Well, technically, the government regulation occurs under capitalism as well under communism but to another extent, but that isn't really relevant. You mention the government researching how much they should sell a product for; in a perfect communist government, this won't take longer than it would take for a company to 'research' the same thing. And if everything is developed by the government, again, ideally, there will be no efficiency loss. Practically, there will be, but we're not arguing about that. How they know how a given product will do when sold? The government has more resources than a company in evaluating that. Ask the same of a corporation. As for the price, probably enough to cover manufacturing cost and pay those who worked on it along with some extra to increase the coffers of the government, if the government wants the product to be as widespread as possible; maybe even drop the extra (which would be tax in capitalism) to spread the product around. If the government just wants money, it'll be just expensive enough to get many people to buy it.

This is my argument: Anything a regulatory government and a bunch of companies can do, an ideal government can do as well. A government can play the role of companies, creating several competing government companies (Like Sukhoi and Mikoyan-Gurevich competed for top Soviet plane maker, although government owned). Going beyond that, practically (under non-ideal conditions) it won't be as pretty, and efficiency will be lost. However, that efficiency loss in pure money making can be offset in benefit to the state itself as that money is used not to enrich one person (With Bill Gates having had $50 billion, and some having more and not using it for philanthropic purposes), but rather to enrich everyone. So, even with an efficiency loss, that $50 billion for one person transforms into $40 billion for infrastructure development or food subsidies or whatever, and even with a less efficient economy, the state gets ahead.

I apologize. You were rather vague when you said 'However, I do know at least that my math professor who grew up in Romania under a communist regime was extremely regulated in practically his life (until he moved here). That is really what I was getting at: People telling you "you have to do this" and "you need to fulfill X hours of this" and stuff.', I interpreted it incorrectly, perhaps. However, in a capitalist society, it isn't that different. You don't get sent to jail for not working, but you become a hobo, which isn't much better. As for job, it isn't random, but based on your specialization. While later on in life, in capitalist countries, a specialist would have many choices, fresh out of college, having a job ready for you could actually be a boon. And, yes, it isn't nice for you personally, perhaps, if you get a bad job, but... well, what can I say. This particular argument seems to be based on my interpretation. My ideal communist government would simply be one that acts as the ultimate regulator, giving you a choice of jobs based on specialization and skill, while for the most part stopping insane wealth disparity present in capitalism.

Nope. If a job is needed, the wages for that job will increase. If the wages don't increase, it means that it's not a particularly valued field or has enough people in it. It's that simple. Well, and the base wages would be dependent on the work/education required, I suppose.

You saying that your professor said something isn't a source. I'm sorry, but you'd be pissed if I said 'Well, my grandfather said that communism was the most economically efficient system.' as an argument in communist efficiency, for instance (which he never did). It's not a source.

Honestly, when I see the US hosting opposition websites for free, and when I see the opposition walking around with free iPhones, I get suspicious. The US paid money here and there during the Rose Revolution in Georgia, Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and I believe there was some other revolution in a Central Asian country of that sort. It's like the mild form of the US helping the Taliban against the Soviet Union, or the Soviet Union trying to establish communist governments in Greece or Turkey after WWII. Countries do it. You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that the US isn't helping the opposition in some way, to bring Moldova, a slightly pro-Russia communist country, into NATO. I'm not saying it was an American who burned down the Parliament building, but the US and other countries of similar caliber (which was the USSR and... yeah) do what they can to get strategically important countries into their fold.

As for that website, you're still not getting it. It wasn't a source for facts. It was a source for an analysis of four legitimate websites. It's that simple. If the websites were legitimate, and if the analysis made just a bit of sense, then it served its purpose.

I'm feeling mild, so I'll just say it'll be hard, but my position is subject to change as my whims do.

War is not bad for the country. WW2 ended the great depression, also the destruction of other countries economies during war let us beat competition, and sell goods to rebuilding countries.

So now you're telling me that Vietnam and Iraq were economic successes? War might be effective for creating jobs, which was what the Great Depression needed, but it also places the country heavily in debt.

Perhaps this is where our disagreement lies. Maybe my idea of "ideally" is much more practical than ideal. What's your definition of "ideally"? Mine includes a great number of factors that yours may lack, like price fluctuations, human error, restraints on productivity and resources, inconsistencies in levels of purchase for various individuals, lack of foreknowledge, to name a few. I suppose it might be easier to detail what I'm excluding: corruption, greed, red tape, and this little poem from that same proffessor you don't seem to trust:

A committee of twenty, debates plenty
a committe of ten, decides now and then
to get the most done, have a committee of one

If it is merely our definitions of "ideally" that differ, then it's no use me arguing with you about this. Mine includes many "practical" problems, so that could be it.

