines the winners and the losers is the degree to which they are profitable, and profit is not identical to the satisfaction of human need. 'The fittest' in capitalism, then, are not the fittest because they satisfy human need, but because they make profit. Where there is a difference between satisfying human need and making profit, the capitalist is incentivised to choose the latter.

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?

If the economy was directed towards human need, and not towards profit, then clearly the 'best new ideas' are the ones which enable us to satisfy the most need with the least amount of work. The incentive for developing new farming techniques is that the farmers will have to work less and fewer people will have to work on the farm, meaning their work can be used in other industries, meaning that even if we do not need more food, more efficient farming leads us to having more of other things, or just more leisure - and isn't the whole point of work to provide for our leisure?

Contrast this to the profit model, and we can see the advantages immediately. Who knows whether an innovation is actually any good? All the system determines is what is profitable. It's a false goal.

Your post shows a complete lack of understanding how a business/economy operates. You think it's simple to determine what society needs. It's definitely not. For example, how are you going to determine whether we need to make iPads or more cars? Try to answer this simple question.

Lmfao. It's a ridiculously easy question to answer. It's called science. Instead of trying to get the virtues of the benevolent capitalist system to produce and distribute goods intelligently, which as can be seen by its inability to replace fossil fuels with green energy and the fact that half the world is starving, it cannot do, we'd look at actual statistics. We'd gather data. We'd communicate. We'd organise. That right there is a scientific, democratic process, not the dogmatic religious process wherein you pray to the gods of the free market so that they may influence people to end poverty and stop destroying the planet. I mean really, the fact is that these things are actually wrong, and it isn't a completely legitimate choice to continue perpetuating them.

It's actually a very difficult problem to solve without a money system and a framework of supply and demand.

The problem starts out like this. Whether the economic system is communism or capitalism, there are a finite amount of resources within a society. So, under communism, would you build 5 million ipads and 3 million cars vs 15 million ipads and 2.5 million cars? How would you determine the specific ratio?

In your previous post, you answered you would rely on statistics. Tell me exactly how you are going to apply statistics to this problem. Give me the exact statistics that you would use and how you would apply them. You'll see that it's not so easy...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:29:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 4:52:49 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:03:40 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 4:24:22 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:27:45 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/24/2014 11:20:58 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
In our current system of capitalism, new companies with new revolutionary ideas will be started by entrepreneurs that will invest their entire lives to their new venture. They will sink their entire life savings as well as their extended family's. And, then for the next 10-20 years, they will work 120 hours/week to get this new business started. It's the biggest commitment in their lives.

Okay. What's the purpose of this statement? Working hard and taking risks is not moral or immoral behaviour, it does not seem.

In our current system, it's not easy to figure out what works and what doesn't. What's a good idea and what's bad. Under our current system in which people put their life on the line, only 20% of new ventures are successful. Under communism in which people's life is not on the line, what percentage of new ventures do you think will be successful? I can realistically see the percentage drop to 1% as people whose lives are not in the balance would start making the decisions. This not only would really stifle innovation but also lead to great waste.

There is this element of 'survival of the fittest' in capitalism, but I think you will find that what determines the winners and the losers is the degree to which they are profitable, and profit is not identical to the satisfaction of human need. 'The fittest' in capitalism, then, are not the fittest because they satisfy human need, but because they make profit. Where there is a difference between satisfying human need and making profit, the capitalist is incentivised to choose the latter.

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?

If the economy was directed towards human need, and not towards profit, then clearly the 'best new ideas' are the ones which enable us to satisfy the most need with the least amount of work. The incentive for developing new farming techniques is that the farmers will have to work less and fewer people will have to work on the farm, meaning their work can be used in other industries, meaning that even if we do not need more food, more efficient farming leads us to having more of other things, or just more leisure - and isn't the whole point of work to provide for our leisure?

Contrast this to the profit model, and we can see the advantages immediately. Who knows whether an innovation is actually any good? All the system determines is what is profitable. It's a false goal.

Your post shows a complete lack of understanding how a business/economy operates. You think it's simple to determine what society needs. It's definitely not. For example, how are you going to determine whether we need to make iPads or more cars? Try to answer this simple question.

