Re: Communism & Socialism
Quote:
Look at Israel. Communes (kibutzes) were introduced and they worked for a few years. Gradually, the young were lured away by advertising and promises of wealth until eventually they became unviable (financially) and had to be subsidised by the government. I believe that they failed, not due to reasons inherant in the idea of communism itself, but rather due to the inability to exist side-by-side with capitalism.
First of all, people who live on kibutzes won't let you get away with calling them communes ;)
But the socialist ideas still work, I believe, because the populations are small. Corruption and totalitarianism are kept to a minimum, because everyone knows everyone else.
Quote:
Admittedly, I am refering to companies that, although were privatised, effective competition has failed to materialise and monopolies still remain (e.g. The Railways, Water companies etc.)
I believe that's the result of markets with very high barriers to entry. To setup a water company, you'd need millions of dollars before showing any sign of profit.
Quote:
This has been the prevailing school of thought in Britain (over the last 20 years) but I don't see why this has to be the case. Why can the government not setup targets and reward schemes so that incentives are provided for managers of public utilities? Could efficiency not be encouraged this way?
It can, but that's nothing compared to rising/falling sales. As a businessman, one doesn't feel the spark of success by recieving government handouts.
Communism/Socialism bad. Capitalism good.
Damn it all, capitalism did not cause poverty, it inherited it. If anybody ever compared the robber barons of the industrial revolution to the bas*rds who preceded them, you would think the robber barons were pretty good guys. If you think capitalism is bad, try living under a feudal system, provided you are not lord of the manor.
I have yet to see a decent socialist or communist system which did not inherit the wealth to sustain it from a prior capitalist system.
There never was a true laissez faire capitalist system, although the USA and Western Europe approximated it for a while. There is no modern society which is even close to such a system.
The brief history of capitalism shows huge benefits when compared to what came before it. To me, it looks as though socialist and communist concepts infiltrating under the name of liberalism are dragging the system down.
Filburt1.
Quote:
The concept was good. The implementation proved that it is flawed.
The above is a myth. The USSR is the logical consequence of socialist principles. Communism and socialism require a huge bureaucracy to control industry and the economy. It will not run itself. The larger a bureaucracy, the less efficient it is. It is tuff enough to run a company like General Motors without incurring a lot of unnecessary administrative overhead. When you attempt to run every industry, agricultural enterprise, entertainment, et cetera via a cental control, you must have a mess.
“Each works according to his abilities; Each is rewarded according to his needs.” This is an evil concept. The whining, incompetent are good at expressing their needs. The strong, proud, capable have too much pride to beg.
The system requires that the best and the brightest not be paid what is due to them. From an ethical point of view, willful failure to reward the best and the brightest is evil. From a practical point of view, it is absurd. Who in their right mind would work hard for such a system? Why should anybody put out extra efforts when it does not result in extra benefits? Such a system is inherently inefficient and eventually nonproductive. Such a system cannot be successful on its own, and will eventually fall apart if initiated with the benefits inherited from a more efficient system.
When the bureaucracy makes all major decisions, how do you prevent a bureaucrat from favoring his family, his friends, himself?
You not only need a huge bureaucracy to run such a system, you either need a population of sheep or a police state to keep it stable. It is interesting to note that throughout the history of the USSR, the people tended to refer to them, the government and us. In the USA, many of us complain about the politicians, but do not view the government as them. This is a subtle point. The USSR was never viewed by the rank and file as a legitimate government. Even Nazi Germany was viewed as legitimate by most of its citizens, even those who might have disagreed with some of its policies.
Simomn.
Quote:
Capatilism works by allowing people (if they are succesful) to divert a greater portion of society's wealth in their direction. This wealth has got to come from somewhere and it innevitably means taking wealth from others. In a capitalistic society, inequality is innevitable, indeed, wealth itself is defined by the inequality between those that have and those that don't.
One of the main reasons why communism fails to work is that it exists (in a world) along side capitalism.
The latter is too much of a copout to address.
The former opinion views the world as a feudal agricultural economy. Many simple agricultural economies are Zero Sum Games, like poker without a house take. What one person wins, another loses. The feudal lord takes from the system, but makes no significant contribution to the economy. His gain is the serfs’ loss. The only service he provides is what he calls protection from the neighboring lord, who would treat the serfs no differently.
In a modern economy, the so called robber barons actually create wealth by their organizational skills. The Carnegies, Rockefellers, Fords, Hughes, Gates, et cetera were (are) responsible for all the steel, cars, TV’s, computers, et cetera that we enjoy today. Labor unions and the government have legitimate functions, but they do nothing productive. The former provide bargaining strength and the latter provides a legal structure to protect from criminals and invaders.
It is the entrepreneur and the scientists types who are the driving forces behind our modern civilization. The average person owes almost everything (including the last 20 years of his life) to the entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers, technicians, et cetera who thrived in a capitalist system and created material goods, medical care, pharmaceuticals, et cetera. What did any government ever produce except the stability to allow the system to work?
All the sh*t about evil monopolies and greed driven corporations are myths to keep politicians and labor leaders in cushy jobs. Divide and conquer. The peon and the businessman have more in common with each other than either has with the labor leader and the government. Make the pie bigger and there is more for everybody. Make the government bigger and it costs us all.
In my early years, communism was considered a wonderful idea due to two aspects of that world. First, Russia was our ally. Second, communism & socialism appealed to the most of the academic community of the time. I suspect that the academic is jealous of the wealth of the entrepreneur, feeling that He (the intellectual) is more deserving.
My father was one of the last rugged individualists. Due to his attitude toward life, I hated communism. He never spoke much about politics, but his actions indicated that he walked to the beat of a distant drummer that nobody else heard.- His marriage was a partnership between equals in an era when women were nobody, because he wanted a companion that was interesting, not a servant. My mother was one of the few obviously intelligent women I knew.
- He ran a small business (3 employees) which paid small salaries, but gave bonuses each month based on shipments and amounts billed. He said that it was his job to see that he got paid and made a profit. His employees were responsible for shipping and billing. His employees were better off than others with similar jobs, and worked hard for him because they knew they had a good deal.
- He commented adversely when one of his friends was nasty to a waitress.
- When I made fun of a person who spoke poor English, he pointed out that I only knew one language, while the immigrant spoke at least two. Most of my friends and their parents were intolerant. BTW: His family came to the US in prior to 1700, so his attitude was not due to being a recent immigrant.
- When we traveled, he knew how to say “Do you speak English” in the native tongue, while I saw other tourists rudely speak English, expecting to be understood.
I instinctively knew that he and communism were mortal enemies, even though he never spoke about politics. Therefore, it was my mortal enemy. I suffered for this attitude through four years of high school and four years of college. The experiences taught me that the so called liberals were neither fair nor kind nor tolerant of those who disagreed with them. Only my science and math teachers treated me with any consideration or respect.
To this day, I recognize communism and socialism as evil. Then it was due my instincts relating to my father. After reading Ayn Rand and learning more about how the world operates, I have more logical reasons for hating it. Some of my reasons are related to the attitude of certain liberal teachers who either deliberately lied or were uniformed about history and economics.
