• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does communism force a portion of the population to live in poverty?

Does communism cause most of the population to live in poverty?


  • Total voters
    22
This is what I think. In pure communism everyone would live at the same income level, that being fairly low but not poverty stricken. In a pure capitalist society you would have the "haves and have nots" with the poverty gap being immense. It depends on how you define poverty as well.
 
This is what I think. In pure communism everyone would live at the same income level, that being fairly low but not poverty stricken.

See, that's not guaranteed though, in a resource rich country with a small population (possible Australia :mrgreen:) there'd be enough for everyone, but the biggest problem with communism is it's inflexible, if there was a bad drought followed by a locust plague, that would stuff up a communist system more than a capitalist one.
 
If the business is owned by the employees and the state there is no need for shareholders and that money goes to the employees and the business. It is not a drain on the resources having to pay the stok holder. Am I supposed to feel differently that most shareholders are little guys? That doesn't really matter. They would not be needed.

That's all cute in theory but the state can not manage the needs of the people.
Never have been, won't ever be.

For employees to successfully run a business, they are going to have to understand the many concepts about what makes a business work.
It's not like some guy just woke up one day and said "I'll make a business" and "poof" he was generating income.

What will the employees (owners) do, when in the first 2 years, the business generates no positive income?
You do know that most businesses have a time period where they generate no positive income, don't you?

In a capitalist society you have to take the wages offered to have a job. That is the way that works. Yes even if you agree to the wage you are still being raped because more money than you make goes into the paychecks of those that own shares. Just because something is doesn't make it right or desired.

That's ridiculous.
The employee is not risking money to be employed, not having risk in illiquid capital investment like machinery and buildings.

The employee holds a very tiny risk, that he or she may not get that weeks paycheck but does not hold the risk that, they may be financially ruined, because of poor sales.
 
This is what I think. In pure communism everyone would live at the same income level, that being fairly low but not poverty stricken. In a pure capitalist society you would have the "haves and have nots" with the poverty gap being immense. It depends on how you define poverty as well.
Why do you think the income would be low. It could be low as there would be no house payments and no utilities and the taxes would be taken before you ever saw any money.There would be no medical expenses or school costs. If you took all of that out of the mix how much would you need to make?
 
See, that's not guaranteed though, in a resource rich country with a small population (possible Australia :mrgreen:) there'd be enough for everyone, but the biggest problem with communism is it's inflexible, if there was a bad drought followed by a locust plague, that would stuff up a communist system more than a capitalist one.
Why would that happen? I don't believe that it would be so.
 
That's all cute in theory but the state can not manage the needs of the people.
Never have been, won't ever be.

For employees to successfully run a business, they are going to have to understand the many concepts about what makes a business work.
It's not like some guy just woke up one day and said "I'll make a business" and "poof" he was generating income.

What will the employees (owners) do, when in the first 2 years, the business generates no positive income?
You do know that most businesses have a time period where they generate no positive income, don't you?



That's ridiculous.
The employee is not risking money to be employed, not having risk in illiquid capital investment like machinery and buildings.

The employee holds a very tiny risk, that he or she may not get that weeks paycheck but does not hold the risk that, they may be financially ruined, because of poor sales.

There would be people as there is in the US to run the business, I didn't say that there would not be a management in the business. Of course there would. They would be employees like everyone else. There are people that are trained in University to run business. If a new business stars why would there be no income in the first two years? That makes zero sense.
 
There would be people as there is in the US to run the business, I didn't say that there would not be a management in the business. Of course there would. They would be employees like everyone else. There are people that are trained in University to run business. If a new business stars why would there be no income in the first two years? That makes zero sense.

There is income but it isn't always enough to pay the expenses of the business and pay your personal bills.
That's why they need lines of credit.

9/10 businesses fail in the first 2 years because of this reason.
 
Thing is, niether Cuba, and especially North Korea, were never truly Communist, in fact North Korea is so far removed from Communism it's scary.

Another thing that you and Tashah forgot to point out is that Cuba and North Korea also suffer heavy sanctions from other countries. Even if Cuba had a capitalist system they would still be in poverty if the sanctions continued. Cuba is for the most part cut off from the rest of the world when it comes to importing and exporting.
 
There is income but it isn't always enough to pay the expenses of the business and pay your personal bills.
That's why they need lines of credit.

9/10 businesses fail in the first 2 years because of this reason.
They need lines of credit? In your nation that may be so. If a business opens in a nation with no private industry they do not face the same problems tha tare faced in the US. A business is started because it is needed not because someone wants it. There is a difference.
 
They need lines of credit? In your nation that may be so. If a business opens in a nation with no private industry they do not face the same problems tha tare faced in the US. A business is started because it is needed not because someone wants it. There is a difference.

Why is this debate still even being had? Communism was refuted nearly a century ago.

