Ask a Communist

[Malifice]

Here we go Malifice

You're the one trying to sell me Communism (shithole tyrannies like North Korea, East Germany, the USSR, China, Cambodia etc) over Liberal States (places with more personal freedoms, a far superior HDI and standard of living, quality of life, life expectancy, GDP, and responsible for 99 percent of all human innovation and inventions of the past 200 years in the UK, France, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, West Germany etc.).

Why on earth would I (or anyone for that matter) want to give up that high HDI, far superior quality of life, innovation, freedoms and respect for human rights to live in a tyrannical shithole, where every aspect of life is controlled by the State, and innovation is stifled and my freedoms severely curtailed?

People were NOT crossing the Berlin wall headed East (and those few that did, regretted it instantly). They were going West. People were not leaping on leaking boats to go to Vietnam or Cuba from the USA or Australia. They were going the other way.

Communism has failed. Repeatedly and consistently, and by any measure you want to apply. In literally every single instance its been imposed, its turned into a unitary party tyrannical shithole, that has stifled innovation, severely curtailed personal freedoms, and stagnated both the economy, growth and peoples quality of life.

There are significant gaps in much of Marx's theories, which any University student (past the 1st year, where everyone's a ****ing Che Guevera beret wearing communist beatnik) understands.

 

[barreness]

You're the one trying to sell me Communism (shithole tyrannies like North Korea, East Germany, the USSR, China, Cambodia etc) over Liberal States (places with more personal freedoms, a far superior HDI and standard of living, quality of life, life expectancy, GDP, and responsible for 99 percent of all human innovation and inventions of the past 200 years in the UK, France, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, West Germany etc.).

through state funding and the age of fossil fuels, putting it down to capitalism is foolish, USSR space race/China has all kinds of tech leaders

Why on earth would I (or anyone for that matter) want to give up that high HDI, far superior quality of life, innovation, freedoms and respect for human rights to live in a tyrannical shithole, where every aspect of life is controlled by the State, and innovation is stifled and my freedoms severely curtailed?

Because it's not sustainable, has to fall eventually, question of how.
Why would Aus, US, etc spend inordinate amounts of ordnances turning those places into shitholes?

People were NOT crossing the Berlin wall headed East (and those few that did, regretted it instantly). They were going West. People were not leaping on leaking boats to go to Vietnam or Cuba from the USA or Australia. They were going the other way.

We've been through this, if they went west they'd still be in communism. Berlin was a weird quirk of history, just accept that the soviets beat hitler ffs

How many Vietnamese migrants do we see on boats in the last 5 decades? not many. Those that fled in the wake of a war we participated in(on the wrong side) were coming for various reasons, probably because which ever side blew up their shit

Communism has failed. Repeatedly and consistently, and by any measure you want to apply. In literally every single instance its been imposed, its turned into a unitary party tyrannical shithole, that has stifled innovation, severely curtailed personal freedoms, and stagnated both the economy, growth and peoples quality of life.

Capitalism has failed, by any measure you want to apply. Rising inequality, slavery, homelessness. We're in a existential crisis that no one can deal with because the profit and growth model can't considered externalities like the bloody biosphere collapsing

No doubt the criticism will be the Soviets cooked the environment too, true. This is why socialism is just the start, need to get deep on ecology as well and how you actually set up a sustainable set up, these discussions are pretty much impossible under capitalism. When a carbon tax, a market mechanism, is howled down by capital you know it's too far gone

 

[Taylor]

Let's not confuse corporate control of government and protection of their interests via the power of the state with capitalism.

The free exchange of goods and services tend to do just fine when the powerful and wealthy don't get to corrupt the machinery of the state.

Just consider every regulation sold to you as "for your safety" was probably a hurdle put in place to preserve existing structures against the threat of wider competition.

Responsible liberty is the answer

 

[kickazz]

You're the one trying to sell me Communism (shithole tyrannies like North Korea, East Germany, the USSR, China, Cambodia etc) over Liberal States (places with more personal freedoms, a far superior HDI and standard of living, quality of life, life expectancy, GDP, and responsible for 99 percent of all human innovation and inventions of the past 200 years in the UK, France, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, West Germany etc.).

Why on earth would I (or anyone for that matter) want to give up that high HDI, far superior quality of life, innovation, freedoms and respect for human rights to live in a tyrannical shithole, where every aspect of life is controlled by the State, and innovation is stifled and my freedoms severely curtailed?

People were NOT crossing the Berlin wall headed East (and those few that did, regretted it instantly). They were going West. People were not leaping on leaking boats to go to Vietnam or Cuba from the USA or Australia. They were going the other way.

Communism has failed. Repeatedly and consistently, and by any measure you want to apply. In literally every single instance its been imposed, its turned into a unitary party tyrannical shithole, that has stifled innovation, severely curtailed personal freedoms, and stagnated both the economy, growth and peoples quality of life.

There are significant gaps in much of Marx's theories, which any University student (past the 1st year, where everyone's a ******* Che Guevera beret wearing communist beatnik) understands.

One could write volumes discrediting Communism, but I think it all boils down to a core weakness that lies in one of its own tenets:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Intended as a way to generate the most wealth* possible and get it where it is needed, it forms an ostensibly good base for a prosperous society. Unfortunately, Communism itself puts a huge constraint on the first half of that equation - the ability for anyone to produce wealth, by adhering too strictly to the second half of that equation. (And I am talking purely theoretically here, never mind the further problems that arise when a select few decide "who needs what" for everybody)

The problem of course is that by ignoring the power of self interest (Adam Smith's Invisible Hand), the state has to resort to various coercive measures to 'get the most out of' each person (their ability). Without the HOPE that their extra effort will see them rewarded, the innate ability of an individual** to produce wealth declines, or, cannot soar to the levels it otherwise might. This multiplied by everyone ultimately leaves a society with less than it needs (or indeed wants).

And this is precisely what we have seen play out - indeed, there are multitudes of Soviet propaganda posters extolling the virtues of labour and hard work - elephant stamps for the proles instead of actual wealth and living conditions. Some may criticise the capitalist "American Dream" for overselling hope - but it has to be said, hope is a much more powerful force than fear/coercion and the last century has born that out in spades.

​

*wealth meant in the sense of anything of value to people - food, medicine, clothes, good experiences, gadgets etc etc. Not in the modern perhaps indulgent/pejorative 'greedy' sense of the word. Wealth is a good thing.

**The commies had no regard for the individual. If one can deride Thatcher for saying "There's no such thing as Society", then the commies' view would be the opposite, but much worse. Everything was measured, assessed and administered as a sum of its parts, and upholding the State was paramount, even if it meant individuals suffered in the GULAG.

 

[kickazz]

Let's not confuse corporate control of government and protection of their interests via the power of the state with capitalism.

The free exchange of goods and services tend to do just fine when the powerful and wealthy don't get to corrupt the machinery of the state.

Just consider every regulation sold to you as "for your safety" was probably a hurdle put in place to preserve existing structures against the threat of wider competition.

Responsible liberty is the answer

Whilst this sort of thing can and does get out of hand, I still see this regulation as a form of wealth, albeit quite hidden.

I like the idea that in this country, I can walk into a building anywhere and know that it won't collapse on me, like a factory in Bangladesh or something. Pure libertarians would argue that market forces (as opposed to government mandates) could achieve this. That is, certain companies would get reputations for unsafe buildings, which would lead to lesser demand, etc etc. It is an approach that overall may end up being more efficient, but try telling that to the poor souls who suffered from the bad examples before the market 'corrected' them.

(Indeed, the added cognitive load of having to keep on top of which buildings are ok and which are sketchy is an inefficiency of its own we can all do without; the assumption that it is all taken care of is a small piece of wealth we all carry with us every day)

The main problem arises when the regulatory framework becomes corrupted with things like bribery.

 

[Malifice]

through state funding and the age of fossil fuels, putting it down to capitalism is foolish, USSR space race/China has all kinds of tech leaders

Dude, literally 99 percent of all modern innovation comes from liberal capitalist nations.

