The Myth of Capitalist Resource Creation

[Agnapostate]

I can't think of any better forum to place this in, since there's no economics forum for discussing political economy and aspects of economic theory.

I'd like to discuss the talking point, repeated over and over again, that capitalists and laborers "need" each other, and that their natural interaction must be in a symbiotic relationship, since capitalists provide the financial investments that permit laborers to even work with certain resources. The problem that I've noticed with this is that it neglects the difference between labor necessitated through physical realities and labor "necessitated" because of the social paradigm in place. Without workers, crops cannot be planted and harvested, various machinery cannot be assembled, and mass production, in short, halts. Capitalists' abundance of financial "capital" does absolutely nothing to resume this process in the absence of workers. In contrast, capitalists are necessary only if their private control over productive resources is regarded as legitimate.

So then we must consider the premise that capitalists' ownership of the means of production is desirable because of their ability to successfully operate and manage productive and financial resources. The problem with that is that it's undermined by an empirical literature that demonstrates the superior efficiency of workers' ownership and democratic management. For example, we have Logue and Yates's Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization (http://eid.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/4/686):


A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital.

Doucouliagos's Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor-Managed and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2524912) goes further, noting that workers' ownership and democratic management is leaps and bounds beyond mere partial ownership schemes.


Using meta-analytic techniques, the author synthesizes the results of 43 published studies to investigate the effects on productivity of various forms of worker participation: worker participation in decision making; mandated codetermination; profit sharing; worker ownership (employee stock ownership or individual worker ownership of the firm's assets); and collective ownership of assets (workers' collective ownership of reserves over which they have no individual claim). He finds that codetermination laws are negatively associated with productivity, but profit sharing, worker ownership, and worker participation in decision making are all positively associated with productivity. All the observed correlations are stronger among labor-managed firms (firms owned and controlled by workers) than among participatory capitalist firms (firms adopting one or more participation schemes involving employees, such as ESOPs or quality circles).

So given that workers' ownership and democratic management is more efficient than the hierarchical organization of the orthodox capitalist firm, there's substantial reason to regard capitalists' private ownership of productive resources not only as ethically objectionable, but as profoundly inefficient. Is there anything in the contention about the "symbiotic relationship" that can be salvaged, or is socialism plainly superior on this ground?

[Mr. P]

I can't think of any better forum to place this in, since there's no economics forum for discussing political economy and aspects of economic theory.

I'd like to discuss the talking point, repeated over and over again, that capitalists and laborers "need" each other, and that their natural interaction must be in a symbiotic relationship, since capitalists provide the financial investments that permit laborers to even work with certain resources. The problem that I've noticed with this is that it neglects the difference between labor necessitated through physical realities and labor "necessitated" because of the social paradigm in place. Without workers, crops cannot be planted and harvested, various machinery cannot be assembled, and mass production, in short, halts. Capitalists' abundance of financial "capital" does absolutely nothing to resume this process in the absence of workers. In contrast, capitalists are necessary only if their private control over productive resources is regarded as legitimate.

So then we must consider the premise that capitalists' ownership of the means of production is desirable because of their ability to successfully operate and manage productive and financial resources. The problem with that is that it's undermined by an empirical literature that demonstrates the superior efficiency of workers' ownership and democratic management. For example, we have Logue and Yates's Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization (http://eid.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/4/686):



Doucouliagos's Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor-Managed and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2524912) goes further, noting that workers' ownership and democratic management is leaps and bounds beyond mere partial ownership schemes.



So given that workers' ownership and democratic management is more efficient than the hierarchical organization of the orthodox capitalist firm, there's substantial reason to regard capitalists' private ownership of productive resources not only as ethically objectionable, but as profoundly inefficient. Is there anything in the contention about the "symbiotic relationship" that can be salvaged, or is socialism plainly superior on this ground?

Oh AGIE, you're such a "tribal" sorta guy ain't ya? We all know how that worked out. Why not be an individual and enjoy the fruits of your labor?

Why promote socialism as "plainly superior" to capitalism when in fact only 5, five, FIVE countries out of 195 in the world practice this? And several of those are moving to Capitalism.

It just doesn't work well, Agie. But if you just gotta have it try this place. I doubt you'll like it much but it's right up yer ally.
http://www.thefarm.org/

[Agnapostate]

Oh AGIE, you're such a "tribal" sorta guy ain't ya? We all know how that worked out.