Lmfao. It's a ridiculously easy question to answer. It's called science. Instead of trying to get the virtues of the benevolent capitalist system to produce and distribute goods intelligently, which as can be seen by its inability to replace fossil fuels with green energy and the fact that half the world is starving, it cannot do, we'd look at actual statistics. We'd gather data. We'd communicate. We'd organise. That right there is a scientific, democratic process, not the dogmatic religious process wherein you pray to the gods of the free market so that they may influence people to end poverty and stop destroying the planet. I mean really, the fact is that these things are actually wrong, and it isn't a completely legitimate choice to continue perpetuating them.

It's actually a very difficult problem to solve without a money system and a framework of supply and demand.

The problem starts out like this. Whether the economic system is communism or capitalism, there are a finite amount of resources within a society. So, under communism, would you build 5 million ipads and 3 million cars vs 15 million ipads and 2.5 million cars? How would you determine the specific ratio?

In your previous post, you answered you would rely on statistics. Tell me exactly how you are going to apply statistics to this problem. Give me the exact statistics that you would use and how you would apply them. You'll see that it's not so easy...

Well, as I pointed out previously, 'the market' doesn't even solve the problem. But to move on to your question...

Firstly, it's detached from reality. The materials for building cars and iPads are not 'scarce' at all. You imply a bizarre format wherein we can only make decisions about how we process raw materials, and we cannot make decisions to increase or decrease our production of raw materials. In reality, there isn't a finite amount of resources, there's a finite amount of labour - and if there is actually a resource that is going to 'run out', then we should replace it with something sustainable. Understanding that what we produce is not dependent on 'finite resources' but on 'finite labour', it should be quite clear how the whole 'iPads or cars?' problem is solved. We can take all kinds of statistics. Average consumption / ownership in similar areas, polls, direct information from community members. It's a science, and I think quite an easy one, to determine what needs to be produced to do a pretty good job of satisfying people's wants. And anyway, we don't even need to be that good to be better than what we live under at the moment.
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 9:52:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, as I pointed out previously, 'the market' doesn't even solve the problem. But to move on to your question...

Firstly, it's detached from reality. The materials for building cars and iPads are not 'scarce' at all. You imply a bizarre format wherein we can only make decisions about how we process raw materials, and we cannot make decisions to increase or decrease our production of raw materials. In reality, there isn't a finite amount of resources, there's a finite amount of labour - and if there is actually a resource that is going to 'run out', then we should replace it with something sustainable. Understanding that what we produce is not dependent on 'finite resources' but on 'finite labour', it should be quite clear how the whole 'iPads or cars?' problem is solved. We can take all kinds of statistics. Average consumption / ownership in similar areas, polls, direct information from community members. It's a science, and I think quite an easy one, to determine what needs to be produced to do a pretty good job of satisfying people's wants. And anyway, we don't even need to be that good to be better than what we live under at the moment.

First, I think you have an incomplete and incorrect assessment of how the economy operates. For example, you think it's bizarre that I suggest that there is finite amount of raw materials and we can simply increase or decrease that amount. You also say that in reality there is no finite resources but there is finite amount of labor. You don't seem to understand the definition of resources. Economists define and breadk down resources into 3 parts: labor, capital, and land. And, actually contrary to your opinion, although labor is finite but as you can see in our employment rate, we have more than enough people but not enough jobs. I guess my point is you have an incomplete understanding of the economy.

That is why when I ask you to give me specifics, you're still responding with generalities and you don't realize it. Give me the specific statistics that you would use. Explain to me the exact process.

Say that this year, you made 2 MM ipads and 3 MM cars. Next year, you expect to have additional resources to make X amount more ipads or cars. What question would you ask of your comrades? Not everyone has an ipad yet and not everyone has a car yet. Do you just forget making ipads because cars are more practical? How do you make this judgment call?

Let me give you a real world example. In China, at the advent of communism, the party eliminated all the tea plantations and converted them into rice fields. How can the party say that tea is better than rice? If people would have tea rather than the rice, who is the party to say that's wrong? And, how are you to assess how much more people wanted tea rather than rice? (Do you keep 2 plantations or 3?) And, wouldn't the tea have been better to export and exchange with rice?

As you can see, a capitalist system resolves these questions with how much people are willing to pay for these items. But, with communism, it's based upon party leaders' conjecture rather than actual belief.

You say it's easy but history has shown it's not. And, given your lack of experience in this field, it's understandable that you would easily dismiss my objection. So, I'll ask you again: Give me the specific process on how you would allocate resources.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 10:20:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2014 11:20:58 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
In our current system of capitalism, new companies with new revolutionary ideas will be started by entrepreneurs that will invest their entire lives to their new venture. They will sink their entire life savings as well as their extended family's. And, then for the next 10-20 years, they will work 120 hours/week to get this new business started. It's the biggest commitment in their lives.

