Teachers and Students > Debates
If communism and Capitalism has failed to deliver, Should we look at the nazi.
$tyli$h Executive:
Firstly, the alleged 'virtue' of the command economy or communist system is that it is planned in contrast to the unplanned market economy. The error in this view is that the market economy is actually very rationally planned by means of consumer demand through the price system. In a communist system, there is no true market system.
An attempt to plan an entire economy by a central committee is bound to be very inefficient just because the task is so large. There is no way that a committee of say, 300 planners can know the needs, conditions of resource availability, and localized knowledge spread throughout an economy. They never can exactly.
Second, the command economy ultimately rests on coercion and autocratic style as its means of motivation. Communists typically claims that the resort to coercion (the Berlin Wall, Russian system, etc.) is not part of their system, but only an unfortunate bad choice in political leaders and that Communism only attempts to control the economy, not people's individual liberties. But, of course the main element in an economic system is in fact people; therefore controlling an economy is first and foremost control of people--the Berlin Wall was no peculiar misfortune. It is sufficient to prove that human motivation is diminished and eliminated when coerced.
Third, the command economy or communist economy is a system in which all workers are 'grouped together'. All work for the benefit of their quotal share of total production. Individual incentives are absent. As an example, with 100 workers in an economy each will receive 1/100 of total production. If one worker shirks, his loss is only 1/100 of the production he otherwise would have generated. (Imagine the incentives when this system is broadened to a nation of 2000 million or the population!) Each ends up attempting to live at the expense of others and total production goes down.
And fourth, the incentive of production is to please the political authorities who have life and death control over the workers. In contrast to the market, where production is predicated on consumer demand, the consumer is forgotten or not valued in a communist economy.
Do I need to justify any further? Democratic and market system WINS. See some examples, USA being a typical economy whose most part is a market system. Can you name ONE economy which has become successful under the umbrella of communist system? None. This proof (of example) should be enough to destroy the stance of the communist system.
Saladin:
--- Quote from: $tyli$h Executive on June 24, 2010, 06:25:39 pm ---Firstly, the alleged 'virtue' of the command economy or communist system is that it is planned in contrast to the unplanned market economy. The error in this view is that the market economy is actually very rationally planned by means of consumer demand through the price system. In a communist system, there is no true market system.
An attempt to plan an entire economy by a central committee is bound to be very inefficient just because the task is so large. There is no way that a committee of say, 300 planners can know the needs, conditions of resource availability, and localized knowledge spread throughout an economy. They never can exactly.
Second, the command economy ultimately rests on coercion and autocratic style as its means of motivation. Communists typically claims that the resort to coercion (the Berlin Wall, Russian system, etc.) is not part of their system, but only an unfortunate bad choice in political leaders and that Communism only attempts to control the economy, not people's individual liberties. But, of course the main element in an economic system is in fact people; therefore controlling an economy is first and foremost control of people--the Berlin Wall was no peculiar misfortune. It is sufficient to prove that human motivation is diminished and eliminated when coerced.
Third, the command economy or communist economy is a system in which all workers are 'grouped together'. All work for the benefit of their quotal share of total production. Individual incentives are absent. As an example, with 100 workers in an economy each will receive 1/100 of total production. If one worker shirks, his loss is only 1/100 of the production he otherwise would have generated. (Imagine the incentives when this system is broadened to a nation of 2000 million or the population!) Each ends up attempting to live at the expense of others and total production goes down.
And fourth, the incentive of production is to please the political authorities who have life and death control over the workers. In contrast to the market, where production is predicated on consumer demand, the consumer is forgotten or not valued in a communist economy.
Do I need to justify any further? Democratic and market system WINS. See some examples, USA being a typical economy whose most part is a market system. Can you name ONE economy which has become successful under the umbrella of communist system? None. This proof (of example) should be enough to destroy the stance of the communist system.
--- End quote ---
You cannot deny however, that communist nations are not allowed to rise by the west. What you see in raw is simply the manifestation of a lot of background work.
The free market system leads to Americans almost unable to afford healthcare. 40% of American wealth is owned by 1% of Americans. It is turning into an Oligopoly. You need to see that where the democratic approach is failing such as in Bangladesh, Kenya. Now if you tell me that this is not a democracy,then I can tell you that democracy is almost non-existent.
Look at China, a centralized government system saved it from the Recession. Right now people in England and America are suffering unlike any other.
And we are talking about extremes here, Capitalism and Communism. You need to get that straight, we are discussing which extreme is the best to opt for.
$tyli$h Executive:
--- Quote from: Engraved on June 24, 2010, 06:50:13 pm ---You cannot deny however, that communist nations are not allowed to rise by the west. What you see in raw is simply the manifestation of a lot of background work.
--- End quote ---
No, I do not agree to the "are not allowed to rise". The communist nation's government has an 'homeland' policy which means that it will not trade in any way with international economies. So, communist nations deliberately adopt a policy of no foreign trade and we all know that foreign trade is the main base of the link between economies. If they adopt such 'reserve' policies, the west are in no fault for this.
--- Quote ---The free market system leads to Americans almost unable to afford healthcare. 40% of American wealth is owned by 1% of Americans. It is turning into an Oligopoly. You need to see that where the democratic approach is failing such as in Bangladesh, Kenya. Now if you tell me that this is not a democracy,then I can tell you that democracy is almost non-existent.