Citations please. The reason I say "citations" is because I would bet a bazillion dollars that anyone who experienced both would not agree with you. I don't actually expect or require citations for this though, that was really just to make a point that the empirical evidence will disagree with you.

Sounds to me like your ideal "communist" government is more like an insanely-regulatory capitalist government. lol

So you're saying that if the wages don't increase, it's not a particularly valued field. So if the government tries to bolster the sector directly, but the field isn't valued, they're then being paid more than the field is valued. Do we agree on this? Or perhaps the government wouldn't boost that sector at all, even if the people in it do need more money?

There is a very important difference in the two scenarios you presented. I offered not what my proffessor said, but what he actually experienced. That is, he has empirical, first hand knowledge of what actually occurs in a communistic state. I didn't say "oh well my proffessor thinks this" or "my proffessor doesn't like that," I said that my proffessor was there and can testify as to how the scenario actually was.
There's no opinion or ambiguity there, simply the state of being: regulated.

You saying "my grandfather thinks communism is the most efficient government" is not the same, it offers nothing but an opinion, unless your grandfather was actually there and can also say "because things ran smoothly" or "because we were happy with it" or something like that.

I wouldn't dare try to convince you otherwise lol

On a serious note, yes, they're helping the opposition I suppose, but if russia started hosting moldovan communist websites for free, I'd take much the same attitude as towards the U.S. doing it. One wants communism (not sure about this, but it doesn't make a difference really), one wants democracy, so they'll help out the people they like. Not really suspicious or anything. Now, if the U.S. started sending troops? Yeah I'm down for calling that out.

We weren't talking about website analysis though, we were talking about what was happening in Moldova. You've made your point, just in the future do me a favor and link me to the legitimate website that has the actual substance that I care about so we waste less time arguing about nonsense like this.


Well, just so you know, being the "strict" moderator that I am, I'm more inclined to delete a post than edit it, especially when someone's been warned. Not trying to scare you or anything (lol@me -- internet scare), just letting you know how things stand. That doesn't apply to just you of course, it's just we happen to be having the conversation at this point in time alongside our argument. I'd rather not have you post something I consider flaming, delete it, then have you yell at me about all the substance you put into the post though. It discourages posting -- but from my point of view, if you want to post, follow the rules.

Yes. If you include human errors and greed, that's definitely not under ideal conditions...
Citations please. The reason I say "citations" is because I would bet a bazillion dollars that anyone who experienced both would agree with me. I don't actually expect or require citations for this though, that was really just to make a point that the empirical evidence will disagree with you.

See, that was a completely useless paragraph. If you actually have a rebuttal of my logic, show it. Don't bring up mystical empirical evidence.

Perhaps. It doesn't really matter. I don't particularly care if the government owns the land, or if there's private property; if the economy is controlled by independent corporations or the government. Those are the means, not the end product. However, a powerful government is necessary.

Why would a government try to bolster a field that isn't valued? You're not making sense there. And why would the people there need more money? I already pointed out that my ideal system would include a decent minimum wage. If janitors want more money, they should change careers. If specialists want more money, they should achieve something for sizable bonuses.

... And my grandfather can't? He was born around WWII in the Soviet Union, I think he knows how it actually was... That's not my point, though. My point is that you saying that someone once told you something isn't a source. You can't link to it, you can't quote it from a book, it's not something you can prove.

I'd like to point out that the vast majority of people living under capitalist economies (to include China, because they ARE pretty much capitalist) are far poorer than Americans. You have such a dandy life because there are people in Bangladesh or India or Indonesia or wherever who, under capitalist conditions, work for far less than you do to produce it cheaply. Your toys, electronics, cars, etc would cost much more if made in the US instead of poorer countries (electronics is more innovation and less resources, so cars and electronics may not actually fit under that category, actually) like China. If you elevate the rest of the world to the American level of life, the American level of life itself would drop. I'm not sure about Soviet trade with other countries, but I do believe that they were pretty much self-sufficient in everything, and most trade was just for more efficient machinery, food, and energy out the other end. Don't quote me on that, and the Soviet economy was horrible anyway.
This entire thread is theoretically about how the communists keep getting democratically elected. Russia probably doesn't care if it's a communist government or not, as long as it's as pro-Moscow as possible. Most of the liberals probably don't fit into this category. The US probably wants it to be not communistic, regarding the brief liberal horror in the 1990's as an anomaly, and also knows that the liberal opposition would probably be pro-NATO and pro-EU. There were all these nice Romanian in-NATO in-EU flags flying at the riots, after all.

No. Until you point out what you dislike about that article, I won't cede this point. It was an analysis of four legitimate websites. It didn't have obscure claims with no sources, it was a proper analysis which you can, if you want to, disagree with. However, if you disagree with it, you'll have to explain what's so horrible about it if you want me to keep off that particular website. Blogs are fine sources in that they can make the argument for you; if it'll make you feel better, pretend that I didn't post a link to it, but that I plagiarized it, together with the links. What would be wrong with the logic?