Labor cooperatives, they're called. They work out in a manner superior to that of the orthodox capitalist firm.


Why not be an individual and enjoy the fruits of your labor?

Socialism involves remuneration based on labor expenditure. Capitalism involves the unjust extraction of surplus value from workers.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/ed4a754f.png

Make up your mind.


Why promote socialism as "plainly superior" to capitalism when in fact only 5, five, FIVE countries out of 195 in the world practice this?

There are no countries that have currently implemented the public ownership and management of the means of production. There are several countries with regimes that claim to have enacted socialism, but those regimes are generally authoritarian dictatorships hostile to democratic management, and such claims can be rejected as fraudulent attempts to appeal to populist sentiments, such as the description of the "people's republic" of China.

[KarlMarx]

You make it seem that the workers and the investors are different people when, in fact, they are often the same people. Most shares of the majority of corporations are owned by the people who make up the Middle Class instead of by a small cadre of super rich fat cats.

So, maybe you're right, the workers do in fact own the resources in our country and that's a good thing, which means that capitalism works because it now is something that everyone can participate in. So, what's your point?

[sgtdmski]

Oh yes that old ploy that it is labor that gives value to a product.


Let us test that theory. Here is a simple method.

Let us say that I give Emeril Lagasse, Rachel Ray or Bobby Flay, all famous chefs, ten gallons of mud and ask them to make pies. Meanwhile, lowly old me, takes 10 gallons of apples and makes pies.

Then we all try to sell our pies. Undoubtedly the works of Emeril, Bobby or Rachel are worth far more than mine, tell me who do you think will sell the most pies.

I can tell you, I will. Because no matter how much value the works of Emeril, Bobby or Rachel is worth, they are still just selling mud pies, meanwhile, I am selling apple pies.

So much for your value of labor.

Without an idea for a product to make, without the money to invest in producing the product, their is nothing for the worker to make. NOTHING!!!

All labor does is produce, it does not invent, nor does it provide the financial means to produce.

dmk

[Agnapostate]

You make it seem that the workers and the investors are different people when, in fact, they are often the same people. Most shares of the majority of corporations are owned by the people who make up the Middle Class instead of by a small cadre of super rich fat cats.

So, maybe you're right, the workers do in fact own the resources in our country and that's a good thing, which means that capitalism works because it now is something that everyone can participate in. So, what's your point?

Actually, the majority of financial assets are owned and controlled by a small portion of the population, with persistent poverty and constrictions on social mobility preventing a shift in that trend. That's another reason why capitalism doesn't work.

But you've ignored my central point. Capitalism ostensibly solidifies a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship between capitalists and workers, but the empirical literature indicates that workers themselves are more adept.


Oh yes that old ploy that it is labor that gives value to a product.

I briefly mentioned the labor theory of property. I said nothing of the labor theory of value. But what you've illustrated for us is that dated and tiresome talking points never cease to be regurgitated. Read this (http://www.mutualist.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/MPE.pdf) before making such comments in the future.

[glockmail]

....
So given that workers' ownership and democratic management is more efficient than the hierarchical organization of the orthodox capitalist firm, there's substantial reason to regard capitalists' private ownership of productive resources not only as ethically objectionable, but as profoundly inefficient. Is there anything in the contention about the "symbiotic relationship" that can be salvaged, or is socialism plainly superior on this ground?

Under all this bullshit you're probably a fairly intelligent guy. So much so that you look around you in school or wherever it is that you hang out and see a bunch of folks that aren't as smart as you. Right or wrong that doesn't matter, because they are the ones who wish to buy lots and lots of stuff to make their lives happier, and for the most part understand that the harder they work, the more dollars they can put in their pocket and the more stuff that they can buy.

This is the theory of economic man, and you'll learn this in your first day of micro economics, if your lucky enough to get a professor who's honest and not a fucking socialist.

Next you'll learn that these stupid, ignorant people all around you form what's called "markets", buying, selling and trading based on their own individual whims.

If you're real lucky the professor will teach you that if you could regulate into these markets your visions of morality and fair profit you can only have a negative effect on these markets, and make all the people around you poorer.

[Agnapostate]

you'll learn this in your first day of micro economics, if your lucky enough to get a professor who's honest and not a fucking socialist.

I wasn't. But at least he was funny.

