| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
>
> > There has never been a pure Communist system ever. But the closer we get,
> > the worse the system seems to perform. There has never been a pure
> > capitalist system, ever. But the closer we get, the happier people seem to
> > be and the better off they seem to be and the more choices they seem to have
> > and the more they get to speak their mind and move from place to place and
> > hold whatever belief they choose. (oh, sorry, remove "seem". They ARE happier)
>
> I'd like to see how you prove happier from someone who lives in the projects,
> or in South Central LA, in comparison to someone who lives in Cuba.
Sum of total happiness will be higher, per capita. There may be individual
excursions from the mean. In fact there better be!
> > That's a good enough argument right there, pragmatically, against communism
> > and in favor of capitalism. One doesn't work, the other does.
>
> Perhaps you are mistaking the political and economic systems? A Democratic
> Communist system is possible (And, I would be prepared to argue, desirable),
> whereas a dictatorship of capitalism has just the same problems as a communist
> dictatorship (And, the same problems of citizen freedoms...)
Communism can't be democratic, freemarket systems can't be dictatorial.
> > Communism is based on the premise that some central mechanism can determine
> > the right quantities of everything for everyone, obviating the need for
> > individual choices. It's based on the premise that people should work hard
> > and not get the fruits of their labors, but rather suffer the consequences
> > of the central mechanism's mistakes.
> >
> > Capitalism is based on the premise that no central mechanism can do as well
> > at determining the right quantities as well as individual choice. It's based
> > on the premise that people should work hard or not, as they choose, and
> > suffer the consequences individually.
> >
> > That makes capitalism moral and communism immoral. That's a good enough
> > argument right there.
>
> Excuse me? How does what you have stated above the last line make one moral
> and one immoral?
Unless it is moral to dispose of people and all their property however a
central committee sees fit, one is moral and the other isn't.
> Further, you can show from a utilitarian basis that
> > central mechanisms fail (and markets work) to maximise utility. That's a
> > good enough argument right there.
>
>
> I would agree that a market driven economy tends to be more efficent than a
> centerally planned economy. However, neither one is a particular statement of
> a communist or a capitalist society. (I can show at least one example of a non
> centrally planned "Communist" Country...China, which the US has regular
> dealings with...much to my discust!)
PRC isn't communist, at least not currently. It's a mixed economy
dictatorship with communist trappings but it is much less communist than
say, Cuba of 1980. For that matter, Cuba is less communist than it was.
Strangely enough, moving away from pure communism, even temporarily, lets
you actually feed your people. Something Lenin figured out way back in the
1920s...
> > Finally, communist states seem to have the nasty habit of territorial
> > aggrandisement. That's a good enough argument right there.
>
> Oh. And, lets see "Manifest Destiny" is a evil plot from the Russians to
> discredit the helpless freedom loving Americans? And, South Vietnam was a >mere misunderstanding?
America is not an anarchocapitalist or libertarian society, therefore these
statements, while true, are irrelevant in arguing against my claim.
> > > Any one of these is good enough for me but they're all valid. Pragmatic,
> > utilitarian, moral, and national defense based reasons. What more do you >>need?
>
> Simple, to see some proof that any of what you asert above is true.
What would be an acceptable proof, then? These are (except the
pragmatic/observational based argument) all theoretical arguments based on
the nature of the systems.
> Since we
> are talking about paper countries, I don't see that it is possible (neither an
> ideal communist state or a ideal capitalist state exist)
Correct but it's possible to get close to one of them without starving the
populace to death.
> and I for one don't
> think that we should rely on the altrusim of all people, because the cream of
> the people are oviously from the statistics being banded around, not sharing
Good, you admit that communism can't work then, since it's based on
altruism? That's the crux of one flavor of the utilitarian argument.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) But it isn't clear at the extremities whether your implication of morality is correct. For instance, during the recent discusion of the handling of Ender by the powers that be, you acknowledged that they were not clearly evil because of the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) I'd like to see how you prove happier from someone who lives in the projects, or in South Central LA, in comparison to someone who lives in Cuba. (...) Perhaps you are mistaking the political and economic systems? A Democratic Communist (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
