" Major economic decisions are made by government planners and must agree with the policies of the communist party. The planners decide what and how much of something should be produced and what prices will be charged for goods and services. Under capitalism these decisions are usually made by individuals(the public) or corporations(the public). " People say that communism is about the public ownership of the means of production and running of the economy. But how is that so when it's the communist government and not the actual public who makes all or most of the economic decisions under communism? If your definition of "public" is individuals as a collective,then It' seems to me that it's capitalism that's actually about public ownership through individuals and corporations that's closer to the idea of public ownership. If the public owns the means of production under communism and controls the economy then why are all economic decisions in communist countries dictated by the government and not by the actual public? How much say so do individual Cubans(the public) have on which direction the Cuban economy should go?
The government isn't supposed to be running the economy in Communism. The people have to form councils that say 1. We have X factories 2. We need to produce X shoes. 3. To produce X shoes, we need X workers to put in X hours (these first three aren't as much of a decision as an observation, but people have to agree to carry it out) 4. People sign up to work X hours to do their part in the communist society 5. X shoes are produced, and x shoes are delivered Individuals and corporations don't represent the public but instead the bourgeoisie. The wealthy elite make the decisions of the companies they own, instead of people reguardless of wealth. I swear, go educate yourself. You don't seem to understand the fact that communism doesn't exist and can't exist as long as the state exists, meaning international communism is a necessity for it to be called communism. Competiton must be eliminated. Communism can't be brought about so easily. Maybe a hundred years of socialism could bring it about. What you were describing is socialism in which the state still exists but instead the government works to benefit the majority instead of the minority. Also, if it was real communism, there wouldn't be any privately owned capital, or money at all. That means people stop using money as an organisational tool unless they are trading as a whole with Capitalist nations. Small counties like Cuba are just trying to hold out using authoritarian (boo authoritism) socialism (yay socialism) until imperialism blows over.
Which communist country did that apply to? Those individuals,corporations and wealthy elites are a part of the public also. The point is that under capitalism people from the public are able to own the means of production and consumers have an influence on busineses activity by deciding on which goods and services they will spend money on and at what price.
Lets say the means of production in Cuba should be run democratically, ok? I think it should be that way everywhere though. I <3 Trotsky. They are noxious beasts. They are thieves becaues they take advantage of and exploit poor people. They have no souls, if you believe in souls that is. They are recklessly and blindly destroying the planet in the name of profit and must be stopped. Rich people, lucky people, evil people are able to own the means of production. Thats not even that true anymore because the larger businesses dominate, unless you can get some money and exploit your workers worse than those large companies do. You still probably couldn't compete. You decide what you buy, but you don't decide the price. They decide and you agree to pay it or go without. Them deciding can be very bad because they might sell it for way less than what it costs to pay the workers a decent enough wage. Walmart is the best example of this. Arbitrarily setting a price can be just as bad, but we don't need to buy pickles in huge jars for $3.00 that we don't even eat because it takes forever. I read some huge story on it, but its complicated. There are a million other reasons why Capitalism has to go also.
It should be pointed out that under capitalism not everyone is going to be interested in owning the means of production or becoming business owners. But Capitalism does allow individuals from the public to do so if they have the funds and knowledge to do so. And there are a million reasons to keep and expand capitalism.
It has been shown again and again that command economies produce less that market economies. While consumption is more equal (in theory, at least), people both produce and consume less overall.
it has also been shown just as effectively and often that production quantity does not translate into experiential quality of existence. that's why both clouds are crap. i'm not holding my breath for marxism to burry capitolism but i'm not assuming the latter to be any less mortal then anything else either. =^^= .../\...
yes, slightly less is produced per person in a command economy, but the amount of people that are in unproductive jobs under capitalism is astounding (advertising etc), and its a section of the workforce that if utalised, could make up for the shortfall.
Under Capitalism there are less people doing more. There are tons of people going uneducated which could be solved by socialism and if that happened then technology would advance much faster. There alot of potential out there and all it needs is money. Too bad the rich are wasting that money on buying excessive amounts of private property.
Keep in mind that Cuba is a corruption of what communism/Marxism is supposed to be. Castro's plan in the 1950's Cuban revolution was to seize power for himself-and he succeded. Actual communism is supposed to be a communal existance where individuals all work for the common good and to benefit society as a whole. As to your point about captialism, the decisions you describe are never made by individuals unless those individuals are at the top of the social ladder. Under the current American system, any desicion, even if it only involves privately owned land or property has to be approved by government commitee, or the decision has to be made exclusivley by government personnel. There was a time when the average American was able to control his own destiny by making his own desisions, but the capitalist power struggle has put an end to that type of existance. Today, America is controlled by corrupt politicians and the rich capitalists who own them- And unforntunately that is the sad state of our nation today.
Well said, Green. I totally agree. But how do you suggest we stop them? Personally, I think it needs to be done by taking the message directly to the people and convincing them that capitalism is not the bed of roses the system has told them it is. We can do this through publishing and internet campaigns, as well as street demonstrations. That's my idea, anyway. What do you think should be done?
That's why more countries are embracing capitalism in some form,for a brighter future. There will be no more Marxist revolutions.
I agree with that, hs750. If the world is going to have a brighter future, it's going to take young people to make it happen.
This still makes no sense. Most capitalist democracies offer free education. Socialist countries have a terrible record in advancing technology. Do you honestly think nobody can tell you are just making this up as you go along?