In our current system, it's not easy to figure out what works and what doesn't. What's a good idea and what's bad. Under our current system in which people put their life on the line, only 20% of new ventures are successful. Under communism in which people's life is not on the line, what percentage of new ventures do you think will be successful? I can realistically see the percentage drop to 1% as people whose lives are not in the balance would start making the decisions. This not only would really stifle innovation but also lead to great waste.

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?

I don't think so. The reason why capitalism promotes technological innovation is because it is profit driven, developing better technology is a way to earn greater profits. In a communist society where the economy was rearranged and redefined as means to maintain material equality between citizens and where the economy was driven to ensure subsistence, I do not think there would be much innovation.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 10:48:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 9:52:50 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
As you can see, a capitalist system resolves these questions with how much people are willing to pay for these items

Which has been shown to be a complete failure.

with communism, it's based upon party leaders' conjecture rather than actual belief.

Firstly, I have no idea how 'conjecture' is not an 'actual belief'. Secondly, despite telling you this probably ten or fifteen times, there is no such thing as a 'party leader' controlling the economy in communism.

That is why when I ask you to give me specifics, you're still responding with generalities and you don't realize it

Yeah, that's because I'm talking about how a system functions. I don't see the problem. I have no interest in personally carrying out research to determine how much milk a certain community needs, or how many computers, or how many cars. If you can't criticise my general statements, then your ability to criticise a specific example I give is just a demonstration of my personal ignorance. What I am trying to show is that this is generally what would happen, and it is up to people who actually research the science, the 'economics', to find the specific answers. To defend the scientific method, I don't need to be able to explain black holes, gravity, or anything else.

Say that this year, you made 2 MM ipads and 3 MM cars. Next year, you expect to have additional resources to make X amount more ipads or cars. What question would you ask of your comrades? Not everyone has an ipad yet and not everyone has a car yet. Do you just forget making ipads because cars are more practical? How do you make this judgment call?

You see, in light of what I said previously, this is essentially the equivalent of saying 'The scientific method is correct is it? Well, please explain to me the specifics of why the red shield beetle is more similar to a turnip than a cabbage', or 'You defend the principles of mathematics, so please provide a proof for Fermat's last theorem'. What I think should be done in the above situation is look at the science, and engage in some actual democracy. Find all the facts, and then make a decision together. Maybe we are in a dire need of cars. Maybe everyone who wants a car, already has one. Maybe people don't want iPads. The question you're asking me is simply bullsh*t, because you don't provide any of the necessary details, and it's also irrelevant to the issue at hand.

In China, at the advent of communism, the party eliminated all the tea plantations and converted them into rice fields. How can the party say that tea is better than rice? If people would have tea rather than the rice, who is the party to say that's wrong? And, how are you to assess how much more people wanted tea rather than rice?

China was not and is not communist by any definition. There is no authority in communism - that's the point. People should not starve because we are growing tea instead of rice. If people aren't starving, then great, let's grow some tea, if we want.

Also, again, you are detached from reality. You imply that communism means that everyone spends their time producing the bare necessities of life, when we clearly have the productive power to do far more than that. I'll also remind you again that your wonderful market has seen fit to aggregate the wealth of society into the hands of a few while the rest live in poverty and search for food in the rubbish.

I think you have an incomplete and incorrect assessment of how the economy operates. For example, you think it's bizarre that I suggest that there is finite amount of raw materials and we can simply increase or decrease that amount

That's because it is bizarre. We have a certain quantity of such a material, because we dedicate a certain quantity of labour to its production. As far as I am aware there is no material which we could not produce more of with more labour, the exceptions to that being air, water and land, I guess. But we're hardly running out of those. Although climate change could change that. What I was trying to draw attention to is that if we discover that we can only produce X amount of cars with the resources we have, then if we really wanted we could dedicate more labour to producing more of those resources. I was not making a statement about how there is an infinite amount of iron on the Earth.

contrary to your opinion, although labor is finite but as you can see in our employment rate, we have more than enough people but not enough jobs. I guess my point is you have an incomplete understanding of the economy.