--- End quote ---
Inequality? Thats a good characteristic in fact. If it were not for inequality, we would not be wealthy, noone would. Now one question - is a market system better, in which an individual has the ability to be very rich, by whatever means, or a communist system, in which you are forced to be poor and have no chance of getting rich unless you're the son of the planners?
You need to see where the democratic approach is being successful. See the US, UK and any developed economy, even the Singapore! What you see in Bangladesh is mainly due to corruption, its not democracy therefore. There is NO citizen's poll for important decisions by the government. The open budget index places BD on the bottomline, indicating that it is not a democratic nation, in fact. Corruption is not any part of democracy. In autocracy, the leader is bound and has the incentive to be corrupt, as like Hitler and many others. Whereas in democracy, you are bound to do what the consensus says.
--- Quote ---Look at China, a centralized government system saved it from the Recession. Right now people in England and America are suffering unlike any other.
--- End quote ---
China is no more a centralized government. In the earlier days, people weren't even allowed to leave their city, this was the severity of communist rule there, which is no more. Since the 1960s-70s it has made a successful attempt to move towards the market system. The trend is now in fact, towards the market system.
What you see in China, is due to its successful move towards the market system!
For more details:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200009/29/eng20000929_51540.html
People in England and America suffering? The recession is practically over now. Yes, some investment banks are still in huge debts, but on a personal level, it is history. See the dow jones index, NYSE, NASDAQ, almost all have returned towards their pre-recession levels. They are not suffering in fact. You need to understand that you only see news of suffering in newspapers and channels, not of prosperity. When everything is booming, you only hear positive news. When everything is in recession, you hear bad and pessimistic news. Truth is, eventually, all will prosper again.
You were saying something about China being SAVED from recession! I laughed at that almost! ;D
The Shanghai Composite index (the MAIN stock market of China's index) has FALLEN from 6000 to a staggering 2000 in 2008! one third. Now in Dow Jones, it fell from 12000 to 6000 (minimum and max point) which is half. This signifies that China had in fact, MORE adverse effect due to the recession. Its economic confidence was fragile, with slowed growth, reflected by the drastically falling stock market..
--- Quote ---And we are talking about extremes here, Capitalism and Communism. You need to get that straight, we are discussing which extreme is the best to opt for.
--- End quote ---
Extreme models exist only in theory, not in practice. Some services like defense will always have to be provided by the government, even in a market economy. So, its better to get straight what we are discussing here:
Command economy means >90% government control.
Market economy means <13% government control.
Freaked12:
Stylish.
Americans or more accurately Republicans are clearly very angry towards Obama for Increasing Government interference in the Economy. They accuse him of Imposing Command economy like principles on America.
There is a deep divided opinion in America over this 1.5 trillion Dollar expenditure by the American Government to save the economy which means Americans still want capitalism to rule the day.
All i am asking this is..it's been 19 years since the end of Cold War .. Capitalism has had to dominate the world for 19 years .What are we seeing now ?
Going back to the 1930s and 1940s where Government share in the economy is increasing day by day.
Communism collapsed because of NO TRADE.
I laugh at this. There was a reason Soviet Union got into a expansionist Policy. The trade between Soviet Bloc, Soviet Union and all those supporting Marxist Ideology had a combined trade of 1.57 billion dollars with Russia providing the main exports.
The reason Soviet Union collapsed was because of Corrupt Leaders in Kremlin and God-Given victories to America in Proxy Wars. Soviet Union Invaded Afghanistan because it wanted to capture the natural gas and minerals in kandahar region in Afghanistan and in the end they wanted to Invade the balochistan region of Pakistan i.e the most valuable in terms of Gas.
Had there been no islam like extremism we would be seeing a Russian empire stretching from Poland to Sindh.
And Clearly you believe everything American media says about their economy ? Right now according to my relatives there is a huge huge unemployment in America with leaders so confused as to where would they place them.
Economic growth was only achieved because of Immense progress by few Big Corporations and employment of workers IN VERY low paid jobs.
China has successfully tackled the unemployment rate, Although i also am not sure about the accuracy of the results because it is Government controlled.
Look at Dubai another prime example of market economy (on the capitalist extreme) where Dubai World had to postpone the repayment of the debt.
Emirates airline and oil (some ) are the only main providers of Income to Dubai Government
Freaked12:
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Foreign_trade_of_the_Soviet_Union
The Soviet Union conducted the bulk of its foreign economic activities with communist countries, particularly those of Eastern Europe. In 1988 Soviet trade with socialist countries amounted to 62 percent of total Soviet foreign trade. Between 1965 and 1988, trade with the Third World made up a steady 10 to 15 percent of the Soviet Union's foreign trade. Trade with the industrialized West, especially the United States, fluctuated, influenced by political relations between East and West, as well as by the Soviet Union's short-term needs. In the 1970s, during the period of détente, trade with the West gained in importance at the expense of trade with socialist countries. In the early and mid-1980s, when relations between the superpowers were poor, however, Soviet trade with the West decreased in favor of increased integration with Eastern Europe. [1]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version