If I hadn't made it clear, I'd appreciate comments on the thread topic. There seems to be a bad habit of derailment where that's concerned.

[HogTrash]

Anyone who believes either government or communism will or even can create resources is living a "Myth", Aggy.

Only people unrestricted by government and free to reep the rewards of their sacrifices, ideas and labor will Create Resources...Those people are called Capitalist.

The advantages of capitalism that don't exist with communism are:

Drive

Incentive

Inspiration

Creativity

Innovation

Inginuity

Motivation

Imagination

Progress

Independence

Idividualism

Pride

Accomplishment

Reward

Communism pretty much means you will die as you were born with little hope of advancement for you and your children unless you can manage to lie, cheat and betray enough of your friends and neigbors to be accepted into The Party as a low ranking member.

Under communism everybody will finish equally the same, no better or worse off than their neighbor except of course for the Party hierarchy who will of course reep the rewards of all those below them in the pyramid who worked hard and provided them their comforts.

Capitalism, above all else, gives you hope of advancement throughout your life, if you are willing to go the extra mile and make the necessary sacrifices with the likelyhood that your children will do even better than you and their children even better than them.

Under capitalism those who are lazy and not willing to work hard and sacrifice will get less out of life and do without many of the comforts and luxuries than those who educated themselves, sacrificed and excelled and took advantage of the hope that capitalism provided them.

So, the greatest advantage that capitalism provides that communism denies is:

Hope

:salute:

[Agnapostate]

Anyone who believes either government or communism will or even can create resources is living a "Myth", Aggy.

Only people unrestricted by government and free to reep the rewards of their sacrifices, ideas and labor will Create Resources...Those people are called Capitalist.

The advantages of capitalism that don't exist with communism are:

Drive

Incentive

Inspiration

Creativity

Innovation

Inginuity

Motivation

Imagination

Progress

Independence

Idividualism

Pride

Accomplishment

Reward

Communism pretty much means you will die as you were born with little hope of advancement for you and your children unless you can manage to lie, cheat and betray enough of your friends and neigbors to be accepted into The Party as a low ranking member.

Under communism everybody will finish equally the same, no better or worse off than their neighbor except of course for the Party hierarchy who will of course reep the rewards of all those below them in the pyramid who worked hard and provided them their comforts.

Capitalism, above all else, gives you hope of advancement throughout your life, if you are willing to go the extra mile and make the necessary sacrifices with the likelyhood that your children will do even better than you and their children even better than them.

Under capitalism those who are lazy and not willing to work hard and sacrifice will get less out of life and do without many of the comforts and luxuries than those who educated themselves, sacrificed and excelled and took advantage of the hope that capitalism provided them.

So, the greatest advantage that capitalism provides that communism denies is:

Hope

:salute:

Capitalism is and will forever remain an economic system reliable on substantial government intervention for stabilization purposes. That's the key behind understanding the disingenuous nature of the "dichotomy" between capitalism and "central planning"; capitalism is itself reliant on central planning. What you refer to as "communism," moreover, is a form of state capitalism that apes the hierarchy in the managerial structure of conventional market capitalism.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/Capitalism.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/Coordinatorism.jpghttp://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/StateCapitalism.jpg

As to your openly false claim about social mobility, you'll certainly have to elaborate on that one for me, considering that the empirical literature on social mobility flatly contradicts such a claim. For analysis into how income inequality and restricted social mobility are more prevalent in the U.S. than in most European countries, consider Gangl's Income inequality, permanent incomes, and income dynamics: Comparing Europe to the United States (http://wox.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/2/140).


In most of Europe, real income growth was actually higher than in the United States, many European countries thus achieve not just less income inequality but are able to combine this with higher levels of income stability, better chances of upward mobility for the poor, and a higher protection of the incomes of older workers than common in the United States.

Supplement that with analysis into the probability of intergenerational transmission of corresponding economic success, specifically the probability of children belonging to the same income level as their parents. Consider Corak's Do poor children become poor adults? Lessons from a cross country comparison of generational earnings mobility (http://ftp.iza.org/dp1993.pdf).