I suggest that you have an incomplete understanding of reality. 'Not enough jobs' in capitalism means that people are not hiring workers. 'Not enough jobs' in reality means that, somehow, every project we want completed is already being worked on by enough people. 'Unemployment' is a statement about how capital is being moved around, not 'there are no jobs to do'. You would expect that any sensible economic system would be able to take people capable of working and find them something to do, unless we have actually managed to do everything already (which we clearly have not).

What I'm really trying to draw your attention to, then, is that the capitalist economy is artificial and divorced from the reality of what an economy surely is - which is people cooperating to produce what they want. We are perfectly capable of creating a science of economy instead of trusting in the profit incentive to actually provide for people.
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 10:49:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

Can communists provide in details a system of determining the best new ideas to start and how to execute on it?

I don't think so. The reason why capitalism promotes technological innovation is because it is profit driven, developing better technology is a way to earn greater profits. In a communist society where the economy was rearranged and redefined as means to maintain material equality between citizens and where the economy was driven to ensure subsistence, I do not think there would be much innovation.

You've got a good point. Under communism, the overriding goal is that everyone has enough. There isn't any excess. So, how can innovation thrive under such mentality?

But I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure because I have to admit that I don't have enough knowledge. And, I can immediately think of 2 examples that suggest we can be wrong.

1. University research. Professors and researchers are good at innovating and the profits for these innovations do not go to them but to the university.

2. USSR Military. Despite communism, the USSR military was one of the most advanced in the world. However, this might be a bad example because USSR progressed military at the detriment to their entire economy. Additionally, there is a theory that the US was the source of USSR military advancement through sale of non-military machinery throughout the decades.
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 11:01:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 10:48:45 AM, Wocambs wrote:


What I'm really trying to draw your attention to, then, is that the capitalist economy is artificial and divorced from the reality of what an economy surely is - which is people cooperating to produce what they want. We are perfectly capable of creating a science of economy instead of trusting in the profit incentive to actually provide for people.

Let me ask you some questions.

Why did communist countries like Cuba, China, East Germany and Vietnam fail economically? Give specific reasons.

Have you ever run a business and managed people before to produce goods/services?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 11:42:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 11:01:59 AM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:48:45 AM, Wocambs wrote:


What I'm really trying to draw your attention to, then, is that the capitalist economy is artificial and divorced from the reality of what an economy surely is - which is people cooperating to produce what they want. We are perfectly capable of creating a science of economy instead of trusting in the profit incentive to actually provide for people.

Let me ask you some questions.

Why did communist countries like Cuba, China, East Germany and Vietnam fail economically? Give specific reasons.

Have you ever run a business and managed people before to produce goods/services?

According to the US National Security Council, the economy of these 'communist states' has the "proven ability to carry backward countries speedily through the crisis of modernization and industrialization".

But anyway, I don't need to defend them, because I don't advocate them. One of the chief flaws they had, I believe, was corruption. The economy was subordinated to politics, so they gave false reports about productivity, promoted idiots, allowed stupid economic plans thought up by their dictator to be enacted without substantial criticism, trusted small numbers of bureaucrats to make large numbers of complex decisions etc. I mean, those countries are examples of what is properly called 'state capitalism', i.e. undemocratic leaders replaced private owners as the absolute controllers of industry. Furthermore, we might also attribute some degree of their failure to the fact that the most powerful nation to have ever existed, that glorious U.S. of A., did its best to wipe them off the face of the Earth.

To reform the USSR, let's say, I think what would be most important is eliminating the power structures. Let those who are knowledgeable about the industries take charge in the discussion, and the 'new economists', the scientific economists, take charge in the discussion of how the industries should work together. I would restore the power to the people, which is what communism actually involves.

I have never run a business, but I have certainly cooperated with people to complete projects, i.e. accomplish some real work, not that of 'making profit'. What's your point? Do you think that if I was Bill Gates that my arguments would be any more or less true?
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 12:18:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 11:42:52 AM, Wocambs wrote:

Let me ask you some questions.

Why did communist countries like Cuba, China, East Germany and Vietnam fail economically? Give specific reasons.

Have you ever run a business and managed people before to produce goods/services?

According to the US National Security Council, the economy of these 'communist states' has the "proven ability to carry backward countries speedily through the crisis of modernization and industrialization".