Wikipedia said:
The problem referred to is that of how to distribute resources rationally in an economy. The free market solution is the price mechanism, wherein people individually have the ability to decide how a good or service should be distributed based on their willingness to give money for it. The price conveys embedded information about the abundance of resources as well as their desirability which in turn allows, on the basis of individual consensual decisions, corrections that prevent shortages and surpluses; Mises and Hayek argued that this is the only possible solution, and without the information provided by market prices socialism lacks a method to rationally allocate resources.

And

According to Kirzner (1973) and Lavoie (1985) entrepreneurs reap profits by supplying unfulfilled needs in markets. Entrepreneurship therefore brings prices closer to marginal costs. The adjustment of prices in markets towards ‘equilibrium’ (where supply and demand equal) gives them greater utilitarian significance. The activities of entrepreneurs make prices more accurate in terms of how they represent the marginal utility of consumers. Prices act as guides to the planning of production. Those who plan production use prices to decide which lines of production should be expanded or curtailed.

Entrepreneurs lack the profit motive to take risks under socialism, and so are far less likely to attempt to supply consumers demands. Without the price system to match consumer utility to incentives for production, or even indicate those utilities "without providing incentives", state planners are much less likely to invest in new ideas to satisfy consumer’s desires.

Economic calculation problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
They need lines of credit? In your nation that may be so. If a business opens in a nation with no private industry they do not face the same problems tha tare faced in the US. A business is started because it is needed not because someone wants it. There is a difference.

That isn't always true.
Not by a long shot.

Certainly many of today's technological advances weren't needed but they have increase the quality of life for everyone.
I don't think I'd want to live in a system of persistent status quo.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
They need lines of credit? In your nation that may be so. If a business opens in a nation with no private industry they do not face the same problems tha tare faced in the US. A business is started because it is needed not because someone wants it. There is a difference.

Want is just as big of a factor in demand as need. No American "needs" a gun (per se), but they are still processed and sold in massive quantities. Why? Because many Americans want them. That want is demand, and when something is demanded, it will be supplied no matter what anyone tries.

Well, unless you live in that ultra-totalitarianist government I described earlier. Good thing you don't, huh? After all, if you did, you wouldn't be posting here at all.

After all, you don't "need" to be here.
 
Why is this debate still even being had? Communism was refuted nearly a century ago.



And



Economic calculation problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well when wiki is the source i generally disregard all of the above as you cannot find an original source. That's the first problem. The second problem is it is very hard to say that something untried will not work. Third why is the world so afraid of the idea. You grasp onto falling Capitalism as if it were a life vest. Keep grasping you are hardly treading water these days in the US.
 
That isn't always true.
Not by a long shot.

Certainly many of today's technological advances weren't needed but they have increase the quality of life for everyone.
I don't think I'd want to live in a system of persistent status quo.
What would lead you to believe that a Communist nation would be in a constant state of status. It has been pointed out wrongly that Russia is Communist. If lets say for the sake of arguement that it was. Why do they still have a functional space program. How is it this that this nation gets on better with the rest of the world than the US does. Hmmmmm Oh yes and the other non Communist nation that is always pointed out is China if again for the sake of your arguement were actually Communist why do they own so much of the great Capitalist giant US's debt. These nations seem to be doing pretty well. But of course they aren't really Communist.
 
Want is just as big of a factor in demand as need. No American "needs" a gun (per se), but they are still processed and sold in massive quantities. Why? Because many Americans want them. That want is demand, and when something is demanded, it will be supplied no matter what anyone tries.

Well, unless you live in that ultra-totalitarianist government I described earlier. Good thing you don't, huh? After all, if you did, you wouldn't be posting here at all.

After all, you don't "need" to be here.
You make no sense. ( Вы не имеете смысла. )
 
What would lead you to believe that a Communist nation would be in a constant state of status. It has been pointed out wrongly that Russia is Communist. If lets say for the sake of arguement that it was. Why do they still have a functional space program. How is it this that this nation gets on better with the rest of the world than the US does. Hmmmmm Oh yes and the other non Communist nation that is always pointed out is China if again for the sake of your arguement were actually Communist why do they own so much of the great Capitalist giant US's debt. These nations seem to be doing pretty well. But of course they aren't really Communist.

Russia focused its efforts in competing, in some areas, with the U.S.
Competing sounds a lot like a precursor to capitalism.
Let us not forget about the general shortages of consumer basics though.
Production was still organized in a commune type fashion.

China dropped the whole commune nonsense and embraced market based principles.
Before hand their commune ideas killed millions of people.
 
phattonez said:
Why is this debate still even being had? Communism was refuted nearly a century ago.

"Communism" can't be "refuted" because it's such a general term that it's essentially meaningless. You have to be more specific than that.

Let us not forget about the general shortages of consumer basics though.
Production was still organized in a commune type fashion.

Actually most production was organized in a very centralized fashion through the bureaucratic state apparatus. Shortages were due to the bureaucratic state apparatus being unable/unwilling to carry out the demands of the people as a whole. In order for socialist production relations to actually work the means of production have to be not simply nationalized but socialized. There can be no bureaucratic disconnect between producers and consumers. This is also why the USSR is a supremely silly example to use as the "failure" of "communism".
 
