The return of Communism everywhere

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 14
Topic's author
#1
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
In around 1991, many people thought it was the end of Communism. It was supposed to be ultimate and final victory of free market over state-run economy, the final victory of freedom over government's oppression.

People thought "We did it! Communism will never come back!"

Only few decades later, Communist parties labeled under different names have taken hold of almost every country in the world.

Capitalist democracy has one weakness which Communists realized they can exploit.
Promising people "free" stuff, promising bunch of free stuff in elections is a strategy which simply works because:
1. Masses dont know that "free" stuff isnt free
2. Masses dont know that this is essentially a path to Communism, since every next election more free stuff must be given in order to win elections.

Thus, instead of Communism being defeated in 1991, Communism actually just changed its form into much superior one and spread into all countries.

Communism failed in Soviet Union only to win everywhere else.

The government controlling private lives of citizens and controlling their buisnesses is now present in almost every country in the world.

Countries now have government healthcare, government determining wages, government determining prices, government determining regulations, government determining which buisnesses will succeed by taxing their competition much more, or regulating competition much more.

Communism isnt defeated. Communism is now in USA, Europe, Canada, Japan...ect. The countries which are supposed to be leaders of the world are all run by obvious Communist economy, just slightly less extreme than the one of Soviet Union.

Its the Capitalism which has failed, because despite being an economically far superior system, Communism is politically far superior system.

A capitalist coming to election can say whatever he wants. He will be completely defeated by all the free stuff Communist will promise, and masses with their low IQ prefer to be poorer just so that rich are less richer, they prefer to get some "free stuff" and be poorer just to get the feeling that they are cared for.

Anyone with few working braincells can see that the situation only keeps getting worse, and will get even worse because government has incentive to meddle into everything.

Really, all propaganda was put in place to turn people into idiots who think Communism is only when government owns means of production.
Also, lots of propaganda was put in place to label rich people as some greedy men who enjoy in their private planes while small person suffers.

But what these masses dont see is that now government enjoys personal prosperity and controls private lives while small person suffers even more.

Masses dont know what Communism is, which is great news for Communist parties everywhere, who now only need to rename themselves and then they can implement all the Communist policies all over again like they did in USSR.

People dont realize that they are falling for same nonsense under different name.

Government is supposed to just have military and system to protect property and people.
It is not supposed to manage people's lives. It is not supposed to regulate economy.
It is not supposed to have 34 trillion of debt so it can pay for "free stuff" government "gives" to people.

If free stuff is indeed free for you, then ask yourself why does government have to pay for it using your money?

Its because with increase in prices it just happens to be paid by you indirectly.
#2
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 5,384
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
The Prinxe by machievelli lays this sort of power grabbing in the Prince, but to machievelli's cresit he does tell leaders to temper this when they grab power because of its negative effects which can cause them to lose their heads in revolts
#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,550
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea
The basic ideas of communism did not originate with Marx, however. Plato and Aristotle discussed them in ancient times, but Marx developed them into a popular doctrine, which was later propelled into practice. Marx’s ideal society ensured economic equality and fairness. Marx believed that private ownership of property promoted greed, and he blamed capitalism for society’s problems. The problems, he claimed, stemmed from the Industrial Revolution. The rise of factories, the reliance on machines, and the capability of mass production created conditions that promoted oppression and encouraged the development of a proletariat, or a working class.
Simply put, in a capitalist system, the factories fueled the economy, and a wealthy few owned the factories. This created the need for a large number of people to work for the factory owners. In this environment, the wealthy few exploited the laborers, who had to labor in order to live. So, Marx outlined his plan to liberate the proletariat, or to free them of the burden of labor. His idea of utopia was a land where people labored as they were able, and everyone shared the wealth.

#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,550
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Capitalism creates Trumps.
Topic's author
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
Most Communists are good people, but the ones who use Communism to gain power are bad. Corrupt government is simply no better than Trump, even if it claims to support Communist actions like sharing prosperity among all.

If workers were united, they wouldnt need government. They could then dictate how much they get paid by forcing Capitalist to pay them more.

But government, even if claims to be Communist, wont achieve much other than dictatorship.
Topic's author
#6
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@WyIted
he does tell leaders to temper this when they grab power because of its negative effects which can cause them to lose their heads in revolts
Well, often governments use majority's support to oppress minority. That way, majority is always on side of government. It just depends on how much majority can be brainwashed into doing horrible things.
#7
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea
Its the Capitalism which has failed, because despite being an economically far superior system, Communism is politically far superior system.
A truly capitalist system has never been tried. The closest we have come is a Representative Democracy.

