Capitalism vs Communism: Marxist Theory Communist Propaganda—Economics for Dummies Part 3


“Actually, Socialism is the opposite, it’s
about making people equal.” Oh and please, this is the laugh of the century, Socialism
is all about making people equal? Was this the same equality where we saw a 1% elite
sitting up top in the Soviet Union with the masses living in poverty? Oh that’s right,
here is where you blame the Union Soviet SOCIALIST Republic on Capitalism. As if that weren’t
bad enough we then have North Korea with a 1% elite and the masses living in extreme
poverty, no different to that of Venezuela, Cuba and the list goes on. The biggest laugh
of all is however, all we heard about was the Labour Party in Great Britain boasting
off about Democratic Socialism between 1945 to 1979 about their Socialist policies and
how they closed the wealth gap. Tell me something, how can you close a wealth gap by debotching
your currency? If you don’t understand what that means allow me to explain that for you.
It is every £1 to the value of the product and for every £1 that you print there is
a 1+ debt added to the currency. The more paper you print in circulation, the lower
the valuation of your currency. This means the lower the valuation of your currency the
poorer your people become, because there’s less purchasing power of the currency, this
is why prices inflate and go through the roof because the less purchasing power your money
holds, the less you can buy with it. Now what is most important about this, the poor only
have the paper they get in hand for the work they do in exchange, the rich people on the
other hand own all the assets, do you not understand what that means? It means that
the devaluation of the currency hurts the poor but does NOT hurt the rich, because the
rich people are not reliant upon a paper currency they own all the assets, thus the gap between
the rich and poor widens, this is all thanks to your Labour Party Socialism. Throughout
recorded history everywhere Socialism has existed (that’s right, the real world) we
have seen the massive gap between the rich and poor, Socialism destroys the middle class
and with no middle class there is no possible way the poor can move up the ladder for better
wealth because the only ISM with a middle class is Capitalism; destroy Capitalism, the
gap between the rich and poor is inevitable. Hong Kong as proven by the gini coefficient
closed the wealth gap between the rich and poor between 1961 to 1997 it achieved that
with no natural resources and no national minimum wage, it just tells you something.
“… and not giving them any God given rights or God given rights of possession, it’s about
equally distributing this wealth” This utopia sounds nice and everything, remind me again
how are you going to allocate scarce resources efficiently without the information of PROFITS
and LOSSES again? That’s right, your idea of Socialism has been completely destroyed
with the argument on prices because the resources being scarce (means there’s not enough resources
to fulfil everyone’s needs), how then do you plan to create the egalitarian utopia of redistribution
of wealth so everyone gets equally? Let me read out something to you by Thomas Sowell,
an example that debunks your silly nonsense: “Misconceptions of the role of prices are
common. Many people see prices as simply obstacles to their getting the things they want. Those
who would like to live in a beach-front home, for example, may abandon such plans when they
discover how extremely expensive beach-front property can be. But high prices are not the
reason we cannot all live on the beach front. On the contrary, the inherent reality is that
there are not nearly enough beach-front homes to go around and prices simply convey that
underlying reality. When many people bid for a relatively few homes, those homes become
very expensive because of supply and demand. But it is not the prices that cause the scarcity,
which would exist under whatever other kind of economic system or social arrangements
might be used instead of prices. There would be the same scarcity under feudalism or socialism
or in a tribal society. If the government today were to come up with a “plan” for
“universal access” to beach-front homes and put “caps” on the prices that could
be charged for such property, that would not change the underlying reality of the extremely
high ratio of people to beach-front land. With a given population and a given amount
of beach-front property, rationing without prices would have to take place by bureaucratic
fiat, political favouritism or random chance— but the rationing would still have to take
place. Even if the government were to decree that beach-front homes were a “basic right”
of all members of society, that would still not change the underlying scarcity in the
slightest.” As we can see from this example Thomas Sowell gave this is no different to
your deluded idea that you can some how produce enough to go around everyone and fulfil everyone’s
needs, there aren’t enough resources. Even then you don’t have the available information
of how much to produce of each and every product out there on the market, you don’t know what
needs to be produced as it is impossible for you to know every product out there on the
market, and you don’t know how much to produce of each. Even then you don’t know the value
of each, value is not OBJECTIVE, value is SUBJECTIVE; a music album I personally like
maybe of great value to me, but will not be of any value to the person standing next to
me who likes rock music etc.




Comments
  1. In politics, mainly in socialist/communist (for me, it's a laugh to distinguish them, honestly, I don't want to bother anymore) countries, the 1% installs a political hereditary hegemony. That's right: politics are transforming into neo-feudalist hierarchies, with the "aristocracy/nobility" being known as the nomenklatura.

    In other mixed economies, with heavy statism involved, it lookes like this trend starts to flourish: kids "inheriting" their fathers' or mothers' administrative position, influence & power as if politics themselves are big business. Well… given that they're statist, it's self-evident by now.

  2. Whenever I hear Social Marxists talking about "making people equal" they sound like Utopian cultists. These people are deranged and dangerous too because they can actually convince people of their nonsense.

  3. All Communism / Socialist forms of governments  manage to do is have the Leaders live like kings and everyone else has to live in poverty.  All Communist have managed to do is re-create dark age Feudalism.   Pretty much all Communism does is make those who follow feel good, rather then do good. It does not raise anyone up, but instead pulls almost everyone down.

  4. Exactly bud, it's becoming an embarrassment, to think this is Scotland pretty much proves how brainwashed people are in this country, honestly shows you the level of stupidity going about sadly.

  5. The scarcity would become more acute, for no one would have the incentive to build those homes without a profit motive. The profit motive in capitalism is why those house are there in the first place. A socialist may come along and seize those homes and hand them out to political cronies, but they are there in the first place because someone profited by building those homes. The socialist seizes them because they do have inherent value, despite protests to the contrary. When they start seizing such homes, it will cause a nearly instant halt to building homes like it. It's also why they seize industry, and a similar result of not building similar industry.
    Of course, it's not just homes and industry. It also leads to a shortage of manufactured goods and even food. Venezuela, as you've brought up, is an example of such a shortage. Removal of the profit motive results in shortages, and the most serious shortage is that of food. Socialism causes starvation. The price caps on Venezuelan food causes it to be sold on the black market, or the smuggling of food to foreign markets. If the Venezuelan government successfully stamps out this black market, it still will not mean more food for Venezuelans. It just means that the farmers who were selling food on the black market (whether in or outside of Venezuela) will go bankrupt because the prices are held below production costs. The shortage, thus, will still continue. The only thing that will alleviate the shortage is removing the government price controls so that Venezuelan farmers can sell at a true market value that takes into account their expenses for land, seed, fertilizer, fuel, etc.

  6. There is definitely an inflexible supply of beachfront. For other commodities, supply is elastic so that if demand goes up so do prices. This is a signal that more supply is needed. If that signal is there, people will step in to supply the product. Governmental price controls interfere with that signal, and thus there will be a shortage.

  7. I would love to hear this Jason have the balls n intellect to challenge you or Thomas Sowell to a recorded, calm no screaming ur way out of it —debate to later upload on you tube the advantages of socialism over capitalism ……well Jason, we are waiting…… Helloooooooo

  8. That's not socialism or communism you dumb shithead… Communism and socialism means the workers control the raw materials and means of production… We haven't seen ONE communist country on earth yet…

  9. The definition of communism is a stateless, classless society… That's not the same as grand government control… The so called "communist countries" have been experiments… Those experiments aren't the same as communism ITSELF…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *