Reason 473856483962586329 why capitalism stinks

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/20568/icode/

This is unacceptable and should serve as a reminder that while those fortunate enough to live in the developed world aren't entirely susceptible to such, it affects an untold number of people.

Actually through the market system, the price of rice is considerably lower than it would be under a socialist system. Captitalism has made sure that there are only 1.02 billion people hungry.

Originally Posted by Nictel

Actually through the market system, the price of rice is considerably lower than it would be under a socialist system. Captitalism has made sure that there are only 1.02 billion people hungry.

And you know this because?

I'm sorry to beat on a dead horse, but under the soviet system the people were actually relatively wealthy in comparison to the rest of the world. They actually had money, but they didn't have anything to spend it on due to the backwardness of the soviet state in regards to entertainment, fashion, etc. I doubt procuring rice was much of a problem.

Furthermore, under an actual socialist economy currency will have been substituted by labor vouchers, which are representations of the actual labor of the worker, and not set wages which could never be the true product of one's labor.

It is also important to point out that while capitalism may be able to create cheap rice, the problem with the distribution under such framework creates a system of inequality, where a good number of people employed in sweatshops around the world wouldn't even be able to afford it!

Starvation would never happen under the watchful eyes of our communist chairman Joseph Stalin!

He was the general secretary friend, and Joseph stalin singlehandedly stopped the ukrainian famine with his bare hands and iron will.

Originally Posted by Bakunin Brigade

I'm sorry to beat on a dead horse, but under the soviet system the people were actually relatively wealthy in comparison to the rest of the world. They actually had money, but they didn't have anything to spend it on due to the backwardness of the soviet state in regards to entertainment, fashion, etc. I doubt procuring rice was much of a problem.

Wealthy? The avarage Soviet citzen couldn't even afford to heat his house in the winter.

Furthermore, under an actual socialist economy currency will have been substituted by labor vouchers, which are representations of the actual labor of the worker, and not set wages which could never be the true product of one's labor.

How is recieving a voucher as your pay better than recieving currency as your pay?

He was the general secretary friend, and Joseph stalin singlehandedly stopped the ukrainian famine with his bare hands and iron will.

And then he killed 10 million people simply because they protested against him. What a nice man.

Originally Posted by Bakunin Brigade

He was the general secretary friend, and Joseph stalin singlehandedly stopped the ukrainian famine with his bare hands and iron will.

Despite the fact that some would state that the starvation was forced in the first place, I gotta disagree.

If there is actually anyway he did solve the problem it was by his shipping away the people to gulags and camps or sending them into the army until their was only enough people to fit the small bit of food their was.

Stalin never really solved much... He industrialized quickly but at what cost of human life? He signed a non-aggression pact with the Germans and even when it was apparent they would attack he ignored the threats, he purged the army causing low ranking officers to fill the positions despite their inexperience and thusly led to massive loss during the Winter War and the Second World War.

I'm a communist for crying out loud and even I see that Joseph Stalin is no man to respect, in any field rather it be industry, agricultry or services...

Originally Posted by Bakunin Brigade

And you know this because?

Consumer prices in socialist systems fluctuate strongly and are anything but logical. e.g. A loaf of bread may cost 3 cents but a lemon $25,-.

I'm sorry to beat on a dead horse, but under the soviet system the people were actually relatively wealthy in comparison to the rest of the world. They actually had money, but they didn't have anything to spend it on due to the backwardness of the soviet state in regards to entertainment, fashion, etc. I doubt procuring rice was much of a problem.

I'm sorry to beat on a dead horse but the GDP per head was more than half of that of western countries. Comparing the SU with Africa, South America and Asia (at that time.) is kind of mute.

Furthermore, under an actual socialist economy currency will have been substituted by labor vouchers, which are representations of the actual labor of the worker, and not set wages which could never be the true product of one's labor.

That will only work if you predetermine what a person is allowed to consume. Otherwise you'll get huge shortages of one product and huge overflow of another product at the same time. Also:

It is also important to point out that while capitalism may be able to create cheap rice, the problem with the distribution under such framework creates a system of inequality, where a good number of people employed in sweatshops around the world wouldn't even be able to afford it!

Socialist system =/= Charity system; transportation would be just as hard in a socialist system because it will not cost the same amount of production to feed every single person. It will cost more to feed a person living in a food poor region than it does to feed a person in a food rich region. As such inequality will also follow with Socialism.

Originally Posted by BEHIND THE MASK

Damn Capitalism...

Starvation would never happen under the watchful eyes of our communist chairman Joseph Stalin!

