"My parents didn't fight off communism..."

reply to post by SarK0Y

gorbachev wasn't just unique, clownish idiot -- CCCP had gotten critical mass a-la him & fate of the Country was solved.

I am sorry, I realize you are in Russia and that English is not your primary language, but I am having a hard time understanding this statement. I understand, (I think), that you are suggesting that it was not Gorbachev alone who affected the demise of the Soviet Union, but what confuses me is your remark that the fate of the country was solved. Can you rephrase this statement?

my friend, planned economy of CCCP was based upon scientific research for each Industrial Branch & i completely failed to see something bad on it you're just using dogmas from books

First, let me speak to the "dogmas from books" remark. Clearly defining words is essential in communication. If you have, what you believe to be a better definition of communism, then by all means provide it, but simply declaring the standard definition of communism as dogma is pointless. The key to communication is that all parties are in agreement on what the words being used mean and without that agreement communication will not succeed.

As to your assertion that the "planned economy" of the CCCP was based upon scientific research, economics is a "social science" which is considered to be a "soft science" distinguished by the "hard" science of natural and physical science. Soft sciences do not rely upon empirical, experimental, and quantifiable data, nor do they adhere to the scientific method. This is particularly illustrative in economics that is divided by several different schools of thought. Of the several different schools of economic thought, there is pre-modern, early modern, and modern. Terms such as "mainstream economics", "classical economics", and "orthodox economics" are bandied about by various schools of thought from the Saltwater School, The Freshwater School, both of which are associated with "neoclassical synthesis". Marxian economics is distinguished from Socialist economics, and Utopian economics, as well as Ricardian economics and Christian socialism. There is Anarchist economics, Distributism, Institutional economics, New institutional economics, Lausanne school, Keynesian economics, and Neo-Ricardianism, to name just a few. I think any claims of "science" regarding economics is wishful thinking, at best.

sorry, i desperate failed to see how my words contradict with that definition of capitalism

You claimed that capitalism makes monopolies, but since monopolies are defined as being exclusive control of by one group of producing or selling a commodity, or service, and since capitalism is defined as being an economic system of private and corporate ownership proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment profits gained in a free market, by definition monopolies cannot exist under capitalism. Exclusive control of the production and selling of commodities and services is not a free market.

Just a question, who will be a Victor in Free Market: one, who makes small amount of production or second, who issues massive amount, but worse quality than first.

If the buyer values quality more than savings then that buyer will purchase the quality goods or service, and if the buyer values savings more than quality that buyer will purchase the goods or service that is cheaper but of lesser quality. A perfect example of that is in knock off brands. Knock off brands imitate higher quality goods in appearance but not in quality, and are sold for a much lower price than the brand product that has been imitated. Knock off brands do not put brand names out of business, which suggests that the victor is the buyer, as well as the sellers in both instances. Everybody wins. Those who value higher quality will continue to buy the brand names, those who don't will save themselves money and buy the knock offs.

second question, my friend: why should so many factories have transfered to China, they can make better than Europe/USA or cuz their people work just for food?

A maxim in business is to minimize your outgo and maximize your income. As long as the consumer is willing to purchase products made in China, then the decision to build factories in China in order to minimize the outgo will stand. There are many variables that can change that decision, but the constant will remain on minimizing the outgo. If the labor in China becomes more costly, or the regulatory system set by the Chinese government becomes too costly, these factors could change the situation, and the change will stem from a need to minimize the outgo.

Further, a surge of patriotism or nationalism could effect consumers who collectively begin only purchasing products made in their own country, which will minimize the profits made by those factories built in China. This will also have an effect on the decisions made by the company with factories in China. If the profits continue to minimize, and that minimization outweighs any savings they have made by employing Chinese labor, then if that company hopes to survive they will have to re-evaluate their China based factories and begin looking at building factories in the country where the consumer has collectively decided to only buy products made in that country.

Even further, tariff's imposed by a nation could become so cost prohibitive as to discourage building factories in China. There are many variables that can and do have an effect on the decision making process of business.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

remark that the fate of the country was solved. Can you rephrase this statement?

at the End of CCCP, country was sunk in the wrong ideas & emotions -- Nothing good might be done with it.

economics is a "social science" which is considered to be a "soft science"

first & foremost, Economics is Knowledge how to deal with restricted resource, social moments are just second question.

If the buyer values quality more than savings then that buyer will purchase the quality goods or service, and if the buyer values savings more than quality that buyer will purchase the goods or service that is cheaper but of lesser quality.

every buyer wants most quality, but it's not possible in the Globe & each of humans has just reachable

and since capitalism is defined as being an economic system of private and corporate ownership proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment profits gained in a free market, by definition monopolies cannot exist under capitalism. Exclusive control of the production and selling of commodities and services is not a free market.

well, my friend, please, enlighten me list of mechanisms how capitalism fights off monopolies.

A maxim in business is to minimize your outgo and maximize your income.

along the our discuss, that's what i'm talking about that's prime reason why capitalism makes monopoly

reply to post by SarK0Y

That's why communism is ok - because it's just like the war on terrorism? That's your argument?

If you were not the property of the state as you imply then you must have been gaming the system. What does that prove?

reply to post by luxordelphi

That's why communism is ok - because it's just like the war on terrorism? That's your argument?

