Marxist-Leninist

[Phanuthier]

Azure ... you puzzle me. You keep on fighting this notion that capitalism is the only way to go, i.e. "the best system the world has ever seen" ... yet your views seem predominantly socialist, as far as I can tell. Or am I mistaken here?

I have to wonder (among other wonders) ... do you even know what you are arguing?

The only valid point I see you focusing on to base your opinion on is freedom, and I have no idea why. Isn't this thread about which system has the most efficient economics? And for that, you have to take into consideration things like GDP, jobs, growth, education and knowledge, economic stability, et al for all things economics related.

Additionally, you seem to argue on the side that Canada is the right way to go, without seemingly realizing how conservative and central Canada is compared to the USA.

And that brings me to why I keep wondering how much you really understand about the world ... and no offense because I'm really trying not to pick on you ... but its the judgement I see of so many of western world that their ignorance (with all due respect, not meant to be an insult) leads them to be so scared of something they don't understand that they believe there is one and only one way thats good, and everything else sucks.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Yeah but at the end of the day, everyone would pay different amount of dollars. How is that different from what we have now?

I'll take a progressive system of 3%, 5% and 7% tax brackets over a 10% flat rate, eventhough I would end up with a higher % than some other sucker, and I am sure every pro-capitalist would.

It's all about the dollars you have to hand over to the government, not about percentages.

Well, some people are giving half their salary to the government right now....more or less, depending on what they make.

10% across the board would put more money back into the hands of the people.

But I could go for a progressive system as well. Anything is better than what we have now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Azure ... you puzzle me. You keep on fighting this notion that capitalism is the only way to go, i.e. "the best system the world has ever seen" ... yet your views seem predominantly socialist, as far as I can tell. Or am I mistaken here?

Eh? Socialist? Where have I ever said that? I think I've pointed out enough times that I for LESS government involvement in the economy, and in our lives.

The only valid point I see you focusing on to base your opinion on is freedom, and I have no idea why.

Ah, but you fail to realize that the only reason I mentioned freedom or 'human rights' was because of your habit to trump China and place them ABOVE the US.

Additionally, you seem to argue on the side that Canada is the right way to go, without seemingly realizing how conservative and central Canada is compared to the USA.

Yes, I like certain parts about the Canadian system, just like I like certain parts about the American system, the Japanese system, etc, etc.

Still don't get what you're saying.

And that brings me to why I keep wondering how much you really understand about the world ... and no offense because I'm really trying not to pick on you ... but its the judgement I see of so many of western world that their ignorance (with all due respect, not meant to be an insult) leads them to be so scared of something they don't understand that they believe there is one and only one way thats good, and everything else sucks.

Oh well. Guess my viewpoint is too 'simple.'

That sucks.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Communism has never worked in a manner that allowed for the full application of basic human rights, that does not mean it will never and could never work, however if I was a betting man I would be betting on the market economy every time.

Trouble with Communism is that it violates three basic rules of human behavior:

1. The power theory... basic communist theory dictates the need for a period of transition between "failed capitalist state" and "communist utopia." This transition has always required a leader or group of leaders taking control and preparing the system. Having what invariably becomes a non-accountable cadre in control has always lead to the transition becoming the rule. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even a theoretical technocracy could likely end up the same way.

2. Science of Scarcity... because the Earth does not have enough resources for everyone to live at a fair, equal and comfortable level... there must be a way to allocate what there is. What has traditionally happened with aspiring communist states is miserable levels were shared with the majority, with a small inner group enjoying gluttonous levels of comfort. If we one day devise some Star Trek-esque replicator technology that can recycle anything down to basic atomic levels and reconfigure it into everything (essentially, making it possible to have anything)... this problem might be solved. However, this is deep in the realm of science fiction.

3. Desire to Improve... if everyone is equal, regardless of output, there is only two options. Either the free riders are executed (dictatorship), or protected by the system (loss of production, less for everyone, which could lead to an impoverished state). Conversely, if everyone is truly equal, there's no way to promote, or reward someone with a more deserved position. With this stagnation, why would anyone willing go above and beyond?

Until these rules can be resolved, there's no way communism can actually work.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Yeah but at the end of the day, everyone would pay different amount of dollars. How is that different from what we have now?

I'll take a progressive system of 3%, 5% and 7% tax brackets over a 10% flat rate, eventhough I would end up with a higher % than some other sucker, and I am sure every pro-capitalist would.

It's all about the dollars you have to hand over to the government, not about percentages.

Exactly ... this is getting really confusing, I'm not too sure what Azure is even talking about on many tangents.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Exactly ... this is getting really confusing, I'm not too sure what Azure is even talking about on many tangents.

