Communism is NOT the way to go

[Raider5678]

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

My bad. I was eating lunch when I posted this. Replace "everyone" with "Cuban Refugees" Considering 1.1 million have fled.... Out of about 12 million Cubans...... IS that a large percentage or am I just imagining that?

[iNow]

1.1 million... over what time period? Never mind, doesn't matter. It's all red herrings anyway. The core point is that even though they're not perfect they have realized some success and it's ignorant to dismiss that outright out of some fear of the term.

[Klaynos]

My bad. I was eating lunch when I posted this. Replace "everyone" with "Cuban Refugees" Considering 1.1 million have fled.... Out of about 12 million Cubans...... IS that a large percentage or am I just imagining that?

Similar percentage of the population as Mexican born immigrants then.

[Delta1212]

I think the primary point is that ascribing an idea to an ideology and then evaluating the idea based on whether the ideology that you have categorized it as belonging to is considered "good" or "bad" is a poor practice.

 

Ideas should be evaluated on their own merit, the circumstances they are intended to be implemented in and any data available on the success or failure of that idea in similar circumstances. "That sounds like communism so it must be a bad idea" or "This is guaranteed to work because it's based on the principles of capitalism" are bad ways to go about evaluating any kind of plan.

 

Politically, we really need an increased focus on data and less focus on ideology, but of course, that's much easier said than it is to see implemented when everything, including facts, are viewed as ideological battlegrounds.

[CharonY]

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).

 

 

Unions can reduce profits. However, that was not was MigL mentioned, though:

 

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

Everyone uniformly poor, and everyone a bad

 

The assumption here is that the work quality will be reduced to the lowest level, resulting in massive loss of productivity. I assume that this meant as a hyperbole, but what does research say?.

 

In a paper by Metcalf comparing a number of industrialized countries indicate that in the US, Germany and Japan productivity is positively correlated with unionization, whereas in the UK there used to be a negative correlation. In the latter case the effect is diminishing, though. While unions can reduce productivity, depending on numerous factors, it is clear that a) this is not a uniform effect, and b) in many cases it can even lead to productivity increase. They often do cut into profits and the productivity increase does not always compensate for that (depending on industry and market situation).

[John Cuthber]

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 )

Alas, the Unions are still needed.

All of those things, while currently protected, are under grave threat from, for example TTIP internationally; and locally from a government who wants to repeal the human rights act.

And it's the Unions, as much as anyone, who organise the opposition to those things.

Thanks for offering me the opportunity to point that out.

Now, I must have missed a couple of things; the first is where you actually justified your comment and the second is where people were twisting words.

 

Perhaps, you would like to try again.

Explain why, in the face of the evidence (as supplied by CharonY) you think the Unions are a bad thing.

You can, perhaps, add a side order of how, if they were such a bad thing, anyone ever got talked into joining them.

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

 

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

 

" many companies unions destroyed"

Name one.

 

That's the typical way coal mines are ending. UK coal mines decline graph

 

Thanks for posting that graph.

Lets have a look at another graph or two

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6309/economics/trade-union-density-in-the-uk/

The Unions have been losing membership density.

And the coal industry has been losing output.

 

I know correlation isn't correlation but what the data show is that, as we have a smaller fraction of people in Unions, we dig less coal.

You are trying to use that as a reason to say that Unions prevent coal production.

 

How do you explain the reverse correlation?

 

[Raider5678]

1.1 million... over what time period? Never mind, doesn't matter. It's all red herrings anyway. The core point is that even though they're not perfect they have realized some success and it's ignorant to dismiss that outright out of some fear of the term.

I'm a capitalist. I am hired by someone, to do work, because they have the right to own a business because of capitalism. Now I'm not saying that all communist nations "nationalize"(makes it sound better then stealing huh?), but a considerate portion of them do. Also, no offense, but defending Fidel Castro doesn't seem like a good idea.. No offense. But fine, since Cuba and anything related to it is red herrings, then let's ignore the bad and the good. Let's talk Joseph Stalin. You know, the communist who killed 20,000,000 people? I'm sure your going to find some way to defend that portion of his actions, but let's see what he accomplished as a communist. Made men and women equal..... Not bad, pretty good. Forced them both to work on the same labor jobs...... not the best. Signed a nonaggression pact with HITLER.... Sounds fun, you know, not trying tostop Nazi's from murdering people.(I'm sure your gonna say they're just misunderstood, Killing anyone who's not a Ayrian is just one mistake right?) And he WAS a communist, so hes not a red herring.

[Delta1212]

There are lots of reasons to criticize Stalin, but I feel somewhat compelled to point out that Britain and France also signed an agreement with Hitler to let him just straight up take over a portion of Czechoslovakia in order to avoid going to war with him.