Freedom of Speech & so on ain't about classical definition of whatever Social System, in particular communism. The Society, which have a will, an education & a strength to control own leaders, have Freedom of Speech & so on. USA has having just illusions of real control of'ir leaders for 100 or, maybe, more years.

If you were not the property of the state as you imply then you must have been gaming the system.

idea no to've properties & some other funny moments were extincted very rapidly

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

That's why communism is ok - because it's just like the war on terrorism? That's your argument?

Freedom of Speech & so on ain't about classical definition of whatever Social System, in particular communism. The Society, which have a will, an education & a strength to control own leaders, have Freedom of Speech & so on. USA has having just illusions of real control of'ir leaders for 100 or, maybe, more years.

If you were not the property of the state as you imply then you must have been gaming the system.

idea no to've properties & some other funny moments were extincted very rapidly

The 'Freedom of Speech & so on' system is not about control. It's not about controlling leaders. It's not about educating people to control leaders. Sounds like more gaming to me.

These 'funny moments' were indeed 'extincted very rapidly' after all property etc. had been confiscated and rested in the gamers' hands.

Originally posted by SarK0Y
well, my friend, please, enlighten me list of mechanisms how capitalism fights off monopolies.

Human Action

reply to post by luxordelphi

my friend, would you like to explain your point with more details?

reply to post by NewlyAwakened

if the human will stay just self-indulgence animal -- no Great Future is for'em &, yeah, capitalism cannot create Great Future for its adherents

It is pretty obvious that both systems don't work. What needs to be done is to take the best ideals of each and merge them into a better system. It is really about raising up the lower classes while at the same time providing incentives for work well done.

It is also time to face some new realities. We have reached a point of advancement and technology where we require far less employment input to get the same or in our case, much larger output This has put us in a position where we have more people than jobs for them to do. As we move forward this gap will continue to grow wider. Capitalism, once it reaches a mature state, is always destined to turn out like this. I won't argue it's effectiveness in building a nation from scratch, but once most of the resources of that nation have been used up or already spoken for, it is a fairly quick trip downhill.

We really need a new paradigm. One that has some humanistic ideals, but also keeps the same basic for-profit capitalistic system intact. One way to do this is to guarantee gainful employment for those willing to work. Those unwilling to work, if able, would be out of luck. Bottom line is if the capitalistic system can't provide them jobs, then the government needs to do so until the capitalistic system can accomodate them.

Well, of course you don't want a bigger government with higher spending. The alternative is to make the corporations be more accountable. Ensure they pass on their productivity gains to their employees through shorter hours and higher wages for those hours. Oh inflation! you say. Well, we simply need to find the place where wages and prices come into equilibrium and have the government enforce these levels. It would mean the end of unions. The wage level should be based on a two parent model, where one parent works and one stays home and tends to their children. Might work wonders for the marriage rate as well.

No solution is easy. Anything that could actually work to pull us from this spiral would require a huge adjustment and much time to implement. None of these will work under our current monetary system so that would have to be part of the reform. Funding this through taxes and debt just isn't feasible. I am comforted a bit that the Fed is buying much of our debt currently. I just think they should buy all of it, new and oustanding, and then be used simply as a measure of the money supply, rather than to actually be indebted to them. If we look deep enough, it may be that is already the case but to disclose this would mean that the people would demand the money be spent on them rather than sudsidizing the corporations.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

weak point of every conception is human factor: i'm perfectly failed to see how it can be solved in common case i think common & effective solution is impossible: eugenics & suppressing Free Will makes Society w\o Great Persons. by my humble opinion, only grave cataclysms might consolidate Society to leap to next Level of Being

reply to post by SarK0Y


You are probably right that it is unsolvable at this point. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't repeatedly try to advance to a better way. Once a system fails it must be replaced with something different. It is pretty ironic that with all the talk of progress, etc that capitalism has brought, the great minds of the world have still not figured out how to have the world live in harmony, with a decent standard of living for all it's inhabitants. It really comes down to will.

I don't know about anyone here, but I would not choose to let someone who didn't care about my household as a whole, become a part of my household. We need to cast out those who would sacrifice the greater good of their society in return for personal gain. It really is as simple as that. All for one and one for all or hit the road jack. This doesn't mean that one doesn't get rewarded for his contribution. It only ensures that there is no reward without contribution.

I really think our only hope is extra terrestial intervention. I would think that anyone who managed to travel here would likely be from a more utopian type society. If we could see what we could become then we might be willing to give it a go. Of course, we could see instead an evil empire, at which point most of humanity would simple lose the desire to live.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

Once a system fails it must be replaced with something different.

just a remark, my friend: set of possible Social Systems is finite.

All for one and one for all or hit the road jack

yea, that's ideal way of Society to've maximal vitality.

I really think our only hope is extra terrestial intervention.

i suspect, Elder Brothers/Sisters, quite possible, could treat Earth: too many threats of Universe might devastate planet or even destruct her to dust.

reply to post by Darkrunner

As long as those poor people don't dare question the state, they will be taken care of. If those people want to get involved in politics different from the ruling party, their families are liable not to see them again.

I haven't had to worry about going to the gulag under capitalism.

At least not yet....

Here is a question for you :

Which is better, Democratic Communism or a Capitalist Dictatorship?

answers.yahoo.com...

Now let's see if you can decipher this ever so complicated code