Thats what you get with a 'simple' outlook.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thats what you get with a 'simple' outlook.

What? Your 'simple' outlook can't tell the difference between a number and a %? That it can't tell the difference between economics and freedom? That it can't tell the difference between US economics and Canadian economics? And from the past thread on climate, can't tell the difference between what does't exist and what doesn't exist to average consumers? Or understand the carbon cycle? and so on and so on.

Your initial post was attacking my comment that while Marxist-Leninist ideology is seriously flawed and has shown to fail, I believe I have made a strong enough case that the flip side extremist that capitalism in its truest form is also flawed and we are seeing the consequences of it now. Mightly similar to how the holes in the system started to appear when the iron curtain came down as it is now in the USA, and I'm not just talking about the sub-prime. I've stated many times, the consequence of both extremists is a shaky structure due to corruption and greed, a failing middle class as the separation gap between the rich and everyone else increases, a poor education system for its stature as a world power (in USA), and a failing health care system (in USA). Whats sad is, the fat cats are going to make a killing and continue to make a killing, and alot of the middle and lower class in the USA are and are going to get screwed. I keep saying, extreme economics don't work, but you keep on missing the boat on that some how. I bring a different argument, because of what I have seen, what I have experianced and what I have learned from other peoples with different experiences and different viewpoints. From my knowledge and experiences, China gets dogpilled and a bad rep for their economics while the USA (despite being the butt end of jokes for all other factors) are seemingly the idealized society. And especially in a time where economic times are turbulent, they're also changing as we've seen China's growth the past 10 years grow faster then any other countries economics have ever grown in history... due to capitalistic policies, but subsequent values that come from conservative economics. Meanwhile, at the same time, free-wheeler capitalists are starting to see the warts come out capitalism and the failures are not small and they are not temporary. Thus, my proposed flavour of economics on the side of more socialistic Canadian politics with a more progressive flavour if you need a comparison, but one that really isn't practiced by any socity at the moment.

I don't mind you as a poster, but you are coming off very sarcastic for someone who hasn't brought many/any content to this thread IMO. I'm fine with disagreeing and debating with peter, who obviously knows his stuff although I find its views to be a little too theoretical and academic for my taste. Now I don't claim to be an expert, and I'm willing to admit that peter, FoL and others know this topic better then I do. But ... If you wish to participate, great, but lets keep this discussion on topic rather then making off tangent snide-remarks... especially if you are struggling with the topic. Fair?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

What? Your 'simple' outlook can't tell the difference between a number and a %? That it can't tell the difference between economics and freedom? That it can't tell the difference between US economics and Canadian economics? And from the past thread on climate, can't tell the difference between what does't exist and what doesn't exist to average consumers? Or understand the carbon cycle? and so on and so on.

Seriously, I have no idea where you're going with this.

My idea of the flat tax was a 'flat' percentage....where you pay 10% based on what you make. Period. Nothing about everyone paying $1,000, regardless of how much they make.

Sorry if you misunderstood me. My original criticism of China was aimed towards their repeated abuse of human rights, which seems to go hand in hand with a communist style system, considering its history. Not to say the idea in theory doesn't work, but when you apply it with human nature, there is an obvious conflict.

Canadian/American economics? Why would you say that I don't know the difference? Because you have me completely confused here.

As for the climate change thread? I'm the last person who knows anything about the 'science'....which is why I asked if there was a difference between 'natural' carbon, and the 'other' kind. Unless there is a problem with that.

Next time I'll ask you.

[peter12]

This thread is pretty hilarious. The anti-commies, Azure, Thunderball, Flame of Libertyand myself have given pretty logical and destructive arguments against communism and in favour of capitalism.

The only response of the socialist has been... just give it time and it will work...

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by peter12

This thread is pretty hilarious. The anti-commies, Azure, Thunderball, Flame of Libertyand myself have given pretty logical and destructive arguments against communism and in favour of capitalism.

The only response of the socialist has been... just give it time and it will work...

... as opposed to capitalism, give it time and it'll show it can't work? ...

Sign whatever, I give up. I wish things were more capitalistic for my own well being anyways. Any its probably pretty funny the ones arguing against me would be the ones that struggle from a true free market. Flat tax paid (not flat % ... don't confuse, Azure), private health care, private education, little to no government control, run Canada like the USA. I was arguing ideologically for an idea I thought is better for everyone, but clearly everyone doesn't have that idea and the idea I thought was selfish and works for only a small % of people is the only way to go.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

... as opposed to capitalism, give it time and it'll show it can't work? ...

Sign whatever, I give up. I wish things were more capitalistic for my own well being anyways. Any its probably pretty funny the ones arguing against me would be the ones that struggle from a true free market. Flat tax paid (not flat % ... don't confuse, Azure), private health care, private education, little to no government control, run Canada like the USA. I was arguing ideologically for an idea I thought is better for everyone, but clearly everyone doesn't have that idea and the idea I thought was selfish and works for only a small % of people is the only way to go.

I don't think any of us would argue against a system that places more emphasis on the market, and less on government control, but you come across as anything but pro-free market in this thread.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by peter12

Do you believe in science at all? What you just said is totally irrational. If an experiment repeatedly fails, we chuck out the crappy hypothesis and go with the one that can hold up under repeated investigation.

What I said was it might be possible that there is some application of communism that might work and still provide an acceptable level of human rights. This means that under some obscure set of circumstances there might be a scale that it could work for.

I also said that I would not bet on it, which I thought was a pretty clear way of me saying that if I was in charge and could choose a economic system for my country to use, it certainly would not be communism.

If this was unclear, I apologize.

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Trouble with Communism is that it violates three basic rules of human behavior:

...

Until these rules can be resolved, there's no way communism can actually work.

I agree 100%.

However, to claim anything is impossible is absolutely foolish. Given the right set of circumstances anything could happen. That there may be something out there waiting to be discovered that will totally change the way we look at the world as we know it. To deny this would be very closed minded.

[Phanuthier]

Azure, I don't know why you keep struggling with this, just re-read this post that I propose as a system I believe in:

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

- Flat tax for general needs (police, fire-fighters, security, etc) (edit for Azure, flat number not %)
- Taxes based on community for services that are community focused. If you have more money, you should have more luxery. If you can't afford it, tough beans.
- public education, good funding for post-secondary as well (add: more privatized post-secondary education)
- gov't control banking. recent events have me bias. (edited)
- government supported/invested entrepreurship. Its in the best interests of the state to support this, helps the entrepreneur as well. In return, the government gets a stake and some control and regulation.
- optional welfare. If you want to donate, great. But welfare should not be offered; rather, those who need it can be supported by those that are willing to donate to it.
- tight control on private companies, the government should have a say in how a business is run - not alot of power, but some. For instance, not let all the work be outsourced to Sri Lanka and Mexico the way the USA has.
- tier 2 health care. Very basics of support are offered to the public, but the wealthy should be able to have more if they can afford it
- as an aside, I think government should have longer terms. I find there isn't enough long-term planning in this democracy/capitalist run society because of the constant need to fight for votes... whether its good for the nation or not. I also think you should have a certain level of education to vote, be it high school or to pass a test to test your understanding of economics, as all votes should be educated votes - something I don't think we're seeing in democratic votes.

[Azure]

Heh, I must have missed that post.

Either way, you have some good ideas. I don't know about the 'welfare' portion though....if people can 'get' it....they might not work at all. There has to be some sort of incentive to get people to go out and get a job, and in theory get OFF of welfare.

But I like the idea of private donations helping sponsor it. If there is one thing the American people do in abundance its give money to charity.

[Phanuthier]

What the system I propose is very free market (in some ways, more then the USA) with a socialist aspect in 2 things:

• government oversight in a micromanaging (rather then macro the way it congress has let the US market get slaughtered)
• strong emphasis on supporting education and needing to keep educated individuals in the country.

Bullet 1, I think we need government oversight in both the entire industry sense, and micromanaging with input on the BOD or advisors. Its not always in the best interests of a country when a business is trying to maximize profits. Thats why production is commonly outsourced to Mexico and Asia (Microsoft's major fab/production in Guadalajara, Intel major fab/production in Costa Rica). A proposal due to the large amount of job loss in NA due to outsourcing to China, Asia and Latin America.

Bullet 2, my bias for education and knowledge - I'm repetative because this is a huge issue for me, and the single biggest concern in the USA besides the collaprse of the money/credit system. I'm not too sure how education got the short end of the stick in the USA and its hard to describe, but I think its a fallout of the economics of the USA. I believe education - not health care, and just above the essential needs - is the most important value to a country. A country needs to be educated as a whole to make educated decisions as a whole (if it wishes to run democratically) and a country needs to be as efficient as possible; for a country to run efficiently, the population must be educated. The majority and the mean of the population must be educated, and we need elite entrepreneurs and sciencists/engineers.

Everything else, offer the basic essentials as small as possible and let the free market form the path.

[Azure]

Well, I think the government has to have SOME sort of involvement in the economy, although I don't understand it enough to know how much.

As for education? I wholeheartedly support incentives to keep educated people here at home. Anyone who thinks doctors leaving for the US, or even other provinces is a good thing should get their head checked.