Communism VS. Laissez-Faire Capitalism

Most people in this thread don't even understand what Laissez Faire Capitalism is before advocating it....hamstergeddon

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]Most people in this thread don't even understand what Laissez Faire Capitalism is before advocating it....Ace_WondersX

But those are the fun ones to watch... :D

in Capitalism, nothing gets done, just look at the USA lol NICKKELANIUS

[QUOTE="NICKKELANIUS"]in Capitalism, nothing gets done, just look at the USA lol fidosim

[QUOTE="NICKKELANIUS"]in Capitalism, nothing gets done, just look at the USA lol fidosim

[QUOTE="NICKKELANIUS"]in Capitalism, nothing gets done, just look at the USA lol fidosim

Well it appears that the "US propaganda" was right.

MagicMan4597

The problem with a democracy is that not everyone agrees on things, so actions are taken that aren't favored by certain groups. The people would begin to fight over who gets what. To prevent this, a totalitarian government forms to direct the actions of the government, effectively taking the government from the people.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="NICKKELANIUS"]in Capitalism, nothing gets done, just look at the USA lol Major_Commie

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="NICKKELANIUS"]in Capitalism, nothing gets done, just look at the USA lol sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]Most people in this thread don't even understand what Laissez Faire Capitalism is before advocating it....Ace_WondersX

I understand them both just fine. The problem is that you see the ideology and the ideology alone. You do not see what happens when the ideology is put into practice. Communism has been tried and has failed, it's simple. LFC has been tried, has not been perfect, but has produced much better results than real world communism.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]Most people in this thread don't even understand what Laissez Faire Capitalism is before advocating it....MagicMan4597

I understand them both just fine. The problem is that you see the ideology and the ideology alone. You do not see what happens when the ideology is put into practice. Communism has been tried and has failed, it's simple. LFC has been tried, has not been perfect, but has produced much better results than real world communism.

[QUOTE="Major_Commie"][QUOTE="fidosim"] Robbing someone of their ambitions and the fruits of their human faculties is just about the most inhumane thing human beings can do to one another.fidosim

Incorrect. The goal is the ending of estranged labor and of the alienation of the worker from his product of labor.

We tried our hand at it too, and did quite well. Even better than the Brits did, one could argue.fidosim

[QUOTE="MagicMan4597"]

I understand them both just fine. The problem is that you see the ideology and the ideology alone. You do not see what happens when the ideology is put into practice. Communism has been tried and has failed, it's simple. LFC has been tried, has not been perfect, but has produced much better results than real world communism.

Ace_WondersX

That's what they were trying to do when they took control of the country. But soon they saw the need for a more direct controller because if the economy was going to move at all, it needed someone to make decisions fast and forcefully. They needed leaders to direct the nation. It wasn't the way of the ideology, but the ideology's flaw is what created the dictatorships, because they needed one for the command economy to function (maybe not function efficiently, but at least function).

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Major_Commie"] no its not the most inhumane thing a person can do to another. but thats not really the point because you havent described communismchessmaster1989

Incorrect. The goal is the ending of estranged labor and of the alienation of the worker from his product of labor.

[QUOTE="fidosim"]We tried our hand at it too, and did quite well. Even better than the Brits did, one could argue.Hewkii

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] The goal is no material inequalities, is it not?fidosim

Incorrect. The goal is the ending of estranged labor and of the alienation of the worker from his product of labor.

Sorry, I just flipped to a random page and didn't read the 15-odd pages following it. :P

If you only care about landed expansion, I can see why you'd be a fan of the British. However, that was not our emphasis nor the goal of our brand of expansion. fidosim

that is Mercantilism, hth.Hewkii

You should edit the wikipedia article, then:

"Mercantilismis aneconomic theorythat holds the prosperity of a nation is dependent upon its supply ofcapital, and that theglobal volumeofinternational tradeis "unchangeable." Economic assets or capital, are represented bybullion(gold, silver, and trade value) held by the state, which is best increased through a positivebalance of tradewith other nations (exports minus imports) and assumes wealth and monetary assets are identical. Mercantilism suggests that the ruling government should advance these goals by playing aprotectionistrole in the economy; by encouraging exports and discouraging imports, notably through the use oftariffsandsubsidies.[1]"