The TV, Computer, mobile phone, rockets, penicillin, the fridge, the car, the airplane, AI, the internet, the train, railroads, the bicycle, the air conditioner, the toaster and the list goes on and on and on and on.

Name me three modern appliances in common use that have their origins in Communism. Just three.

Why would Aus, US, etc spend inordinate amounts of ordnances turning those places into shitholes?

We didnt. We spend an inordinate amount of money fighting against Communism.

And plenty of US and Australian lives were lost in the fight, in Vietnam and Korea.

It was called the Cold War. Look it up.

How many Vietnamese migrants do we see on boats in the last 5 decades? not many.

That's because Vietnam has embraced liberal market economics in that same time period.

As I posted in the other thread.

Capitalism has failed, by any measure you want to applly.

No, it hasnt.

 

[Taylor]

Whilst this sort of thing can and does get out of hand, I still see this regulation as a form of wealth, albeit quite hidden.

I like the idea that in this country, I can walk into a building anywhere and know that it won't collapse on me, like a factory in Bangladesh or something. Pure libertarians would argue that market forces (as opposed to government mandates) could achieve this. That is, certain companies would get reputations for unsafe buildings, which would lead to lesser demand, etc etc. It is an approach that overall may end up being more efficient, but try telling that to the poor souls who suffered from the bad examples before the market 'corrected' them.

(Indeed, the added cognitive load of having to keep on top of which buildings are ok and which are sketchy is an inefficiency of its own we can all do without; the assumption that it is all taken care of is a small piece of wealth we all carry with us every day)

The main problem arises when the regulatory framework becomes corrupted with things like bribery.

Do you remember those buildings with problems in Sydney a few years ago?

If I told you that engineers were inspecting building sites via photographs, would you think the system is secure?

I see it the same as the law, it doesn't actually protect you at all but it gives clear rules that have been broken in the event of something going wrong. I do appreciate that standards and regulations on materials and design does lend itself towards a higher level of reliability (assuming that they are followed).

That's where the "responsible" part is in the responsible liberty I was talking about.

 

[kickazz]

I see it the same as the law, it doesn't actually protect you at all but it gives clear rules that have been broken in the event of something going wrong.

I think this is a pretty good call. I disagree that it doesn't protect you, I think overall we can have a higher confidence that if the regs were not in place. But otherwise you are right - one cannot rely on the system completely and I know myself, whenever I have a high stakes decision/dealing I take it upon myself to put in the effort to manage the risk better where I can. Things like house purchase, insurance purchase, looking after my health, etc.

 

[Taylor]

I think this is a pretty good call. I disagree that it doesn't protect you, I think overall we can have a higher confidence that if the regs were not in place. But otherwise you are right - one cannot rely on the system completely and I know myself, whenever I have a high stakes decision/dealing I take it upon myself to put in the effort to manage the risk better where I can. Things like house purchase, insurance purchase, looking after my health, etc.

And there are times when you know not to pull out into the road even though that car is indicating because it's better to be safe and wrong than following the rules and cleaned up.

Just to further complicate the example.

Each individual circumstance warrants it's own decisions.

 

[kickazz]

Capitalism has failed, by any measure you want to apply

It, along with organised labour, are probably the two main reasons for the explosion of middle classes over the last couple of centuries. Capitalism lets you own the value of your labour. (To be spent/invested as you please) Communism takes your labour from you.

 

[barreness]

Dude, literally 99 percent of all modern innovation comes from liberal capitalist nations.

In the industrial age ~95% of nation states have been capitalist, I'm suggesting a different system that uses the base of industrial society that capitalism has created.

The TV, Computer, mobile phone, rockets, penicillin, the fridge, the car, the airplane, AI, the internet, the train, railroads, the bicycle, the air conditioner, the toaster and the list goes on and on and on and on.

We've been through this, it's a poor argument. Inventions can't be put down to a person or a economic system, it's state funding of scientists that provide the basis and most of the tech development, this would happen under socialism or capitalism.

Yeh, yeh Sputnik was just nazi rocket alphas

Name me three modern appliances in common use that have their origins in Communism. Just three.