As I pointed out, saying 'I find you annoying' isn't in any way even a light insult, as it refers not to your state of being, but to my state of being. If you won't logically accept that, for whatever creepy reason, I'll say 'I'm feeling annoyed for some unknown reason.' instead. As you noted, I'd be moderated according to what I said, not what I meant, so I won't get into any 'trouble'. Anyway, me spamming 'I find you annoying' would not break the rule about flaming. Although, it will break the spamming rule.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 24 2009, 10:51 pm by Centreri.

Under your definition of ideal. If they are excluded, then to me the situation becomes fantasy and not applicable to real life or argumentation since it does not reasonably reflect what I have observed of reality.

"However, in a capitalist society, it isn't that different" cannot be proven logically, only first hand testimony of people who have actually experienced both is sufficient to determine the truth of your claim, and I cannot refute your logic because you did not employ any logic, you made a claim.

Secondly, do you actually believe what you wrote, or were you just doing it to make fun of me?

Centreri, re-read the section this is referring to, I believe you are missing something.

Your grandfather certainly can provide empirical testimony then, if he was there and experienced it. I would just have to not be picky and not call it invalid cause you can't prove your grandfather said it to me. Probably could prove it actually, you could interview him about it and publish the results online somewhere, but I suppose I'd have to accept that wouldn't I?

Sure, it helps that people in other countries are willing to work for dirt cheap, I wouldn't refute that, but the U.S. had something good going before that.

Because I wasn't asking for a citation about analyzing websites, I wanted a citation that said "Here is an example of the U.S. helping anti-communists in Moldova" That site isn't worthy of being a citation in my opinion, because it clearly has an agenda, and I called you out on it. However, the sites which it referenced I did hold valid, like the NYTimes reference.

I grow tired of your justifications of the "you're annoying" business, so here's the bottom line: posts containing material considered to be flaming will be deleted. Flaming includes the application of derogatory terms to any person making posts in Serious Discussion. I have no further argumentation for you on the matter, so if you believe that bottom line to be invalid or unfair in some way, I advise you to contact minimoose and speak with him about it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=ideal&search=search
a conception of something in its perfection.

I never said otherwise.

In a capitalist society, you have to work. In a communist society, you have to work. In a capitalist society, you can either choose from a variety of jobs, you don't get a choice, or you can't find work. In a communist society, work is always readily available. In a capitalist society, if you don't work, you become a hobo. In a communist society, if you don't work, you go to jail.

And this is just Soviet-style communism, not even what I think communism should be.
Nope.

If you want to accept people telling you random things as evidence, go ahead. I won't.

That's not saying much. Provide a time period, because people in other countries were always willing to work for dirt cheap, prior to 1850 you even had slavery. Russia didn't, in MY country EVERYONE worked like a slave .

Since it cited relevant sites, it's a relevant citation, as it had four examples of the US helping anti-communist in Moldova, at least one as 100% accurate. I really don't care about what sites make you feel bad or not, that article was valid and you apparently have no argument for it not being valid except 'well, the OTHER articles on that website weren't'.

I find something deeply annoying.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 25 2009, 3:03 pm by Centreri.

I think this is a very interesting discussion with a lot of potential.

On the debate between communism and capitalism I would just like to address one specific claim (and elaborate)-

The claim:

Can be true but also misleading. In theory, yes, a communist government can provide infinite jobs to all workers and eliminate unemployment. Although this comes with a multitude of problems, just like goods and services jobs are also governed by supply and demand. Let's assume idealistically the communist government can provide a desired job for any individual. The mere presence of a desired job does not mean your good or service is required, nor does it mean it will benefit the economy. So while it may sound attractive that a communist government has everyone "each according to their ability" it just happens that their occupation will be at a surplus while other required jobs will suffer shortages. The economy therefore suffers, regardless of the unemployment rate. You also seem to appeal to us that somehow being a hobo by choice is worse than going to jail due to state interests. I think that choice (sometimes it's not even a choice but merely the result of uncontrollable circumstances) rests in the individual, and imprisonment for being unemployed is a great contravention of civil liberties.

Very true. This is why my proposed 'communist' government would regulate the supply to match demand via wage manipulation, and possibly stuff letting major counselors or whatever know which jobs should be in demand in the future and in which it should be easiest to get to do what you want to do. It won't always coincide, but that guy doing his job when he's not really needed isn't any less efficient than a guy who chose an unneeded specialty in a capitalist society.

