Communism is NOT the way to go

[Raider5678]

Hey guys,

 

I was reading about Cuba, you know, the little island ruled by a crazy dictator? Anyway, I was wondering if ANY of you think communism is good. I for one really dont think it is.

[MigL]

Well, what is the reasoning behind your thinking ?

 

Communism is a lot like labor unions, they both tend to produce the lowest common denominator.

Everyone uniformly poor, and everyone a bad worker.

 

Unfortunately, if it wasn't for shared resources in our society, which is what Communism or Socialism refers to, a lot of us would suffer needlessly.

Just as workers would without protection.

 

So is it a necessary evil ?

Or an undesirable benefit ?

[Phi for All]

Don't make the mistake of assuming any political or societal ideology has just one level. Communism, like Capitalism and Socialism, is a whole range of thought. I don't think anyone has ever had a 100% Communist government and been successful with it (or 100% anything, come to think of it).

 

The idea of the state controlling and distributing certain goods or services isn't a bad idea. In the US, we used to have local governments owning public utilities, so the governments were the power provider for the country, which I'm pretty sure is a Communist goal. Privatizing them certainly increased the cost to the citizens, and whether or not they're better run now is debatable.

 

Imagine if the State decided to take one item that virtually every household needs, let's say a freezer for storing food. The State sets up or buys a facility, and arranges to make a high-quality, ultra-efficient freezer. Each household in the country will get one for free, and those who can't find other work can work in the State freezer factory to receive their "unemployment" checks. This guarantees that everyone has a way to buy food on sale and store it for long periods, which creates lots of downstream benefits. This is a way to implement some Communist strategies while still maintaining a Capitalist/Socialist foundation.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Communism is a lot like labor unions, they both tend to produce the lowest common denominator.

Everyone uniformly poor, and everyone a bad worker.

 

So, you don't approve of equal opportunities, weekends, sick pay safety regulations and a whole lot of other things that the unions brought about- or were you just not informed?

[MigL]

Come on John.

I know you read the rest of the post.

 

Or are you just picking and choosing parts of my post to argue with ?

( come to think of it, I've often done the same thing )

[Phi for All]

Cuba's national healthcare interests me. I don't think healthcare works well with insurance, or any business model for that matter. The focus should be on health and not profits.

 

Cuba doesn't pay their doctors enough, from what I've heard. It would be interesting to have healthcare and education be State owned, and pay doctors and teachers very well, with perhaps some non-monetary State perks as well (free access to public transportation/museums/recreation centers?). I think both medicine and education suffer when profit is the priority, and it's two sectors that are very important to post-manufacturing economies.

 

Do you think a Communist program like that would work alongside the Capitalist/Socialist mixture most western countries have? I have a hard time imagining an entire workforce under Communism. While everyone in a society has value, how can you treat a clerk in a convenience store the same as a neurosurgeon when it comes to compensation if everybody works for the State?

[MigL]

Certainly, a 'just' society has to balance the common good of all its people with the heed to better oneself.

Communism/Socialism and Capitalism have to co-exist, but the devil is in the details.

The 'right' balance is obviously going to be different for different people.

( and sometimes different for the same people, at different times in their life )

[Delta1212]

Don't make the mistake of assuming any political or societal ideology has just one level. Communism, like Capitalism and Socialism, is a whole range of thought. I don't think anyone has ever had a 100% Communist government and been successful with it (or 100% anything, come to think of it).

 

The idea of the state controlling and distributing certain goods or services isn't a bad idea. In the US, we used to have local governments owning public utilities, so the governments were the power provider for the country, which I'm pretty sure is a Communist goal. Privatizing them certainly increased the cost to the citizens, and whether or not they're better run now is debatable.

 

Imagine if the State decided to take one item that virtually every household needs, let's say a freezer for storing food. The State sets up or buys a facility, and arranges to make a high-quality, ultra-efficient freezer. Each household in the country will get one for free, and those who can't find other work can work in the State freezer factory to receive their "unemployment" checks. This guarantees that everyone has a way to buy food on sale and store it for long periods, which creates lots of downstream benefits. This is a way to implement some Communist strategies while still maintaining a Capitalist/Socialist foundation.

My hometown in New Jersey had it's own electricity. We were the only town for miles around that had power consistently after Sandy (our power went out for a little under five minutes during the storm and that was it). You could see the town line at night by where the houses started having lights in their windows.