But anyway, I don't need to defend them, because I don't advocate them. One of the chief flaws they had, I believe, was corruption. The economy was subordinated to politics, so they gave false reports about productivity, promoted idiots, allowed stupid economic plans thought up by their dictator to be enacted without substantial criticism, trusted small numbers of bureaucrats to make large numbers of complex decisions etc. I mean, those countries are examples of what is properly called 'state capitalism', i.e. undemocratic leaders replaced private owners as the absolute controllers of industry. Furthermore, we might also attribute some degree of their failure to the fact that the most powerful nation to have ever existed, that glorious U.S. of A., did its best to wipe them off the face of the Earth.

To reform the USSR, let's say, I think what would be most important is eliminating the power structures. Let those who are knowledgeable about the industries take charge in the discussion, and the 'new economists', the scientific economists, take charge in the discussion of how the industries should work together. I would restore the power to the people, which is what communism actually involves.

I have never run a business, but I have certainly cooperated with people to complete projects, i.e. accomplish some real work, not that of 'making profit'. What's your point? Do you think that if I was Bill Gates that my arguments would be any more or less true?

You state one of the chief flaws was corruption. Can you cite your authority on this point? I agree with you that corruption was a factor but I disagree with you that this was one of the chief causes. It's hard to believe that with all these communist countries (more than 40+), corruption was the chief reason these economies couldn't produce enough food to feed their own people. Give me your source for your claim or provide some hard evidence.

You also state that your solution is to take power away from central authority and give it to the people who are knowledgeable or these new scientific economists. Wouldn't this lead to the same problem? Power would be concentrated to an elite few.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 12:41:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 12:18:42 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:42:52 AM, Wocambs wrote:

Let me ask you some questions.

Why did communist countries like Cuba, China, East Germany and Vietnam fail economically? Give specific reasons.

Have you ever run a business and managed people before to produce goods/services?

According to the US National Security Council, the economy of these 'communist states' has the "proven ability to carry backward countries speedily through the crisis of modernization and industrialization".

But anyway, I don't need to defend them, because I don't advocate them. One of the chief flaws they had, I believe, was corruption. The economy was subordinated to politics, so they gave false reports about productivity, promoted idiots, allowed stupid economic plans thought up by their dictator to be enacted without substantial criticism, trusted small numbers of bureaucrats to make large numbers of complex decisions etc. I mean, those countries are examples of what is properly called 'state capitalism', i.e. undemocratic leaders replaced private owners as the absolute controllers of industry. Furthermore, we might also attribute some degree of their failure to the fact that the most powerful nation to have ever existed, that glorious U.S. of A., did its best to wipe them off the face of the Earth.

To reform the USSR, let's say, I think what would be most important is eliminating the power structures. Let those who are knowledgeable about the industries take charge in the discussion, and the 'new economists', the scientific economists, take charge in the discussion of how the industries should work together. I would restore the power to the people, which is what communism actually involves.

I have never run a business, but I have certainly cooperated with people to complete projects, i.e. accomplish some real work, not that of 'making profit'. What's your point? Do you think that if I was Bill Gates that my arguments would be any more or less true?

You state one of the chief flaws was corruption. Can you cite your authority on this point? I agree with you that corruption was a factor but I disagree with you that this was one of the chief causes. It's hard to believe that with all these communist countries (more than 40+), corruption was the chief reason these economies couldn't produce enough food to feed their own people. Give me your source for your claim or provide some hard evidence.

Do you think that their economic problems arise from some divine law which states that when governments run industries, they suck, and when people who aren't in governments run industries, they're awesome? Seriously. I looked into the whole China starvation thing, and 'corruption' seems to have been the problem from the way it was described. The farmers were told to adopt new farming techniques developed by pseudo-scientist propagandists which led to decreases production, local politicians claimed that their farmers were easily meeting the quotas, central government increased the quotas, the farmers couldn't meet the quotas and so were accused of hiding grain for themselves because every politician was nodding his head and saying that the wonderfully unscientific 'communist agricultural science' was working perfectly. Food was then taken from the farmers to meet the quotas, the farmers starved, and that made food production even worse. Sounds quite reasonable, doesn't it? And isn't it reasonable to conclude that the problem lay in politics?

What do you think was the problem, exactly, bearing in mind that many such countries, as the US acknowledged, were at times very economically successful. Furthermore, seeing as a great many third world countries have embraced free market capitalism, how do you come to terms with how appalling the results have been?

You also state that your solution is to take power away from central authority and give it to the people who are knowledgeable or these new scientific economists. Wouldn't this lead to the same problem? Power would be concentrated to an elite few.