 

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact came later and was certainly fueled in large part by the USSR's own expansionist plans for Eastern Europe, but to make shocked exclamations about how anyone could ever deal peaceably with Hitler! is to ignore the entire history of 1930s Europe.

 

Until after the war when the full extent of what the Nazis had been doing was uncovered, Hitler was alternately viewed as either a great or a very dangerous man but much of the world didn't realize what a monster he was, and many indications that did exist of what was going on were dismissed even by his enemies as being exaggerated because the truth was too horrible to be believed until the proof was literally staring everyone in the face.

 

 

There are plenty of reasons to be extremely critical of Stalin, is what I'm saying, but just shouting Hitler is not a particularly nuanced or useful perspective.

[Raider5678]

There are lots of reasons to criticize Stalin, but I feel somewhat compelled to point out that Britain and France also signed an agreement with Hitler to let him just straight up take over a portion of Czechoslovakia in order to avoid going to war with him.

They also signed a pact, that's true. Then they found out what Hitler was doing, as did the rest of the world, and offered support to poland should the Germans invade. Though it's also true just shouting Hitler doesn't make someone bad, if they killed 20 million people that kind of just makes them seem worse Personal opinion. Other then that I do agree with you.

 

Does anyone know of a country that successfully used communism? I mean, usually a government works for the first couple of years before corruption sets in, but do you know of any communist country that lasted more than 100 years before corruption basically FULLY ran the government?

[Sensei]

 

many companies unions destroyed"

Name one.

 

If I name one, you will say, that you never heard about company..

 

How about two:

Gdansk Shipyard, Gdynia Shipyard..

 

I know correlation isn't correlation but what the data show is that, as we have a smaller fraction of people in Unions, we dig less coal.

You are trying to use that as a reason to say that Unions prevent coal production.

 

How do you explain the reverse correlation?

 

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

I am talking about companies in bad economic situation, which need restructurization (which often means firing people from parts of company that are not absolutely necessary, or selling them. Long before final bankruptcy!),

and unions obviously refuse to do such restructurization, which ends up in bankruptcy of the whole company years later.

Unions here even make strikes just because they don't want government to sell company to private investor!

 

Drop of mined coal in UK is result of shutting down, bankruptcy, of coal mines.

Management, owners, could not freely do restructurization.

Which resulted in total collapse.

 

Want more examples of companies which were destroyed by unions?

Search google for companies that had unions and bankrupted (then search about strikes in these companies prior bankruptcy).. You will have your own country companies examples.

Employment should be accordingly to production. If employed is more people than needed, money are wasted on salary for them, and it's straight route to economic problems in the future years.

[Delta1212]

They also signed a pact, that's true. Then they found out what Hitler was doing, as did the rest of the world, and offered support to poland should the Germans invade. Though it's also true just shouting Hitler doesn't make someone bad, if they killed 20 million people that kind of just makes them seem worse Personal opinion. Other then that I do agree with you.

 

Does anyone know of a country that successfully used communism? I mean, usually a government works for the first couple of years before corruption sets in, but do you know of any communist country that lasted more than 100 years before corruption basically FULLY ran the government?

The Communist Manifesto is only a little over 150 years old. That's a rather high bar to clear, even if I didn't think a mixed economy worked better in any case.

[Raider5678]

The Communist Manifesto is only a little over 150 years old. That's a rather high bar to clear, even if I didn't think a mixed economy worked better in any case.

Yeah, I like making the challenge hard to achieve. Makes my argument seem better when certain people who don't think quite like you look at it. Considering the other side of the argument does it, I just play alon and do it too. A lot like politics.

[Delta1212]

Yeah, I don't think presenting challenges that don't make a lot of sense makes your argument look stronger.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Delta1212

[Phi for All]

I'm a capitalist.

 

You aren't a 100% Capitalist if you're an American, I guarantee you. There's some Socialist mixed in there, and some Communist too.

 

Your federal government owns several corporations, like the Tennessee Valley Authority, and Fannie Mae, and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. Communist principles.

 

Your federal government uses taxpayer dollars for national projects like interstate highways, airports and seaports, parks, and social assistance. Socialist principles.

 

The Capitalist part of American society needs quite a bit of overhaul. Regulations are too loose, corporations aren't paying their share of taxes to maintain the roads and ports they use more of, and businesses are allowed to mess with fair market practices through abuse of the legislative system. When it's all balanced correctly, it's the strengths of many ideologies that make us diverse and adaptable.

Does anyone know of a country that successfully used communism?

 

Arg, it's like you aren't reading what's been written.

 

Communism is used successfully in many places, including many Western countries. What isn't being done is for a society to be 100% ideology X. That seems to be stupid strategy no matter which you pick.