In the United States almost one half of children born to low income parents become low income adults. This is an extreme case, but the fraction is also high in the United Kingdom at four in ten, and Canada where about one-third of low income children do not escape low income in adulthood. In the Nordic countries, where overall child poverty rates are noticeably lower, it is also the case that a disproportionate fraction of low income children become low income adults. Generational cycles of low income may be common in the rich countries, but so are cycles of high income. Rich children tend to become rich adults. Four in ten children born to high income parents will grow up to be high income adults in the United States and the United Kingdom, and as many as one third will do so in Canada.

So we can thus clearly observe the nature of intergenerational transmission of an effectively matching income level being a significantly occurring pattern in the U.S. and other Western countries.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/IncomeDecileProbability.jpg

We may be able to attribute a sizable portion of that to direct inheritance, for which we'd consider a source such as Summers and Kotlikoff's The role of intergenerational transfers in aggregate capital accumulation (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1833031). Consider the abstract:


This paper uses historical U.S. data to directly estimate the contribution of intergenerational transfers to aggregate capital accumulation. The evidence presented indicates that intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of aggregate U.S. capital formation; only a negligible fraction of actual capital accumulation can be traced to life-cycle or "hump" savings.

Aside from that, there's also the obvious matter of a myriad amount of inequitable environmental conditions skewing human capital attainment, thus creating a prohibitive obstruction to upward social mobility.

[HogTrash]

So completely brainwashed at such a young and tender age.

Those west coast marxist professors have done a number on you.

[Mr. P]

So completely brainwashed at such a young and tender age.

Those west coast marxist professors have done a number on you.

This one is not a young and tender age, more like 52-53 and probably one of those west coast Marxist professors.

[Agnapostate]

So completely brainwashed at such a young and tender age.

Those west coast marxist professors have done a number on you.

Actually, I'm an anarchist. I teach the Marxist professors things.

I'm glad you proved utterly and completely unable to offer even the semblance of a response, though. :laugh:

[glockmail]

I wasn't. But at least he was funny.

If I hadn't made it clear, I'd appreciate comments on the thread topic. There seems to be a bad habit of derailment where that's concerned. The OP is rambling and nonsensical since you missed the first day of class.

[DragonStryk72]

Basic problem: People are inherently selfish. they don't want to share what they worked for, save by their own decision. the USSR ran across this little problem, and an entire underground market sprung (a capitalist market at that) up, offering goods and service for profit, especially in the sale of American goods.

The USSR, of course, fell in on itself, it's people no longer content with the economic policy you've put forward.

Now, Anarchy only it worse, because all the checks and balances that would exist elsewhere are not to be found, and so your little socio-economic run is thwarted the first time another human being puts together enough force to take the region for themselves.

You can run over all the dry facts you wish, but the fact remains that communism hasn't worked, neither did anarchy, as both are either gone, or dying currently.

[glockmail]

I've found that belief in communist or anarchist systems by young people is due to being disaffected earlier in life. It is not a belief in economic truth but a simple rebellion of the system that created the condition of their unhappiness.

[CSM]

I've found that belief in communist or anarchist systems by young people is due to being disaffected earlier in life. It is not a belief in economic truth but a simple rebellion of the system that created the condition of their unhappiness.

yep...AP coulda gone Goth and poked a bunch of holes in his head but decided to use the one big one he already had instead.

:coffee:

[HogTrash]

I've found that belief in communist or anarchist systems by young people is due to being disaffected earlier in life. It is not a belief in economic truth but a simple rebellion of the system that created the condition of their unhappiness.Liberalsim is something most children are indoctrinated into from birth, even by the well meaning conservative parents...Yes, I too am guilty.

Understandably, we tell them to be nice and share their toys and food and we try to teach them to be loving, caring, compassionate and social human beings.

Then they enter the public school system where they are further influenced by teachers who pass their liberal beliefs on to the children, either intentionally or unwittingly.

The next step is acadamia, where anyone who has ever walked it's hallowed halls knows is a bastion of liberalism, progressive beliefs, marxist ideology and political correctness.

Most all minorities are are engineered from birth and automaticly expected to be socialist democrats of which most happily comply, believing they will get something for nothing.

By the time most of America's young reach their 20th year of life they have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the far left's political persuasion.

Thankfully many of those young white Americans will wise up once they are out in the real world, working, paying taxes and supporting a family.

Sadly, the not too bright whites and most minorities never learn...Our very own Gabosaurus is a prime example of a left-locked American.

Agnapostate is a minority who has been indoctrinated by the lefts standard method of minority programming...The injustices his ancestors suffered has been kept alive and the flames fanned.