Last edited:
Russia focused its efforts in competing, in some areas, with the U.S.
Competing sounds a lot like a precursor to capitalism.
Let us not forget about the general shortages of consumer basics though.
Production was still organized in a commune type fashion.

China dropped the whole commune nonsense and embraced market based principles.
Before hand their commune ideas killed millions of people.

They were never Communist in the first place. I am just trying to figure out how they are doing better than the US. Russia was under an iron fist for decades and when Gorbachev fell out of power the nation went through great turmoil losing the satellite nations. The economy fell apart. The money was worthless. This goes back only a few decades. Yet here they are competing with the US in high levels and many of the industries in Russia are public and not privately owned by investors that rape the worker from the profits. How is it that Russia keeps up. Why does China own most of your debt. You have stood behind the idea that these were Communist nations. Were they that good?

Next time you need a ride to the space station give the Russians a call maybe they will give you a ride.
 
Actually most production was organized in a very centralized fashion through the bureaucratic state apparatus. Shortages were due to the bureaucratic state apparatus being unable/unwilling to carry out the demands of the people as a whole. In order for socialist production relations to actually work the means of production have to be not simply nationalized but socialized. There can be no bureaucratic disconnect between producers and consumers. This is also why the USSR is a supremely silly example to use as the "failure" of "communism".

It's an example of failure because the decentralization of the system won't happen.

In order for a communist society to exist, it must be done with force.
A great many people will resist it, with violence.
A centralized authority must be established to wrestle that control.
Of course, they won't return it to the people.

I think there are some great ideas within communism but the system, as a whole, is impractical.
 
Good to see you run away back to your meaningless abstractions the second I bring up specifics to call into question your ridiculous logic. Shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Good show.
 
They were never Communist in the first place. I am just trying to figure out how they are doing better than the US. Russia was under an iron fist for decades and when Gorbachev fell out of power the nation went through great turmoil losing the satellite nations. The economy fell apart. The money was worthless. This goes back only a few decades. Yet here they are competing with the US in high levels and many of the industries in Russia are public and not privately owned by investors that rape the worker from the profits. How is it that Russia keeps up. Why does China own most of your debt. You have stood behind the idea that these were Communist nations. Were they that good?

Next time you need a ride to the space station give the Russians a call maybe they will give you a ride.

Erm, Russia has a **** ton of people in real poverty.
Nothing compared to here.
If that is how they are "keeping up", they can keep "winning."

China owns most of our debt because we borrowed money from them.
China has abandoned the communist economic model because they realize, that it is a failure.
 
Good to see you run away back to your meaningless abstractions the second I bring up specifics to call into question your ridiculous logic. Shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Good show.

It is an observable fact.
You can not force all people to accept communism, that is why there was a fight between the whites and the reds.

Unfortunately, the power was never returned to the people.
That is the attempt of communism in reality.
 
Name the country you intend to look at. I can't find one to use an example.
I want to be clear.
Do you need me to name of communist country where the leaders vacuum the wealth of the nation from the masses who are poor?
 
It is an observable fact.

And it was an "observable fact" before the light bulb was successfully invented that it was impossible to create. All of those people tried, and they failed. That's an "observable fact".

And my point with this example isn't "try enough times and you'll get it" but rather the failure was due to the concrete expressions of "light bulb" and its design failures and not due to a flaw in the concept of "light bulb" itself. This is why your argument is silly. Each "socialist revolution" must be taken in its concrete historical surroundings and evaluated as such before one can abstract out to make the claims that you have made. Yet when one attempts to probe your abstraction by examining its concrete expressions from which it was deducted you simply resort back to further abstractions a priori.

You claim to base your assertions in empirical evidence yet flee from the first attempt at empirical analysis.

You can not force all people to accept communism, that is why there was a fight between the whites and the reds.

No it wasn't.
 
Last edited:
And it was an "observable fact" before the light bulb was successfully invented that it was impossible to create. All of those people tried, and they failed. That's an "observable fact".

And my point with this example isn't "try enough times and you'll get it" but rather the failure was due to the concrete expressions of "light bulb" and its design failures and not due to a flaw in the concept of "light bulb" itself. This is why your argument is silly. Each "socialist revolution" must be taken in its concrete historical surroundings and evaluated as such before one can abstract out to make the claims that you have made. Yet when one attempts to probe your abstraction by examining its concrete expressions from which it was deducted you simply resort back to further abstractions a priori.

You claim to base your assertions in empirical evidence yet flee from the first attempt at empirical analysis.

The Petrograd Soviet was a democratically elected council, they gave the power to the higher members to topple the provisional government, after which the power continued to be concentrated in the hands of the authorities.

There are examples of realistic communism but on a national level it degrades autocratic rule.

No it wasn't.

Point still stands, it took an act of force to create the government.
 
Back
Top Bottom