 

And yes, it was cheaper than PSE&G, who in some cases took weeks to restore power to certain areas.

[Raider5678]

Well, the problem is that if you made a giant freezer company and gave em all away, and people would work there for an unemployment check, all the benefits that are flossing down stream need some water (money) to carry them down. The problem there is that they tax the rich to pay for it. Eventually the rich run out of money, and then what do you do? Send the country down a steep hill with lava at the bottom.

[Delta1212]

How do the rich run out of money from an income tax, exactly?

[Raider5678]

How do the rich run out of money from an income tax, exactly?

Usually with communism the governments like to take over most businesses. To do this they put taxes on companies. This can lead to downsizing, or bankrupting companies. Cuba did this once Fidel Castro took over I think, but if it wasn't him, at some point they did.

[Sensei]

Usually with communism the governments like to take over most businesses. To do this they put taxes on companies.

Not really.

It's called nationalization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

Business owners in such case, have no choice. Other word for it is stealing.

 

This can lead to downsizing, or bankrupting companies.

Bankruptcy is later, after people (usually incompetent) who are becoming new managers of nationalized company have no idea about business..

Edited May 20, 2016 by Sensei

[MigL]

Both Communism and Capitalism are prone to corruption, as are all systems of governance.

Lets not pretend Communism under J Stalin or F Castro was the ideal Communism. Those leaders amassed great wealth and power.

Nor do we have the ideal Capitalism in the US. Not only is it tempered with some socialism, but, there are certainly barriers to bettering oneself. And it is also a corrupted system.

 

We are after all, a species which tends to take advantage of, and exploit, our own kind.

Its built into our genes. Survival of the fittest and all that.

 

Sometimes all we can do is hold our nose and pick the option which stinks the least, Sensei.

[iNow]

Humans are prone to corruption. The system we implement can only ever be as good as we are.

 

End of the day, we will forever exist in a hybrid economy. The question is nothing more than how hard we push to protect the masses versus his hard we push to protect the individual; how collectively we agree that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

[MigL]

Even Spock had to modify that rule, iNow.

[iNow]

Lol. Well played, sir

[Unity+]

Humans are prone to corruption. The system we implement can only ever be as good as we are.

 

End of the day, we will forever exist in a hybrid economy. The question is nothing more than how hard we push to protect the masses versus his hard we push to protect the individual; how collectively we agree that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

Though one thing to consider is the existence of religion when going about the implementation of an economic system. I remember doing research and stumbling upon a Buddhist community that relied heavily on communist ideology that was able to thrive because of the common belief system instilled within that community.

[iNow]

I'm sure even that system/community had various cracks, free loaders, and probably dissenters even if on net the stated objective was largely achieved and the worldview broadly shared.

[John Cuthber]

Come on John.

I know you read the rest of the post.

 

Or are you just picking and choosing parts of my post to argue with ?

( come to think of it, I've often done the same thing )

You made several assertions. I pointed out that one of them simply isn't true.

It seems that you are unable to defend it.

Perhaps you should withdraw it.

[Sensei]

So, you don't approve of equal opportunities, weekends, sick pay safety regulations and a whole lot of other things that the unions brought about- or were you just not informed?

You're describing things good to employees, while you "forget" the all bad things, and how many companies unions destroyed?

When there is high demand/price for product company is producing management is increasing employment, to be able fulfill demand,

but when worldwide market price is going down, it can easily bring company to bankruptcy when management cannot either decrease salary and dismiss employees,

accordingly to drop of price/demand for whatever they sell.

That's the typical way coal mines are ending. UK coal mines decline graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Kingdom

Jobs cannot be sustained when there is no coal underground also and people don't want to relocate to new place (even if price for coal is periodically high).

 

Currently people are slightly more aware, slightly better educated.

But in the past union members were simple workers, after primary school or less, and completely didn't understand what management want from them, and why to dismiss people..

and refusement to do restructurization resulted in complete collapse of not one company, which would be able to survive without unions otherwise with proper restructurization procedure.

 

Some early capitalistic business owners were greedy idiots.

They should have natural understanding that happy and rested employee is more productive.

And without unions implement mechanisms to increase productivity.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Sensei

[Delta1212]

Sensei, I agree that they should, but without a check to enforce it, that never seems to happen.