His marxist programmers have used American History to feed and grow his hate...The power structure he has been programmed to hate and blame is of course, capitalism and the White Race.

He's programmed to believe the solution is marxism, which is the natural enemy of capitalism, the preferred economical system of the hated white race that oppressed his people and stole their lands.

Aggy claims some rediculous notion about "Libertarian Communism", but his marxist programmers aren't concerned about this foolishness, as long as he embraces and promotes communism.

Unlike the whites, most minorities are left-locked and are the lifelong loyal enemies of capitalism, the constitution and a free republic and the evil white race is the only thing keeping America alive.

[glockmail]

Liberalsim is something most children are indoctrinated into from birth, even by the well meaning conservative parents...Yes, I too am guilty.

Understandably, we tell them to be nice and share their toys and food and we try to teach them to be loving, caring, compassionate and social human beings.

Then they enter the public school system where they are further influenced by teachers who pass their liberal beliefs on to the children, either intentionally or unwittingly.

The next step is acadamia, where anyone who has ever walked it's hallowed halls knows is a bastion of liberalism, progressive beliefs, marxist ideology and political correctness.

Most all minorities are are engineered from birth and automaticly expected to be socialist democrats of which most happily comply, believing they will get something for nothing.

By the time most of America's young reach their 20th year of life they have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the far left's political persuasion.

Thankfully many of those young white Americans will wise up once they are out in the real world, working, paying taxes and supporting a family.

Sadly, the not too bright whites and most minorities never learn...Our very own Gabosaurus is a prime example of a left-locked American.

Agnapostate is a minority who has been indoctrinated by the lefts standard method of minority programming...The injustices his ancestors suffered has been kept alive and the flames fanned.

His marxist programmers have used American History to feed and grow his hate...The power structure he has been programmed to hate and blame is of course, capitalism and the White Race.

He's programmed to believe the solution is marxism, which is the natural enemy of capitalism, the preferred economical system of the hated white race that oppressed his people and stole their lands.

Aggy claims some rediculous notion about "Libertarian Communism", but his marxist programmers aren't concerned about this foolishness, as long as he embraces and promotes communism.

Unlike the whites, most minorities are left-locked and are the lifelong loyal enemies of capitalism, the constitution and a free republic and the evil white race is the only thing keeping America alive.

Growing up I knew a lot of kids like that and found them to be the same kids that hated gym class and sucked at sports. Not that I was a football or baseball champ by any stretch but I played every sport imaginable until HS then when the serious play began and I couldn't keep up I ran track which I did very well in.

My parents indoctrinated me as a conservative and although I rebelled a bit I never claimed to be a liberal. My Dad had to work hard to support five kids in a suburb of Boston, my Mom was a bit frazzled with us all with all the shit going on during the 60's a 70's and couldn't relate.

My wife and I took a markedly different path with only two kids, moved to a small town and made a concerted effort to reduce stress and be closely involved. As a result I've spent a lot of time with my son and have been to most every track meet, until recently most Scout outings and directly involved in ski racing. My wife's been very much involved with my daughter's sports and has coached her and dozens of other girls as well, and Ive been to every meet and game.

When one of the kids ties to shirk responsibility I speak in a loud authoritative voice: "take personal responsibility- we're not raising Democrats here" and now they mimic that when the other falters. When driving on the road and come up upon a car with an Obama sticker I point to the driver as we pass and say "look children, that's what a Liberal looks like" or similar line which always gets a perplexed look from the driver and a laugh from all of us.

We occasionally have to remind our kids that they have two of the coolest parents around and although they joke about it their friends secretly acknowledge it. We make no effort to hide our political beliefs in fact make fun of Democrats at every opportunity with them, their friends, other adults involved in our sports and our extended family. We've basically established that conservatism = smart, reasonable thought = cool while liberalism = stupid beliefs based on emotions.

Same with drugs, queers, tats, atheists, smokers, fatties and piercings we make fun of all who partake and give logical and reasonable arguments why.

[Agnapostate]

The OP is rambling and nonsensical since you missed the first day of class.

That you would merely assert the existence of error without actual elaboration is unimpressive. Try harder.


Basic problem: People are inherently selfish. they don't want to share what they worked for, save by their own decision.