How about just one, the T-34

Look around your house, how much stuff was made in china/vietnam? Intellectual property is a joke

We didnt. We spend an inordinate amount of money fighting against Communism.

Why?

And plenty of US and Australian lives were lost in the fight, in Vietnam and Korea.

Yes, Why?

It was called the Cold War. Look it up.



That's because Vietnam has embraced liberal market economics in that same time period.

As I posted in the other thread.

No it's a marxist-lennist state with some market reforms, which worked well and has brought the country into affluence from a place leveled to the ground by colonialist forces for decades

No, it hasnt.

yes it has(I can't remember this actual point, just meme value here)

 

[Taylor]

it's state funding of scientists that provide the basis and most of the tech development, this would happen under socialism or capitalism.

This absolutely applies in technology that is either for or a derivative of war material.

Not quite the same at all with medical inventions and we have lots of examples of that to directly compare when it comes to particularly pharmaceutical developments in the private US market compared to the state funded markets of the UK and AU etc.

 

[barreness]

It, along with organised labour, are probably the two main reasons for the explosion of middle classes over the last couple of centuries. Capitalism lets you own the value of your labour. (To be spent/invested as you please) Communism takes your labour from you.

Organised labour, so socialism in a fight against capital has brought us a temporary middle class

The union movent is dying by any measure, capital is scooping up more and more of efficiency gains.

Capitalism forces you to work for your bare essentials, Communism allows you to own the products of your own labour.
Check out worker owned factories in Yugoslavia

 

[kickazz]

The union movent is dying by any measure, capital is scooping up more and more of efficiency gains.

Well yeah, and the portion of GDP going to capital growth and dividends has grown by 50% over a period (heard on radio, can't remember precisely how long) and wages share of GDP has grown 10% in the same time. We have a problem and I think lower unionism is not a coincidence.

Check out worker owned factories in Yugoslavia

That is capitalism

 

[barreness]

This absolutely applies in technology that is either for or a derivative of war material.

Not quite the same at all with medical inventions and we have lots of examples of that to directly compare when it comes to particularly pharmaceutical developments in the private US market compared to the state funded markets of the UK and AU etc.

Wait until you read up on Cuban medical advances in that tyrannical shithole(apparently), not bad for a small island nation under heavy sanction.

Yes military spending has driven a lot of tech stuff. Don't really see a private medical sector as particularly useful, the profit motive drives them to focus on the expensive stuff, ignoring greater good type developments

 

[barreness]

Well yeah, and the portion of GDP going to capital growth and dividends has grown by 50% over a period (heard on radio, can't remember precisely how long) and wages share of GDP has grown 10% in the same time. We have a problem and I think lower unionism is not a coincidence.

Yep, less socialism has cost us working chumps

That is capitalism

A market isn't capitalism, that's just what humans do, trade. Capitalism is about who owns what and for what purpose

 

[Taylor]

Wait until you read up on Cuban medical advances in that tyrannical shithole(apparently), not bad for a small island nation under heavy sanction.

Yes military spending has driven a lot of tech stuff. Don't really see a private medical sector as particularly useful, the profit motive drives them to focus on the expensive stuff, ignoring greater good type developments

The direct comparison to the private development of the US medical system is the Canadian private one offering people euthanasia.

There's way more unhappy customers in the US private system, no complaints from the MAID system.

 

[Taylor]

Yep, less socialism has cost us working chumps

You're walking down the path that leads socialists into nationalists. Those labor unions lead to employers looking for cheaper options and while people overseas (outside of expectations or regulation on safety or way or life) will work for cheap.

Eventually the unions need to slam the door on exporting jobs via their political wings.

 

[barreness]

You're walking down the path that leads socialists into nationalists. Those labor unions lead to employers looking for cheaper options and while people overseas (outside of expectations or regulation on safety or way or life) will work for cheap.

Yeh bit of horseshoe can get involved here. Some nationalism is embedded in the brain, you can do it inclusive or exclusionary(or worse)

The problem is of course those employers looking for more profit by lowering wage bills. A worker owned cooperative doesn't outsource nor does a socialist state, or probably even state capitalism

Eventually the unions need to slam the door on exporting jobs via their political wings.