 

In the US especially, the prevailing ideology is short term profits over everything else. We have a set up that incentivizes CEOs to make a profit every quarter in order to earn record bonuses even if the steps they take to do so wind up gutting the company in the long term. There have been numerous examples of companies being destroyed by this practice over the last fifteen years, but it's still the the way a huge sector of our economy does business.

 

And one of the primary ways of driving up profits under this system is cost cutting, which usually means cutting "unnecessary" expenses like employee benefits or employees themselves, irrespective of what the cut to benefits does to employee retention and happiness, and ignoring the fact that the employees were adding value to the company through their work.

 

It's become a serious problem in some sectors and it doesn't seem to be going away on its own at this point.

 

I'm also aware of a number of businesses that I or people I know have had direct contact with that bend or break the labor laws that do exist in this country by denying overtime pay to people that are legally entitled to it or denying benefits to employees that are similarly entitled to it by treating them as "outside contractors" even though they don't fulfill the description of a contractor and are actually full time employees of the company.

 

Technically, they have the right to sue the company for overtime pay and benefits to which they are entitled, and the company is legally barred from retaliating, but it is incredibly easy to get around that because the bar for proving that a firing is in retaliation is fairly high, and you can't prove that you didn't get promoted or any raises in retaliation because it's very hard to prove you would have gotten them anyway.

 

So without the ability to bargain as a group, individuals are left out to dry without even the existing labor laws to protect them because trying to get them enforced on their own is likely to be career ending.

 

I'm not saying that labor unions are always pure as the driven snow and never cause problems, I've seen that myself as well. But unfettered capitalism doesn't always result in the best of outcomes either. What people should know and do is often very different from what actually gets done, and the cratering of the economy less than ten years ago should be a rather pointed illustration of how far you can trust people to do the things that are in everyone's interests instead of being shortsighted when it comes to making money.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Delta1212

[Phi for All]

Usually with communism the governments like to take over most businesses. To do this they put taxes on companies. This can lead to downsizing, or bankrupting companies. Cuba did this once Fidel Castro took over I think, but if it wasn't him, at some point they did.

 

You're talking about a complete takeover, but there are limited forms of Communism that seem to have merit. Do you think those should be ignored because some have abused them?

 

Castro didn't raise taxes on businesses. He nationalized all the businesses, making them part of the State. It stifled economic progress for quite a while (mostly because of embargoes), and left them dependent on the Soviet Union for economic and military aid. But Castro also deposed a military dictator. He abolished discrimination, brought electricity to the whole island, educated his people, focused on healthcare for all, and kept unemployment low. One has to wonder how his flavor of Communism might have fared if the US hadn't been so active in suppressing Cuba. Besides backing the former military dictator (Battista), the US also lost some businesses outright when Castro took them over and made them part of the State.

 

That's the biggest fear Capitalists have from Communism, imo, that sudden government takeover of everything you've worked for. But it's the extreme, it doesn't have to be about takeover. Yet it makes many shy away from anything to do with State ownership programs.

[MigL]

All of the things that you mentioned, John, are now protected by legislation in western countries.

Are you then saying labor unions have no further role to play ?

( see, I can 'twist' your words too )

[Raider5678]

 

You're talking about a complete takeover, but there are limited forms of Communism that seem to have merit. Do you think those should be ignored because some have abused them?

 

Castro didn't raise taxes on businesses. He nationalized all the businesses, making them part of the State. It stifled economic progress for quite a while (mostly because of embargoes), and left them dependent on the Soviet Union for economic and military aid. But Castro also deposed a military dictator. He abolished discrimination, brought electricity to the whole island, educated his people, focused on healthcare for all, and kept unemployment low. One has to wonder how his flavor of Communism might have fared if the US hadn't been so active in suppressing Cuba. Besides backing the former military dictator (Battista), the US also lost some businesses outright when Castro took them over and made them part of the State.

 

That's the biggest fear Capitalists have from Communism, imo, that sudden government takeover of everything you've worked for. But it's the extreme, it doesn't have to be about takeover. Yet it makes many shy away from anything to do with State ownership programs.

Ok...... I personally am wondering what everyone inside Cuba were thinking. I mean, I don't think they ran away, put their lives in danger, left loved ones, and crossed an ocean risking jail and torture for the rest of their life, just because the US said they were bad. I mean, that's just an opinion. But hey, free electricity!

[iNow]

Everyone... inside Cuba. You sure about that? Hyperbole, much?