This has nothing to do with the thread topic; it's a line that you consider to be an anti-socialist talking point. Were we discussing the nature of incentives in the socialist economy, I'd explain that socialism's meritocratic nature and remuneration of workers based on actual effort (as opposed to capitalism, which insufficiently remunerates workers and distributes to non-working capitalists based on the product of the combination of their labor and their various assets), provides far stronger incentives for productive activity. However, that is not the topic of this thread.


the USSR ran across this little problem, and an entire underground market sprung (a capitalist market at that) up, offering goods and service for profit, especially in the sale of American goods.

I'm aware. However, as I do not advocate central planning or any other such command economic structure, it has no application to my philosophy.


The USSR, of course, fell in on itself, it's people no longer content with the economic policy you've put forward.

That is untrue. Aside from the fact that I am an opponent of the command economy, and as an anarchist/libertarian, have consistently criticized the domestic nature of the USSR as authoritarian and anti-democratic, economic growth continued in that country (albeit at a slowed pace after the 1970's), until 1990, when central planning began to be dismantled by members of what economist David Kotz terms the "party-state elite," as the majority of the political and party figures in the USSR (as well as the intelligentsia) favored the establishment of capitalism by the period of the early 1990's. The general public, conversely, opposed this, and voted to preserve the Soviet Union by a majority of 77 percent in a 1991 referendum on the issue.


Now, Anarchy only it worse, because all the checks and balances that would exist elsewhere are not to be found, and so your little socio-economic run is thwarted the first time another human being puts together enough force to take the region for themselves.

You only have a misconception of anarchism as advocacy of chaos or disorder, despite its long existence as a nuanced and developed political philosophy in opposition to hierarchy, particularly the hierarchies of the state and capitalism.


You can run over all the dry facts you wish, but the fact remains that communism hasn't worked, neither did anarchy, as both are either gone, or dying currently.

Quite false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution). But more importantly, off-topic!


I've found that belief in communist or anarchist systems by young people is due to being disaffected earlier in life. It is not a belief in economic truth but a simple rebellion of the system that created the condition of their unhappiness.

I've not fared very badly under capitalism or statism, and have plenty to be thankful for. Even if I didn't, I'd hope that I'd still recognize the futility of applying anecdotal experiences to issues of a more varying nature. Try canning the psychological analysis and consider actually commenting on the topic instead.


Yes, I too am guilty.

Of wasting forty seconds of my life with nonsensical drivel, more than anything else. Your feeble posts were countered by more substantial empirical research, and you chose to ramble on about the Marxist liberal Muslim atheist Jewish Hollywood-Freemason indoctrination plot. That's fine, but try avoiding the thread if you have nothing to contribute to discussion of the actual topic.

[DragonStryk72]

A. it was to the OP.

B. you talk about communism, but you don't even vaguely understand it. Yeah, you have a bunch of boring facts and figures you can put up, but what else do you have? Have you ever been to a communist country to see how they live? Guess what, I have.

C. about this quote:


Quite false. But more importantly, off-topic!

Okay, you went to Wikipedia for the Spanish Revolution, in 1937. Now, maybe you are just ignorant of the term "currently", but right now, we're in 2010, a good 83 years ago. And don't hand that time relativity crap, it's not current, doesn't defeat my point in any case. Also, you may want to look up the word "false" as well, as you seem a little off on that one too.

They aren't even leaning toward anarchy or communism anymore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Spain The use of wiki is to use the same point you were using. Spain is not currently using anarchy or communism. Get better at this, or just give up the argument.

The reason that communism fails again and again is because people are selfish by nature. The other problem is we have a need to regulate things, thus anarchy doesn't work either. Both can exist for a time, but neither ever becomes the stable reality of government. For Anarchy to fail, you only need 1 Winston Churchill, George Washington, or Saddam Hussein type, and it's over, they will establish order other than anarchy.

As far as Communism, well, Russia fell in on itself, Spain apparently thought better of it after a time, and then we have China, which is steadily embracing more capitalistic forms of government. I suppose you could go to North Korea, but I doubt you'd excite anyone with the reference, given that they are barely standing up themselves.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,





I've found that belief in communist or anarchist systems by young people is due to being disaffected earlier in life. It is not a belief in economic truth but a simple rebellion of the system that created the condition of their unhappiness.



1. In short Agnus hates his mother, and by doing so, is turning into her.:laugh2:


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas