Equality Or Freedom?

[castille]

The main argument for Communism is that everyone can be equal, irregardless of the circumstance.

The main argument for capitalism is individual freedom, and the ability to do what you want (excluding dumb things like murder and bombing your school).


Psychologically, people who get rewards consistently will only exert minimum effort to get the reward. A child given $10 for mowing the lawn, irregardless of quality, will do a shabby job.

A worker paid $100 a day will do minimal work required to get that $100.


What controls are there under Communism to ensure everyone strives to do their best? What controls are there to prevent "mindless hard work" (ie a man working 100 hours a week without achieving anything), and encouraging "quality over quantity" (a man working 2 hours a day, but achieving a lot).

And if so, won't those controls ultimately compromise equality, and lead to yet another rise in capitalism?


This is one of the reasons for Soviet and Chinese inefficiency; because state controlled factories paid everyone the same irregardless of their productivity or efficiency, it simply means they will do a poor job (my parents did just that in the 70s).

[Geoff332]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The main argument for Communism is that everyone can be equal, irregardless of the circumstance.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>The main argument for communism -- at least the main one proposed by Marx (and most marxists) -- is that the capitalist labour process is inherently and unavoidably exploitative and this exploitation will lead to the eventual collapse of the capitalist system of production, replacing it with a system whereby people are fully involved in the productive system and receive the full value of their efforts.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The main argument for capitalism is individual freedom, and the ability to do what you want (excluding dumb things like murder and bombing your school).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>The main argument for capitalism is that if everyone acts in accordance to their own self-interest, within the bounds of justice, then this will produce a pareto optimal position, which will optimise both wealth and the distribution of that wealth.

(Both communism and capitalism define wealth in terms of production of commodities)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Psychologically, people who get rewards consistently will only exert minimum effort to get the reward.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>The empirical evidence on the link between rewards and behaviour is far, far more complex and ambiguous. They tend to work well in simple situations where rewards are directly tied to output, but in more complex situations where ambiguity and uncertainty dominate (ie pretty much every situation in real life), the stimulus-reponse link is tenuous, at best.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
What controls are there to prevent "mindless hard work" (ie a man working 100 hours a week without achieving anything)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I can tell you from direct experience that these things happen under capitalist systems -- frequently. Very frequently. They&#39;re even rewarded more often than not -- largely because modern work is generally complex and ambiguous, with outputs being very difficult to measaure with enough precision to work in a reward/punishment model. Instead, effort (time) is often substituted as a measure of performance.

I would, therefore, propose that these are characteristics of human nature and no economic system will actually resolve them.

[castille]

So Communism will not solve any problems.

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,)
The main argument for capitalism is that if everyone acts in accordance to their own self-interest, within the bounds of justice, then this will produce a pareto optimal position, which will optimise both wealth and the distribution of that wealth.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Isn&#39;t that just the Communist perspective on capitalism? Its something that used to be echoed in China during the 60s.

Capitalism isn&#39;t argued on the basis of self-interest (only rarely). You&#39;ll find most pro-capitalist sites state their vision for capitalism as one of freedom with minimal controls. Only the pro-Marx or pro-anarchy sites attack capitalism as a selfish philosphy.

[Section 8]

Actually, Communism offers more equality and more freedom. Freedom from government, freedom from law, freedom from exploitation, freedom from wage slavery, freedom from indoctrination, freedom from religion, and the list goes on and on. I suggest educating yourself in communism. Also, in communism, the populace may vote some workers out if they aren&#39;t contributing to the web.

[Impenitent]

freedom from law?
then under your communism I can kill you without legal penalty...

oh no, the democratic mob will unite and extract vengance? kill me back? how civil and communal...

no freedom and equal misery and slavery

[Waychel]

Capitalism and free enterprise are as free you can get in any market. :P

Let&#39;s compare here: Capitalism as it stands now, promoting an international economy, and Communism, which is responsible for the deaths of some hundred million people and the oppression of billions others in history.

Yeah, I say we give Communism another chance.

[Section 8]

No, don&#39;t think that you&#39;re right on this one.

Capitalism: Stealing, slavery, murder, greed, unequality, and authoritariansm

Communism: Never been tried, freedom, equality, and libertarianism

Which would you rather have.

[Waychel]

Communism hasn&#39;t been tried? I think you&#39;re choosing to remain ignorant of the last... 100 years.

Want to see how well Communism works? Take a look at China or North Korea right now..

Communism works in theory, but it doesn&#39;t take human nature into account. There will always be some body governing the many, that is not only how human beings work but how the animal kingdom itself works. The best you can do is to regulate the powers of those who govern. I&#39;d like to believe in fairytales too and think that Communism is possible and its nothing but puppy dogs and flowers and rainbows and Total Equality but history has proven it never works out that way.

[Section 8]

Communism has never been tried and here&#39;s proof.
Cuba=probably the closest thing ever to socialsim, but still pretty far away. Other than that it&#39;s a great nation.
USSR=Only called themselves communist in order to gain support. Communism believes in no government, and libertarianism. USSR was authoritarian.
North Korea=see above
China=see above

[Impenitent]

communism CANNOT happen

why? PEOPLE ARE GREEDY

end of your pipe dream... change people? LOL&#33;

[Waychel]

Mind telling me how Communism can stay in place without a governing body of any kind?

This is just ignorant of the principles of sociology, for one. Let&#39;s assume for a minute that by some miracle that is outside the realm of possibility, a Communist way of life was put into place with absolutely no governing body, and "the people" ran everything.

Not everyone is as good a speaker as the next person, so you would inevitably have cliques of people hording around a select other group of people to have their views heard. Representatives. Then there would be order because nobody could ever fully agree on anything, or if they did, you would have the oppression or seclusion of some other group.. so eventually, some sort of counsel or governing body would be made to make decisions regarding the community. Then there would also be those who would slack off during work, would not go to work, would steal or commit crimes.. so you&#39;d have to form some sort of militia or security control, an authoritative body. But then if you create a penalty system, you will need to create a judicial system to go along with it to prevent people from being made victim to false accusations and/or punished wrongly. And so on…

No matter what you start with, in the end people are going to seek order to a system of total anarchy and either appoint their own leaders, or in the end individual people will seize power.

Go back far enough in history, and try to find a single culture, a single civilization that either 1.) Didn’t appoint leaders or 2.) Wasn’t ravaged by warlords and the like, appointing themselves as leaders. You wont find one because it is impossible.

I’d recommend you read Animal Farm to get a better example of this. If we were saints, we wouldn&#39;t need any system to govern us and Communism would be possible, but unfortunately we are only human..