 

A 100% Capitalist society would be horrible. You would literally have to pay for everything personally. No public parks, museums, transportation. Everything would be privatized, and nothing would be done about those not fortunate enough to be wealthy. Same thing for any single ideology. There is no single best way to use all resources.

[Delta1212]

Phi, let's be fair, it's entirely possible that he thinks there should be a toll booth at the end of his driveway and the corner of every street so that we can fairly compensate the rightful owners of those properties for our use of their facilities at whatever rate the market will allow.

 

How much would you be willing to pay to legally drive off of your own property, do you think?

[Phi for All]

How much would you be willing to pay to legally drive off of your own property, do you think?

 

It would have to cost me less than paying the police to arrest you for extortion.

[MigL]

I'm afraid I have to say the same thing as Sensei did, John...

"What on Earth are you talking about ?"

 

I suggest you re-read post #2, where I state...

"a lot of us would suffer needlessly.

Just as workers would without protection."

 

Does that sound as if I'm opposed to labor unions ?

 

Sometimes they are needed, just as Socialist policies are needed to ensure a 'just' society.

Sometimes they are NOT needed. And that is the basis of my comparison to Communism..

If I'm unionized, and I can never earn more money, get more time off, or receive better benefits than my fellow employees, what is the incentive for me to do a 'better' job ?

Simply adequate will do. And that is why I say both unions and Communism tend to breed the lowest common denominator.

And why I believe Communism and Capitalism need to be in balance.

The weak and needy need protection and a hand-up. But they also have a need to strive for something 'better'.

 

I'm glad I gave you the opportunity to get some information 'out there'.

And I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction ( but I suggest you could have done that yourself by re-reading my post )

Edited May 20, 2016 by MigL

[Delta1212]

 

It would have to cost me less than paying the police to arrest you for extortion.

Presumably the owner of the road is already paying the police to protect his road from free riders, so I imagine outbidding him could be expensive indeed.

[iNow]

I'm a capitalist.

Perhaps one day I'll understand what it's like to live in a one-dimensional binary world like you and how simple it makes all things. Until that inglorious day arrives, I'll sadly remain forced to continue residing in the multi-variable calculus spectrum embedded existence we call reality.

[Phi for All]

If I'm unionized, and I can never earn more money, get more time off, or receive better benefits than my fellow employees, what is the incentive for me to do a 'better' job ?

Simply adequate will do. And that is why I say both unions and Communism tend to breed the lowest common denominator.

 

I think there are a couple of different employee types "at work" here.

 

For some, this type of situation is ideal, everyone (doing the same job) is making the same money, all the work is set up to be equal, all the benefits the same. They stop worrying about fairness because it's all fair, and just do the job.

 

For the people with your mindset, the situation is a disincentive, since you're more concerned with not doing more than you have to unless you get extra. People like this should avoid union jobs since they don't support the concept behind it. I think it seems a lot like Communism to some.

[Delta1212]

 

I think there are a couple of different employee types "at work" here.

 

For some, this type of situation is ideal, everyone (doing the same job) is making the same money, all the work is set up to be equal, all the benefits the same. They stop worrying about fairness because it's all fair, and just do the job.

 

For the people with your mindset, the situation is a disincentive, since you're more concerned with not doing more than you have to unless you get extra. People like this should avoid union jobs since they don't support the concept behind it. I think it seems a lot like Communism to some.

I always find it interesting how often that argument is framed as "Why should I work harder if I won't be paid more than everyone else?" instead of "Why should I worker harder if it won't increase my pay?"

 

There doesn't seem to be a huge difference, but the fact that it is so often explained that way is interesting since I would think that the primary concern should be making sure that you feel you are being properly compensated for your effort vs making sure that you are doing better than someone else that you don't think deserves as much as you.

 

I know people who, if offered a 50% raise with the condition that, should they accept it, their lazy do-nothing co-worker will receive a 100% raise, would turn it down and prefer to get nothing than see someone else get more.

 

I think this ties back into the thread on homelessness, actually.

[Raider5678]

You aren't a 100% Capitalist if you're an American, I guarantee you. There's some Socialist mixed in there, and some Communist too.

 

At which point did I claim to be 100% capatilist? Its also funny how you ignore my 2 most recent post but you will gladly dig around foe something to divert attention from the main point.

 

Either way, I agree 100% capatilism isn't that great, but I can't say i'm "50% capatilist, 12% Communist" etc. What I meant by that i's that for the most part I like capatilist ideals. I figured you would have the commonsense to figure that out.

 

P.S. now you implied that I'm 100% capatilist, thanks a lot.