Any time you have a government making laws, there is no capitalism, only partial capitalism. It is actually Capitalism that has never been tried by any world power.

For more on this I highly recommend this Mark Skousen article explaining the business cycle:


Topic's author
#8
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Public-Choice
It is actually Capitalism that has never been tried by any world power.
It would be very good if we had actual economical freedom. People who have actual economical freedom have it easier to start buisness. Its good if its easier to start a buisness, because buisnesses are basis of economy.

For more on this I highly recommend this Mark Skousen article explaining the business cycle:
Thank you. I will give it a read.
#9
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea
Its good if its easier to start a buisness, because buisnesses are basis of economy.
100% agreed that less regulation leads to greater wealth generation. It has been shown time and time again.

However, I think it is the consumer, not the business, that is the basis of the economy. Consumers are basically the boss of the economy, they determine what shall be bought, and therefore what shall be sold.

Businesses are simply a way to monetize our services or talents to consumers, who ultimately determine what is bought, since they must buy for a business to exist.
Topic's author
#10
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Public-Choice
However, I think it is the consumer, not the business, that is the basis of the economy
Well, its kinda both.

If there are no buisnesses producing goods and services, there is mass poverty. Consumers determine which buisnesses will survive, and consumers direct buisnesses. They are economically both necessary if society is to work.

But if government restricts buisnesses in any way, consumers have less choice because there are less buisnesses to choose from to both buy services from or seek jobs from.

I think that big buisnesses have some natural advantage on the market, due to size, but still small buisnesses can turn into big buisnesses as well. However, I know that government destroys small buisnesses by forcing regulations many cant afford.

Many small buisnesses have to resort to owner of buisness being the only worker in buisness, like store owner being the only worker in the store, to reduce costs and to be competitive.
#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,051
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
As I've pointed out to you from time to time.

Communism is a philosophical pipe dream that fails to take into account the reality of the human condition.

You cannot make human beings behave equally, if they don't want to be equal.

They might think that they want to be equal, but thinking and doing are two different things.

The actual choices available are; reasonably fair hierarchies or variably unreasonable hierarchies.
#12
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea
If there are no buisnesses producing goods and services, there is mass poverty.
Well, individuals can still grow their own food and make their own things without the busienssman. The businessman simply brings convenience and new ideas and products to the table. Though SOMETIMES, he may be necessary due to natural monopolies, his prices are stil dictated by the consumer anyways because they are the ones who buy. A natural monopoly cannot force people at gunpoint to buy from him, so his prices are not exorbitantly expensive.

But productivity is mainly the application of personal time allocation toward work. Anyone can be productive and make products. They don't NEED a business to do it for them. However, when people make businesses, productivity skyrockets and massive increases in wealth are generated from the voluntary interactions.

There is an excellent article about productivity on the Mises Institute's website:
Topic's author
#13
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Public-Choice
A natural monopoly cannot force people at gunpoint to buy from him, so his prices are not exorbitantly expensive.
Monopoly in Capitalism is mostly a myth created to scare people.

Even if there is only 1 smartphone producer, he still has to keep prices low otherwise people will begin buying laptops instead of smartphones. So even under most extreme monopoly, which wont ever even happen, the monopoly is still in competition with all other different buisnesses. Simply, there is always an alternative in Capitalism. Even if there is only 1 food producer, which is practially impossible, people can produce their own food in case such monopoly increases prices too much. Even if they had no other choice than to buy from monopoly, if such monopoly became too greedy and wanted to starve people, it would easily be overthrown by people since people protesting would do too much damage to it, and thus such monopoly would have no incentive to greatly increase prices.
Simply, the story of monopoly happened only under Communist governments who became monopoly, and which will eventually fail once people grow tired of having to work more than 9 hours a day while being unable to meet basic needs or support basic family.
Topic's author
#14
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Public-Choice
There is an excellent article about productivity on the Mises Institute's website:
These articles are great, but I feel like most people wouldnt understand them.

I could make it more simple by saying:

To create better production = takes time

To create better production = requires saving of previous products to sustain creation of better production

To create better production = saving of products is necessary

Printing money = doesnt actually save products

Printing money = cannot be a good way to create better production, will end in shortages

However, there is no way to explain it to average voter lol... until economical crisis hits, of course.