Well yeh, Unions are pretty regularly anti immigration, makes sense as far as labour costs under a capitalist system. This is a jab at left wing parties touching in the tar brush, which does happen

 

[Taylor]

Yeh bit of horseshoe can get involved here. Some nationalism is embedded in the brain, you can do it inclusive or exclusionary(or worse)

The problem is of course those employers looking for more profit by lowering wage bills. A worker owned cooperative doesn't outsource nor does a socialist state, or probably even state capitalism

Well yeh, Unions are pretty regularly anti immigration, makes sense as far as labour costs under a capitalist system. This is a jab at left wing parties touching in the tar brush, which does happen

The employers would argue that their customers don't want to pay more for goods and if production costs being reduced can make that sale price lower then it means everyone can keep their jobs.

The ultimate driving factor is that people not associated with the employment conditions seek to get the best value for their money and if you open the world market then they will buy from those who use the labor of slaves to make their products cheaper.

That's the moral argument for nationalism, that we as the people of Australia cannot dictate how the labor forces of another nation are governed but through excluding them from our own market we protect it from artificially reducing the cost of living off the back of slavery/extortion etc.

 

[barreness]

The direct comparison to the private development of the US medical system is the Canadian private one offering people euthanasia.

There's way more unhappy customers in the US private system, no complaints from the MAID system.

Kinda a strawman here, are we talking about medical innovations or is killing yourself immoral, very different debates.

But there is the argument that a private system will move towards extending wealthy peoples lives while a public system goes towards most good overall. ie a smallpox vaccine vs cholesterol medication

 

[Taylor]

Kinda a strawman here, are we talking about medical innovations or is killing yourself immoral, very different debates.

But there is the argument that a private system will move towards extending wealthy peoples lives while a public system goes towards most good overall. ie a smallpox vaccine vs cholesterol medication

The point I was making is that when it comes to direct outcomes, the existing private model on that continent offers solutions and the existing public model on that continent offers to kill you to save them money.

Both are driven by money.

 

[barreness]

The employers would argue that their customers don't want to pay more for goods and if production costs being reduced can make that sale price lower then it means everyone can keep their jobs.

But the customers are also the employees, there's a big contradiction here

The ultimate driving factor is that people not associated with the employment conditions seek to get the best value for their money and if you open the world market then they will buy from those who use the labor of slaves to make their products cheaper.

Yeh, so the current reality

That's the moral argument for nationalism, that we as the people of Australia cannot dictate how the labor forces of another nation are governed but through excluding them from our own market we protect it from artificially reducing the cost of living off the back of slavery/extortion etc.

I mean yeh tariffs have long been a thing and are frequently argued for by unions, and if enough states exclude slave states then they will be forced to reform, or you could just tibet

What's your argument here? Nationalism bad or good? I don't know what you're trying to say, it's all innuendo and round abouts

 

[barreness]

The point I was making is that when it comes to direct outcomes, the existing private model on that continent offers solutions and the existing public model on that continent offers to kill you to save them money.

Both are driven by money.

Yeh if I'm 85 and can't get off the couch i'll take the opioid overdose in a hospital. Saves the clean up when i fall, starve to death, and no one finds me for 6 weeks.

End of life care is one of the biggest profit makers in medicine, the solution of keeping you going for a few more days isn't a solution at all. We've gone into spiritual/philosophy stuff here though

 

[Taylor]

But the customers are also the employees, there's a big contradiction here

Yeh, so the current reality

I mean yeh tariffs have long been a thing and are frequently argued for by unions, and if enough states exclude slave states then they will be forced to reform, or you could just tibet

What's your argument here? Nationalism bad or good? I don't know what you're trying to say, it's all innuendo and round abouts

My direct point is that socialists cannot be the open boarders (no borders) that they were and do advocate for unless the lifestyle across the entire globe is the same and until such point they will have to lean towards isolationist and nationalist political positions to protect the wages of the workers.

Otherwise the workers will be replaced by cheaper international labor forces.

The natural progression of a western socialist that cares about the lifestyles of workers in their nation is to be strong on borders and strongly against offshoring of production and labor.