As for prison for unemployment, that was Soviet-style communism. And Soviet-style communism ruined the country. Communism has no clause that says that someone who doesn't work has to go to jail. If I were running a communist country, I'd run a campaign to encourage disdain toward unemployment, portray it as very shameful, and I wouldn't put people in jail for not working. Hell, it's worth more to keep them in prison than it is to let them roam. If they're insane, like some NYC hobos, then I'd take some action .

Honestly, I'm not all in for civil liberties. I'm a 'democrat' in America just because of how disgustingly idiotic the republicans are, and no other party can win; I think that a country that does well by as many people as possible should be allowed to make 'civil sacrifices' in times when they're dangerous or hurt more than help the country. This is speaking as a planner of what I'd do if I were in control of a country, though, not as a selfish citizen, so...

When push comes to shove, America only has these freedoms when it can afford to. The crackdown during the Civil War, WWI, and WWII show that.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 29 2009, 9:36 pm by Centreri.

Sure is. Been going on since like the dawn of government, and still people are divided on it.

Be careful with your terminology. I believe you mean sufficient jobs, not infinite. No finite government can provide infinite jobs to a finite population.

Really? What assumptions are you making here? I would argue that it can't, but for the moment, let's consider the idea that it can. What kind of job is it going to be providing? Are all workers going to be middle class, working 9-5 jobs with comfortable lives? Or perhaps everyone will be extremely rich because of the assumed abundance of resources required for such a government to operate so efficiently. Or perhaps they'll all be dirt poor, working 14 hours a day just to make ends meet. Simply "providing a job" isn't good enough in my book. I'd rather have a bit of unemployment and the majority of folks being well off rather than have everyone have some crummy job.

I am having difficulty deciphering what you mean here. You're using the phrase "desired job" in two different ways. The usage in the first sentence is similar to "provide an arbitrary job" and the usage in the second sentence is closer to "presence of a wanted or needed job." If my interpretation is incorrect please let me know, and clarify what you actually meant, but as this stands, if the job is wanted or needed then it does mean it will benefit the economy by being fulfilled.

Your previous sentence does not connect with or support this statemet in any way. What is your rationale for the fact that one occupation will be at a surplus while another is suffering a shortage?

It is necessarily less efficient. In an optimal society, no job that is not needed would be performed because there are a limited number of resources available to humanity, and a job being performed without contribution to the efficiency of the whole would be a misuse or waste of resources. For every man-hour that guy doing the unneeded job works, the society loses a man-hour that could have been put to a better task. In a capitalist society, the unneeded job will undoubtedly be cut from the society, in which case the man-hours of that guy doing the unneeded job can be redirected into a more efficient use. In a capitalist society, there is no such thing as an unneeded specialty. Take cosmetic surgery for example. Sure, you might be able to call it "unneeded" but there exists a demand for the service and people are willing to pay for it. If no one would pay for it, cosmetic surgeons wouldn't have jobs, and would find them elsewhere, redirecting their man-hours into more valuable directions.

Obama? The democrats have had their fair share of congressional and presidential victories. Unless you mean like, the green party or something.

I'm not willing at this time to accept this, but I'll do some thinking on the matter. One thing I am sure of though, is that the freedoms of the American people were the largest step forward for humanity to date.

For some reason, you assume that a communist system would not trim away the unneeded to improve efficiency. I think of it more like the government using the methods I mentioned earlier to prevent too many workers in one field or another, which can be just as efficient as capitalism. Capitalist Companies aren't necessarily 100% efficient, though they strive to be. Why can't a government strive to be 100% efficient as well and match the efficiency of companies?

Seriously, reread what you quoted.

If you say so. I disagree, since I regard the future of humankind as either in the dustbin or relegated to a firm, restrictive government that could supervise ecological issues on Earth. Unless we find a way to send humans en masse off of Earth and onto other planets. Additionally, considering that high American and European lifestyles are unsustainable, I'd say they're definitely not a large step forward. As for the rights themselves, I have more examples to add: Patriot Act, Guatemano, Red Scare, Red Scare 2.0, etc etc etc. Whenever you put a little pressure on the American system, freedoms drop. Isn't it nice to be surrounded by... Canada and Mexico?

For the record, the USSR had earlier, better gender equality and racial equality than the US. Yay semi-clearthinking atheists .

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 2 2009, 4:41 pm by Centreri.

I should have realized this earlier, but this is going rather off topic. If you wish to debate communism vs. capitalism further, open a new topic, and as such I won't reply to your last post here. Let's try and get this topic back on track, pertaining to moldova and the elections there. Further discussion on communism is irrelevant to the topic unless it directly relates to the election in moldova, for example:
"Communism is better than capitalism because ____ and ____ and ____" <-- Irrelevant
"Communism will benefit moldova because ____ and ____ and ____" <-- Relevant
"Having a communist government in moldova will be better because ___ and ___" <-- Relevant
"Communism will not benefit moldova because _____ and _____ and _____" <-- Relevant