No, I didn't say give them power, I said 'let them take charge of the discussion', as in, come together as equals, but respect that others have more knowledge and experience in certain areas.
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 1:23:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 12:41:29 PM, Wocambs wrote:


Do you think that their economic problems arise from some divine law which states that when governments run industries, they suck, and when people who aren't in governments run industries, they're awesome? Seriously. I looked into the whole China starvation thing, and 'corruption' seems to have been the problem from the way it was described. The farmers were told to adopt new farming techniques developed by pseudo-scientist propagandists which led to decreases production, local politicians claimed that their farmers were easily meeting the quotas, central government increased the quotas, the farmers couldn't meet the quotas and so were accused of hiding grain for themselves because every politician was nodding his head and saying that the wonderfully unscientific 'communist agricultural science' was working perfectly. Food was then taken from the farmers to meet the quotas, the farmers starved, and that made food production even worse. Sounds quite reasonable, doesn't it? And isn't it reasonable to conclude that the problem lay in politics?

What do you think was the problem, exactly, bearing in mind that many such countries, as the US acknowledged, were at times very economically successful. Furthermore, seeing as a great many third world countries have embraced free market capitalism, how do you come to terms with how appalling the results have been?

You also state that your solution is to take power away from central authority and give it to the people who are knowledgeable or these new scientific economists. Wouldn't this lead to the same problem? Power would be concentrated to an elite few.

No, I didn't say give them power, I said 'let them take charge of the discussion', as in, come together as equals, but respect that others have more knowledge and experience in certain areas.

Tell me if I am wrong but have you read any well researched studies on this topic? Is it possible that they failed for reasons that economists theorize? Like lack of incentives, lack of free markets, general inefficiency, lack of innovation, etc?

Let's assume that corruption was the cause (as you claim). Well, if corruption was the cause as in China's case, when China introduced free markets within agriculture, why did production immediately increase? According to your logic, production should have stayed the same because corruption still existed even after the introduction of free markets.
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 1:28:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wocambs,

Let me propose another scenario. If you were a scientific economist, how would you determine whether you should build a highway that connects two towns so they can exchange goods or build a dam that will provide energy to nearby residents?

In a communist system, it's situations like these that brought down the system. Can you see why?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 1:50:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 1:23:14 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/5/2014 12:41:29 PM, Wocambs wrote:


Do you think that their economic problems arise from some divine law which states that when governments run industries, they suck, and when people who aren't in governments run industries, they're awesome? Seriously. I looked into the whole China starvation thing, and 'corruption' seems to have been the problem from the way it was described. The farmers were told to adopt new farming techniques developed by pseudo-scientist propagandists which led to decreases production, local politicians claimed that their farmers were easily meeting the quotas, central government increased the quotas, the farmers couldn't meet the quotas and so were accused of hiding grain for themselves because every politician was nodding his head and saying that the wonderfully unscientific 'communist agricultural science' was working perfectly. Food was then taken from the farmers to meet the quotas, the farmers starved, and that made food production even worse. Sounds quite reasonable, doesn't it? And isn't it reasonable to conclude that the problem lay in politics?

What do you think was the problem, exactly, bearing in mind that many such countries, as the US acknowledged, were at times very economically successful. Furthermore, seeing as a great many third world countries have embraced free market capitalism, how do you come to terms with how appalling the results have been?

You also state that your solution is to take power away from central authority and give it to the people who are knowledgeable or these new scientific economists. Wouldn't this lead to the same problem? Power would be concentrated to an elite few.

No, I didn't say give them power, I said 'let them take charge of the discussion', as in, come together as equals, but respect that others have more knowledge and experience in certain areas.

Tell me if I am wrong but have you read any well researched studies on this topic? Is it possible that they failed for reasons that economists theorize? Like lack of incentives, lack of free markets, general inefficiency, lack of innovation, etc?

The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. The Third World.The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. The Third World.The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. Freest markets in the world, baby. 'Lack of incentive' arises primarily in one condition, and that is when someone forces you to do something, but the carrot and the stick are the same regardless of what you actually do. That is to say, the reason you do something is artificial, but the outcome is the same regardless of your performance. If such a system prevailed, then I'm sure that was also a problem. It's pretty f*cking funny you brought up 'innovation' since I just gave an example of how their attempts at innovation were ruined by politics, and by the fact that they were the ones who got into space first, and they were the ones who figured out how to make nuclear missiles first. 'Free market innovation' is for the most part a complete fantasy. Technological advances are paid for by the government.

