|
Post by jmobby75 on Aug 22, 2012 20:33:11 GMT -5
What does the government do more efficiently than private businesses? I hear quite often that in the beginning stages of the communist revolution the government will seize control of capital and force them away from the bourgeoisie, however I always hear the bourgeoisie create convincing arguments that the government is inefficient and private businesses are efficient because they are driven by greed and may need to shut down business if they make enough economic mistakes however the government stays in power even if they make economic mistakes and make people starve, so the motivation in economy is different under government management and under private management. I am afraid about the handing over the capital to the government part of the communist revolution. The end result of communism is attractive, the transition is not, especially the violent means when the bible says 'thou shalt not kill.'
|
|
|
Post by Dawn of the Red on Aug 22, 2012 21:59:42 GMT -5
In short, a socialist government makes the system work for the proletariat rather than for the bourgeoisie. As an example, consider the production of any commodity. In capitalism, different capital blocs compete to capture the market for the same commodity. So at the point when competition makes the prices drop so low that there is no profit, the capital blocs withdraw from that field with many commodities produced that have no market. Besides being a tremendous wastage of resources, this is also an instance of massive unemployment which endangers many workers.
Socialism replaces the above with central planning, so that the amount produced is roughly equal to what the society needs. So there is no wastage of resources, or low wages for enabling capital blocs to compete. Extra resources and labour can be used for other purposes. Allover, this makes life much better for the working class.
|
|
|
Post by jmobby75 on Aug 25, 2012 21:10:13 GMT -5
But central planning usually raises taxes which harms private businesses and cause unemployment if taxes get too high right? Also countries with free medicine tend to have less innovation than america which has expensive medicine. Maybe central planning holds back financial incentives to do scientific advances?
|
|
|
Post by jmobby75 on Aug 30, 2012 15:12:58 GMT -5
Do you have a response? I would defiantly want a strong counter-argument against people claiming that the government is harmful to private industry.
|
|
|
Post by Dawn of the Red on Aug 31, 2012 22:09:59 GMT -5
Central planning can be of two types. In capitalist countries, a part of the bourgeoisie can implement state capitalism through central planning. This type of central planning is ultimately a part of the capitalist system and can succumb or contribute to the problems inherent in capitalism, such as inflation, unemployment etc.
The other type of central planning is a socialist one. Here the very aim of the government is to transform the private sector into public sector, where the surplus produced is used for social welfare and advancement rather than expansion of the enterprise. Therefore, harming capital by reducing its profits is often something intentional when it happens in a socialist economy. If private capital adjusts to this by causing unemployment, then it can be immediately nationalized.
Communists do not claim that central planning inside a capitalist country is an inherently better system than the free market. However, when the masses inside a country demand certain immediate measures for a better living, very specific popular demands consisting of government control of certain sectors are placed. For example free public healthcare etc.
|
|