You should edit the wikipedia article, then:

fidosim

Thus, mercantilism held exports should be encouraged by the government and imports discouraged

[QUOTE="fidosim"]

You should edit the wikipedia article, then:

Hewkii

Thus, mercantilism held exports should be encouraged by the government and imports discouraged

Not exactly. You used the likes of Guam and the Philippines as examples of American mercantilism. When we gained those islands, the U.S. had an overabundance of goods. We had more to export than we had foreign countries to offload it all on.fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Not exactly. You used the likes of Guam and the Philippines as examples of American mercantilism. When we gained those islands, the U.S. had an overabundance of goods. We had more to export than we had foreign countries to offload it all on.Hewkii

well yeah, mainly because the Americans didn't really want the islands anyway and promised the Fillipinos independence in 1916 anyway.still doesn't change the fact that there weren't an 'overabundance' of goods because of these conquests.Hewkii

The conquests stemmed partially from the surplus of goods, not the other way around. And at the time of annexation, most Americans definitely did want the islands, as did the McKinley Administration.fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"]The conquests stemmed partially from the surplus of goods, not the other way around. And at the time of annexation, most Americans definitely did want the islands, as did the McKinley Administration.Hewkii

and this still doesn't change the fact that the US does not support exports more than imports at any time in its history.Hewkii

Ha, I think it's funny that this thread has changed from a debate of economic systems to a debate over American Mercantilism.

How did we end up with the Philippine Islands in the first place? The War with Spain. Why did we go to war with Spain? We wanted to free Cuba. Most Americans were not oblivious to the fact that we went into the war to liberate Cuba, and ended up controlling almost the entire Spanish colonial empire. Given also the United States' history of anti-colonialism, it is not farfetched at all to conclude that Americans didn't necessarily want a colonial empire like the Euros had. fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"]How did we end up with the Philippine Islands in the first place? The War with Spain. Why did we go to war with Spain? We wanted to free Cuba. Most Americans were not oblivious to the fact that we went into the war to liberate Cuba, and ended up controlling almost the entire Spanish colonial empire. Given also the United States' history of anti-colonialism, it is not farfetched at all to conclude that Americans didn't necessarily want a colonial empire like the Euros had. Hewkii

Ha, I think it's funny that this thread has changed from a debate of economic systems to a debate over American Mercantilism.

Ace_WondersX

Yes, because we were mercantilists, remember?fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Yes, because we were mercantilists, remember?Hewkii

Ha, I think it's funny that this thread has changed from a debate of economic systems to a debate over American Mercantilism.

Ace_WondersX

Ha, I think it's funny that this thread has changed from a debate of economic systems to a debate over American Mercantilism.

No, no I didn't. We had always been trading partners with Cuba, and with the rest of Latin America. fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"]No, no I didn't. We had always been trading partners with Cuba, and with the rest of Latin America. Hewkii

Aaaannndd, by annexing the island we could trade with them as freely as we wanted, without the Spanish government getting in the way.fidosim

that is literally the dumbest thing I've seen posted today.

do you know what a US state is? hint: it's not an 'independent trading partner'.

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Aaaannndd, by annexing the island we could trade with them as freely as we wanted, without the Spanish government getting in the way.Hewkii

that is literally the dumbest thing I've seen posted today.

do you know what a US state is? hint: it's not an 'independent trading partner'.

Oh, you're still trying to be condescending. How cute. But obtaining Cuba, whether as a state or as a protectorate, opened it up to American surplus goods.fidosim

I'm really interested in seeing where this thread goes next.

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Oh, you're still trying to be condescending. How cute. But obtaining Cuba, whether as a state or as a protectorate, opened it up to American surplus goods.Hewkii

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Oh, you're still trying to be condescending. How cute. But obtaining Cuba, whether as a state or as a protectorate, opened it up to American surplus goods.Hewkii

Oh now thats just interesting, and here I thought almost everyone on gamespot is a sould hater of communism, interesting to see it has 44%. I vote for communism.

It simply didn't want to contruct an overseas empire based entirely off of landed expansion like those of Britain or Spain.fidosim