Stalin doesn't represent all communists. I'm sure you did all of your research before commenting, but just to refresh your memory, Stalin was disliked by many members of the communist Party (and killed those that he suspected disliked him), and ,very significantly, Lenin didn't like him. Furthermore, Lenin doesn't represent all communists, because in early 20th century Russia there were two communist Parties, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Furthermore, not all Russian communists represent communism. The only communist that does represent all others to an extent is Marx. But, of course, you knew that already.

Originally Posted by Figaro

Stalin doesn't represent all communists. I'm sure you did all of your research before commenting, but just to refresh your memory, Stalin was disliked by many members of the communist Party (and killed those that he suspected disliked him), and ,very significantly, Lenin didn't like him. Furthermore, Lenin doesn't represent all communists, because in early 20th century Russia there were two communist Parties, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Furthermore, not all Russian communists represent communism. The only communist that does represent all others to an extent is Marx. But, of course, you knew that already.

I was being sarcastic comrade, I am a communist as I stated only two posts earlier...

I was just using Stalin as a contrast because both Communism and Capatilism have their dark aspects and shady characters.

Trust me, I'm familiar with the above stated, though as for Marx representing all Communists, that can be true to a degree but there will always be those alterations to a system, and even if it is different it will be communism...

I could just have easily used other examples: Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, those Korean *******s, but I simply used Stalin because he is amongst the most familiarized names.

Trust me, I'm familiar with all of the above.

My apologies Comrade! I didn't read all of your posts, so I belived you to be one of those communist-hating, republican, facist, neo-nazi S***heads. I will read more carefully in future. Since you knoyour history, I would like to ask your opinion about something. If Trotsky had taken over from Lenin, would the U.S.S.R. still exist, and would the Cold war have happened?

People are always going to be hungry. Always.

Not to mention capitalism is obviously the most efficient economic system, maximizing efficiency maximizes profits, and that maximizes benefits for the consumer. However, I am no economist, that is like trying to understand the tax system XD.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

People are always going to be hungry. Always.

Not to mention capitalism is obviously the most efficient economic system, maximizing efficiency maximizes profits, and that maximizes benefits for the consumer. However, I am no economist, that is like trying to understand the tax system XD.

Hitler was efficient.

Originally Posted by Figaro

My apologies Comrade! I didn't read all of your posts, so I belived you to be one of those communist-hating, republican, facist, neo-nazi S***heads. I will read more carefully in future. Since you knoyour history, I would like to ask your opinion about something. If Trotsky had taken over from Lenin, would the U.S.S.R. still exist, and would the Cold war have happened?

While this might be better set for a different thread, I'll go ahead and answer:

Its a hard thing to really guess at, because with most of these 'what if' scenarios, its all up to speculation.

I feel Trotsky was far more responsible and reliable then Stalin, certainly, and if I recall correctly it was Trotskey's idea that also influenced Lenin's new economic system.

However, I am more certain that Trotsky would have pushed harder to keep the Nazi's from coming to power in Germany; its also notable that Trotsky had good military experience, in that if I remember correctly he largely put together the Red Army, meaning that there would have been no purge of the experienced ranks.

But still, the survival of the USSR depended more on Trotskys successors then it would Trotsky... Who knows who may of followed after him.

But overall, I think the USSR would have a far better reputation under Trotsky then it would under Stalin, but remains the question had it been Trotsky, would the Soviets have developed into the industrial power they become.

Its really hard to tell.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

People are always going to be hungry. Always.

Not to mention capitalism is obviously the most efficient economic system, maximizing efficiency maximizes profits, and that maximizes benefits for the consumer. However, I am no economist, that is like trying to understand the tax system XD.

That's a positive view. Hunger can be ended, it just requires resources, energy and the will to act.

There are a lot of things wrong with capitalism. For a start, it maximizes the things you said for some, not for all. A better economic system? Dunno but I can imagine something will be thought of in the next few years as the problems with capitalism become more apparent.

Originally Posted by Figaro

Since you knoyour history, I would like to ask your opinion about something. If Trotsky had taken over from Lenin, would the U.S.S.R. still exist, and would the Cold war have happened?

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but whatever.

I feel that if Trotsky had assumed power, WWII would have been much shorter. Since Trotsky was against Stalin peace agreement with Hitler (thats what got him exiled in the first place), he likely would have attacked Germany much sooner, rather than waiting until he himself was attacked like Stalin did. He may have even prevented Hitler from gaining so much power in the first place, preventing WWII from starting. I also think that since he wasn't as radicle (read: bat **** insane) as Satlin, Soviet-US relations after WWII would have been better, so the Cold War would have been less likely to occure. I can't say whether the USSR would still exist or not.

Originally Posted by Figaro

Hitler was efficient.

In ways, yes, however there are some shortcomings to his efficiency for example he never allowed German women to join the work force, which would've helped their war effort.

