BleepingComputer.com: Communism V. Capitalism

"Arbeit macht frei" literally means, "work makes you free," and it was not an original idea by the Nazis. It was actually in use by the Weimar Republic of Germany before them to describe how great their public works programs were. The idea being, of course, that working for the good of the state, or the greater good is somehow liberating. My reference to this expression is not intended stir up thoughts of the holocaust, but of forced labor. It's important to remember that it was not just Jews that were put into many of these camps, but criminals, political dissidents, and christians, too. Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia are both responsible for the deaths of millions, and both did have these camps. Could I have chosen a more obvious or recent example? Maybe. But I still say Hitler and Stalin are equally evil regardless of their political leanings, and forced labor is still forced labor whether you are in Germany or in Russia, or in Viet Nam. To answer the last bit- I do have compassion, and I share with those less fortunate when I can, but I do not believe the government should force people to be compassionate, to tell me what, to whom, how much I should give. I'm just not wired that way.
P.S. had to edit...I left out an important word. I should add that I don't mean to come across as "angry," I just enjoy a spirited discussion...so have a happy face for goodwill's sake

This post has been edited by Required Field: 08 May 2012 - 11:36 AM

Could I have chosen a more obvious or recent example?
The question is not about recent or obvious but about whether your example matched the topic at hand. It didn't. Hence the reference to godwin's law. The slogan of "Arbeit macht frei" is primarily associated with concentration camps such as Ausschwitz. The idea of the labour camps in Nazi-Germany was to kill by forced labor and malnutrition, to have the person do "some contribution to society while dying" implying they hadn't contributed anything so far. People usually died within 4 months after starting their forced labour. That's what "Arbeit macht frei" really stands for and that's why I called Godwin's law. You went into an extreme AND chose Nazis. The two together is exactly what Godwin's law refers to.
Nobody claimed that Hitler wasn't evil or that Stalin was more evil than Hitler or less cruel or anything because nobody was talking about Nazis before you joined in. You brought up the Nazis in a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with it, with no need to make the reference as you had plenty of more suitable and better matching examples at hand and you compared not being able to work as a cartoonist with being worked to death. Hence you are and were a perfect candidate for Godwin's law.

I'm just not wired that way.
If I wanted to be polemic, I'd say: And that's why thousands of people starve each day, even though there's enough food produced to feed the world.
Some people are wired that way and would like to see everybody make a living and since some people see steak as a necessity in life while they don't see the survival of others as a necessity, they think goverment regulation would be a good thing to ensure the survival of all.. even if it means no steak for everyone. In the end, the idea of communism is that everybody wants to see the community succeed and gives it most, which would also mean that everybody keeps on working until there's steak for everyone and then keeps on working until there's juice for everyone and so on... Unfortunately the human race just doesn't work that way.

I'm with you, I don't want to be told what to do or what not to do. As I've said before: I don't think communism is a solution, but neither is capitalism. Extremes are never good. There has to be some type of social security, that ensures people aren't starving to death because they got fired from their job. There has to be some type of basic fairness, ensuring that you don't get fired because you can't work after being run over by a car, etc... For me that security should be universal, it should hold true for all people all over the world.. Unfortunately it doesn't. We live of forced labour in developing countries every day. Neither our food nor our cloths nor our tech-stuff would be affordable if we weren't living of the backs of others. You just have to keep in mind that if you get more, somebody else inevitably gets less.. As long as it is "You get to eat steak, while the other eats Ramen noodles" it's fair play.. It's when you reach the point of "I get to eat steak, while the other gets nothing" where it becomes troublesome and where I'd say "ramen noodles for everyone" instead.

EDIT because you edited.. Let's keep this debate going then I'm not angry.

This post has been edited by myrti: 08 May 2012 - 12:04 PM

Well, see, now we're swaying into a whole different level of economic debate. You are correct when you say that many of the cheap goods we buy come from what we refer to as "deveoping" counties, but I do not agree with the premise that one person's success causes another to suffer. In fact, I'd argue the opposite. Because the American worker demands a certain amount of pay and/or benefits in order to do certain jobs, (I'm thinking unions), it cuts into the profit margin of the company manufacturing the goods or producing the service. Naturally, if this, or, say, taxes, cuts into profit too much, they'll move to a "right-to-work" state, or to a country like Mexico, or China where labor is cheaper. Now if I can buy a stereo from China that is just as good as the one made in America, only cheaper, of course I will do it. The company increases sales and profit, the worker has a paycheck, and the customer has a good, affordable product. Now, as for the conditions under which they must work in those countries, there's not much we can do but protest or boycott, but let's face it, if I need cheap batteries, T-Shirts, or whatever, I probably won't be at the rally. But I think you will see things change for them, just as they did in America. 100 years ago, you might find a 12 year old boy working a 16 hour day in a textile mill, or a grown man working an assembly line for 10 cents a day, but because of unionisation and changes in labor laws, working conditions became safer, wages increased, and children went back to school. But as it is now, China's economy is seeing a HUGE growth due to the influx of "cheap labor" jobs, and a communist country (can you believe it?) is actually developing into a capitalist country with a real middle class. At which point, the wheel spins again, and soon they will be fighting the CEOs for better dental plans and retirement packages, too. But...man, this divergence could almost have it's own thread. My real point is, if you give everyone the ability and the incentive do go after the steak, freedom, then it is available for those who want it. If you are unable, due to age, or a handicap, or something, well, we do have saftey nets like unemployment insurance, social security, and food stamps, so you won't go without. But I believe personal charity is better for society than wealth redistribution through threat of force from government.