 

Phi, let's be fair, it's entirely possible that he thinks there should be a toll booth at the end of his driveway and the corner of every street so that we can fairly compensate the rightful owners of those properties for our use of their facilities at whatever rate the market will allow.

How much would you be willing to pay to legally drive off of your own property, do you think?

 

Uh hu.... Nice, real nice Delta. Refer to my previous point.

 

Perhaps one day I'll understand what it's like to live in a one-dimensional binary world like you and how simple it makes all things. Until that inglorious day arrives, I'll sadly remain forced to continue residing in the multi-variable calculus spectrum embedded existence we call reality.

I'm assuming you weren't risen against your current "multi-variabled calculus spectrum embedded existence" idea. Which would mean you live in a "one dimension all binary world" too. Because anything we say will be completely overridden by your stuborness that your parents political point is the ONLY way. I will always understand what its like.

 

P.S. I'm on a tablet, which probably means typos and grammar mistakes. Please DO NOT point them out, I will fix them later.

1.1 million... over what time period? Never mind, doesn't matter. It's all red herrings anyway. The core point is that even though they're not perfect they have realized some success and it's ignorant to dismiss that outright out of some fear of the term.

Some success. Mostly just bad.

 

Also why do people down vote just because somebody doesn't immediately convert to their political ideas. Sounds like cuba. Only 1 political opinion or else -.-

Edited May 20, 2016 by Raider5678

[Phi for All]

I know people who, if offered a 50% raise with the condition that, should they accept it, their lazy do-nothing co-worker will receive a 100% raise, would turn it down and prefer to get nothing than see someone else get more.

 

And imagine it's this way. The co-worker is working two jobs to make ends meet and is doing horribly at it. He suddenly gets a 100% raise in his day job, is able to quit his other job, and buckle down to do really well at his great new job. Oh, but this won't happen because hey, lazy do-nothing.

 

 

 

At which point did I claim to be 100% capatilist?

 

You asserted, "I'm a Capitalist", and I commented that you aren't 100% Capitalist if you're an American. I then proceeded to support my comment with examples as evidence. I think you missed the part where I was describing Americans, not you specifically. You're a bit defensive, imo.

[Delta1212]

The problem with saying that you're an "ist" is that you wind up having to own the whole ideology. I'm not an anything-ist, except possibly a pragmatist with an idealistic streak. Or maybe an idealist with a pragmatic streak.

 

In any case, I find that associating yourself with any ideology tends to narrow your thinking in an unproductive way with few to no advantages to offset the cost. Taking on an ideology as an identifier makes you resistant to the idea that that ideology can be wrong, because if it's an aspect of who you are then if it is wrong, it means you are wrong as a person and people don't like to be wrong on a fundamental level.

 

Ideas should be evaluated on their merits, not based on whether they are ascribed to your "team" or not. And the only way to avoid that kind of thinking is to avoid picking a team. Once you assign yourself a team, there's not much you can do to keep it from biasing your thinking no matter how objective you think you can be.

[Raider5678]

You asserted, "I'm a Capitalist", and I commented that you aren't 100% Capitalist if you're an American. I then proceeded to support my comment with examples as evidence. I think you missed the part where I was describing Americans, not you specifically. You're a bit defensive, imo.

Mmhmm. From the post following that one, it seemed like you were just gonna run off and assume I'm 100% capitalist.

 

Anyway, since just about everyone agreed that Fidel Castro and Joseph Stalin were some bad examples of communism, and while they did accomplish some good, they mostly did bad, unless you want to argue? Your kind of good at missing the big picture. So lets bring up our next candidate. Kim Jong-un. Does anyone think he is good at what he does?

The problem with saying that you're an "ist" is that you wind up having to own the whole ideology. I'm not an anything-ist, except possibly a pragmatist with an idealistic streak. Or maybe an idealist with a pragmatic streak.

 

In any case, I find that associating yourself with any ideology tends to narrow your thinking in an unproductive way with few to no advantages to offset the cost. Taking on an ideology as an identifier makes you resistant to the idea that that ideology can be wrong, because if it's an aspect of who you are then if it is wrong, it means you are wrong as a person and people don't like to be wrong on a fundamental level.

 

Ideas should be evaluated on their merits, not based on whether they are ascribed to your "team" or not. And the only way to avoid that kind of thinking is to avoid picking a team. Once you assign yourself a team, there's not much you can do to keep it from biasing your thinking no matter how objective you think you can be.

Good point.

I'll try and stay neutral next time. Either way, I like capitalist ideals, but I'm not a capitalist from here on out. I also like a few good communist ideals, like actually spending tax payers money on something that can help, like roads, bridges, etc. As for Phi I'm trying to figure out which team hes on.