Originally Posted by Nictel

That's a positive view. Hunger can be ended, it just requires resources, energy and the will to act.

There are a lot of things wrong with capitalism. For a start, it maximizes the things you said for some, not for all. A better economic system? Dunno but I can imagine something will be thought of in the next few years as the problems with capitalism become more apparent.

Hunger cannot be ended until the countries with all of the poverty make massive reforms and trying to make impressions on the global market. Of course there are problems with capitalism! There are problems with every system. America has been through many recessions, only one crippling, I doubt capitalism would need to be changed. Besides, Capitalism has created the glorius world you see around you.

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

How is recieving a voucher as your pay better than recieving currency as your pay?

Because work vouchers are equal to the value of the work being done, rather than less than the value of said work. In a capitalist system it is necessary for employers to pay their employees less than what their work is worth if they wish to make gains, while paying employees through work vouchers bypasses this issue as the work voucher collected by the worker is distributed by the community, rather than from the employer's pocket.

In ways, yes, however there are some shortcomings to his efficiency for example he never allowed German women to join the work force, which would've helped their war effort.

Yes, however, if he had acted purely in the name of fascism, rather than diluting his system with his own personal will he would have created an incredibly system in the short term.

Fascism creates a powerful positive feedback loop between government powers and powerful corporations in that they both come together and compliment each other, all while nationalism acts as an opioid for the common man, and, at the same times, empowers the government even further.

Of course, this is incredibly ruthless and inefficiently in the long term as it lacks the positive feedback loop of community contribution inherent in communism, socialism, and to some extent, capitalism.

And, of course, this loop is far more abundant and apparent in communism and socialism than in capitalism, where the end goal for the competitor is to halt this loop.

In ways, yes, however there are some shortcomings to his efficiency for example he never allowed German women to join the work force, which would've helped their war effort.

Capitalism has only existed for around 300 years. A much larger chunk of human society was created through feudalism and slave society. Perhaps we should revert to those systems?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Hunger cannot be ended until the countries with all of the poverty make massive reforms and trying to make impressions on the global market. Of course there are problems with capitalism! There are problems with every system. America capitalist countries have been through many recessions, only one crippling, I doubt capitalism would need to be changed. Besides, Capitalism has created the glorius world you see around you.

I realise you love your country but lets talk capitalism in general and not just US capitalism. I'm not going to question the advantages of capitalism, however it would be wrong to not look for better systems. The current crisis is going to get a whole lot worse before it will get better. There are already changes happening in the capitalist system. In fact calling government aid and the implementation of laws that restrict banks capitalism will leave Adam Smith spinning in his grave.

If you look at Asia, e.g. China and Singapore both have mixed economies, with both capitalist and socialist parts, they are destined to come out of this crisis a whole lot better than western capitalist countries. So yes I do not only believe capitalism must change, I also believe it will change.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Capitalism has only existed for around 300 years. A much larger chunk of human society was created through feudalism and slave society. Perhaps we should revert to those systems?

Why? Capitalism is obviously better.

Originally Posted by Nictel

I realise you love your country but lets talk capitalism in general and not just US capitalism. I'm not going to question the advantages of capitalism, however it would be wrong to not look for better systems. The current crisis is going to get a whole lot worse before it will get better. There are already changes happening in the capitalist system. In fact calling government aid and the implementation of laws that restrict banks capitalism will leave Adam Smith spinning in his grave.

Pure capitalism is like anarchy, which is not effective either. There of course have to be safeguards, but not till it goes overboard.

If you look at Asia, e.g. China and Singapore both have mixed economies, with both capitalist and socialist parts, they are destined to come out of this crisis a whole lot better than western capitalist countries. So yes I do not only believe capitalism must change, I also believe it will change.

I am sure they both have other advantages in this crisis than just the capitalist nations, I don't know enough to say for sure though. However, I still see no reason for capitalism to change. Why do you think it must change?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Why do you think it must change?

Well, for me I've always felt change was good... not in terms of a totally U-turn of what you once stood for but gradual change I feel is needed.

Thats how I've always longed to improved the Communist System, I see good points and want to implement them; though for me I've tried to associate Communism with the social aspects such as healthcare and education and rights, however I do try to stand mindful of the economic standings...

The point is, I think a form of change is always needed, not just huge but small as well.

Course I may be making the wrong point.

ok look any system of government/economy can be good unless you get people like Stalin or Obama running the show, then everything goes to hell. The ideas that both economic systems were founded on are sound in principle and theory but most of them fail in practice because you have greedy people out there who are in it for themselves, and not for the welfare of society as a whole, and this also includes Socialism, so don't think I'm picking on people here.