This post has been edited by Required Field: 08 May 2012 - 03:47 PM

Hi,

so you're saying that it's ok for them to die of hazardous working condition and malnutrition for the next 150 years so we get cheap stuff, because eventually their grand grand grand children might have the same riches we have today? That is a weird way of justifying a lifestyle.

This being said, in addition, I don't believe the development to work out as smoothly as that. There's one thing we have today that wasn't around in the same manor back in the 18th century: multinational corporations.
These corporations have a much bigger influence than say the government or the unions might have. They have bigger revenue streams and usually a better financial position. It is not the factory in the emerging country that fixes the price, but the buyer since GAP can easily afford to be short 500.000 sweatshirts, while the factory in Cambodia won't survive if it can't sell its production of several months. They also can't afford for GAP to start looking for another developing country with lower productions cost, they are essentially dependent on the buyers. This is a situation that was artificially created by the demand and the lack of conscience in the developed world, that really only wants a sweater for 10$, no questions asked. Price of clothes have been consistently going down in the last 100 years, while the prices for everything else has increased. This is and was only possible due to the garment industry paying the seamstresses and the cotton picker less and less and less money.

If this was a self-reliant economy whose production was geared towards the people within the countries itself, I would agree with you, that capitalism will take its run and eventually there should be an emerging economy. I think this holds partially true for China, because that economy is so big that it does not have to fear corporations moving on to the next cheaper country. However the economies in other countries, for example Bangladesh, Cambodia and to a lesser extent Vietnam and Indonesia are heavily relying on the garment industry for the developed countries and are dependent on them. The government can't risk introducing something like a 60h work-week or paid leave without risking to alienate the corporations and them moving out of the country crashing the entire economy.
But, eventually, the garment industry is dependent on its buyers and if there was a public backing for a fair and more expensive line of cloths, this would give the right incentive to the corporations to support and possibly even advocate fair working conditions.. This has little to do with affordable and not affordable.. A sweater is affordable at 50$, it's not something you need to buy every day. But nowadays 50$ is considered expensive for a sweater.

The fact that society as a total has always only focussed on its own well being and never to the left or the right has left many outside that particular society much worse off. It would only be fair if we finally opened our eyes and helped right the people that have been wronged by our behaviour.

regards myrti

EDIT: Forgot to say that I mentioned GAP as an example of the entire industry and that I'm not implying that GAP, in particular, is doing shady business.

This post has been edited by myrti: 09 May 2012 - 02:08 PM

No, that misses my point. I'm saying that economic freedom and equality is a result of opportunity, not of government social or economical engineering. China has emerged as an economic powerhouse because the government has loosened its' grip on the people and on trade. India is also growing because multinational corporations provide opportunity, they create jobs in these countries. Now I've never been to India, or China, for that matter, so I don't know what they would consider a decent wage, but it's clear that they are willing to work for less, and so a job lost in Detroit is a job gained in Hong Kong. I don't see that as a negative. Are the conditions horrible? Yes, probably in more places than we'd like to think, but the market shows that once word gets out, even if it is exagerated or just plain false, that a company (like Apple for example) is running "sweat shops," people stop buying their products until they know a change has been made. There, again, is one way the free market economy is better. Sometimes the best way to protest is with your wallet. Now, please keep in mind, even though I do believe that markets work, I am not saying "let 'em eat cake," and I think I've said before that I'm a big believer in charity, so long as it's voluntary. I would argue, though, that the U.S. can hardly be said to be ignoring the rest of the world when it comes to humanitarian aid. Americans are usually the first ones to pull out their check books when there is a tsunami, hurricane, or the like, and I think we've been more or less consistant in regard to human rights, although we aren't perfect. As to helping "the right people who have been wronged by our behavior," I am affraid I'll need some clarification.

Hi,

What I meant was to "make up to those people that have suffered so that we could get our shirts for a dollar cheaper", our desire for always getting more for less value has (partially) put them in the place they are now. Working under conditions that are endangering their lives so that we can get our dyed jeans. Leaning back and saying "the system works, just give it time" is cynical.. the people working for those jeans do not have that time.
Maybe you're right and maybe things will all sort themselves out eventually if we do nothing, but is that really enough? Wouldn't it be better to actually be part of the solution and try to actively change things (eg by buying your clothes more consciously or support countries where the government does put forward plans for social security and tries to enforce them.) I'm not saying you need to give them all their money or that this is the moment to break out communism, but just check where your clothes were manufactured next time you buy some. Where are the grapes coming from that you're eating, etc... It's work on your part, yes, but it's a form of help that won't include you giving away money.

that a company (like Apple for example) is running "sweat shops," people stop buying their products until they know a change has been made.
Who really stopped buying Apple products? Have you seen the numbers they've published over the last two years? In the time the issues at FoxConn have become public they've advanced to the richest company world wide, with the most revenue created. It has also been known that apple recommended safety nets to be installed so people couldn't kill themselves at work, rather than to fix the issues at the working space causing the suicides. This hasn't given their sales a dent.

Most of the developing countries do not have legislature that allows the workers to actually form a union and have themselves represented as a group or give them any safety at work. Working conditions is not just a fight that runs between the worker and the employer, the government has a very big role in it, by passing laws eg on minimum wage or on the right to form unions or by outlawing certain dangerous acids and so on.. You're taking this as a given, because it exists in the US, but it doesn't exist everywhere. If you tell the government to step out of the ring now and let every worker fight for him or herself against a multinational corporation in a developing country, they will never win. They need some form of support, ideally also from their government, just as the American working population had the support of their government at the time.
I agree that total control of the economy by the government is bad, but you need some basic control and rules everybody has to play by or the weak (here the workers) will get royally screwed. (As said, pure capitalism doesn't work. It's the strong feeding of the weak. pure communism doesn't work either. You need a mix)