Let's assume that corruption was the cause (as you claim). Well, if corruption was the cause as in China's case, when China introduced free markets within agriculture, why did production immediately increase? According to your logic, production should have stayed the same because corruption still existed even after the introduction of free markets.

Lol, because politicians have less power over private owners, and you can't bullsh*t about how much you're producing when you have to actually make a profit.

Why is it that I'm the one being patronisingly asked 'Have you ever run a business? Have you ever read a book by a mainstream economist?'?

Have you ever completed a project with someone when the goal was not money and neither of you had power over the other?
Have you ever read a book by someone who doesn't get down on both knees and perform fellatio on the idea of free markets and a small state?
Have you ever looked at the history of the US, which would tell you that lovers of the free market, e.g. Reagan, instituted a massive amount of protectionism? Or the history of Britain, which would tell you that Britain was forced to abandon the free market and institute protectionism because it could not compete with its colonies?
Have you ever considered, as I mentioned about twenty times in this post, the fact that your free market capitalism has done nothing to solve poverty?
Have you ever considered that it's pretty damn stupid to have an argument with someone about communism when you're almost entirely ignorant on the subject and the only principle you understand about communism is that 'free markets don't exist under communism'?
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 3:29:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 1:50:50 PM, Wocambs wrote:

The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. The Third World.The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. The Third World.The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. The Third World. Freest markets in the world, baby. 'Lack of incentive' arises primarily in one condition, and that is when someone forces you to do something, but the carrot and the stick are the same regardless of what you actually do. That is to say, the reason you do something is artificial, but the outcome is the same regardless of your performance. If such a system prevailed, then I'm sure that was also a problem. It's pretty f*cking funny you brought up 'innovation' since I just gave an example of how their attempts at innovation were ruined by politics, and by the fact that they were the ones who got into space first, and they were the ones who figured out how to make nuclear missiles first. 'Free market innovation' is for the most part a complete fantasy. Technological advances are paid for by the government.


First, not sure why you're being so rude. Second, third world countries have done very well in the last 50 years. The ones that did it correctly, flourished due to free markets. Many came out of the depths of poverty and are now flourishing. The ones that didn't were held back by political strife, dictatorships, lack of free markets, etc.

With respect to technological advances, you think that Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Walmart, Home Depot, etc. were paid for by the government??! Did the government create Uber and Go Pro? Did the government create Tesla's electric cars or was it the hard work of Elon Musk?

Let's assume that corruption was the cause (as you claim). Well, if corruption was the cause as in China's case, when China introduced free markets within agriculture, why did production immediately increase? According to your logic, production should have stayed the same because corruption still existed even after the introduction of free markets.

Lol, because politicians have less power over private owners, and you can't bullsh*t about how much you're producing when you have to actually make a profit.


Uh...doesn't that mean free markets is better because you can't bullsh*t around? Isn't that what I've been trying to say all along? But, I think more importantly, under free markets, people are incentivized to actually work!

Why is it that I'm the one being patronisingly asked 'Have you ever run a business? Have you ever read a book by a mainstream economist?'?


And, to answer your question about my experience, I majored in economics, have a masters in finance, run my own business, and manage other people. So, yes, I've read books and articles by mainstream economists. But, judging by your comments, I would have to say you don't know much about communism besides USSR (and even that is spotty) and you don't know much about economics and managing people.

Have you ever completed a project with someone when the goal was not money and neither of you had power over the other?
Have you ever read a book by someone who doesn't get down on both knees and perform fellatio on the idea of free markets and a small state?
Have you ever looked at the history of the US, which would tell you that lovers of the free market, e.g. Reagan, instituted a massive amount of protectionism? Or the history of Britain, which would tell you that Britain was forced to abandon the free market and institute protectionism because it could not compete with its colonies?
Have you ever considered, as I mentioned about twenty times in this post, the fact that your free market capitalism has done nothing to solve poverty?

Uh...the poverty under free markets is better than famine in communist countries. And, even poverty today is better than poverty 50 years ago. You don't see anyone starving.

Have you ever considered that it's pretty damn stupid to have an argument with someone about communism when you're almost entirely ignorant on the subject and the only principle you understand about communism is that 'free markets don't exist under communism'?

I've taken a course on Chinese communism. So, to claim that I am entirely ignorant on the subject is untrue.

Now, I ask again. If you are one of the scientific economists, how are you going to decide between a highway and a dam? I want to illustrate how difficult it is to do this under a communist framework.