No it isn't, what I meant is that if you start selling your products for only the production price you wouldn't have any competition after a while, since it wouldn't be profitable for many companies to compete by selling the same things for the same price. Soon there would be only one company that created their product, which would lead to worse development of new products. So, to clearify the reference to communism, this all would also be the natural result of communism. It would be like just taking the bad effectsof the ideology The philosopher John Rawls describes in his book A theory of justice how these consequences will lead to a society with lower standard of living.
Maybe. :B Bu from what I can see, if we all owned only things we needed to use for plain survival, and desired nothing more than that, there wouldn't be a need to want more and more of those things, so there wouldn't be the need to jack up prices, or heck, the use of currency.
Ahh, okay, misunderstood :S. Yea, that'd be the sort of extremist result you'd expect from a purely socialist environment. Communism's very nature defies human nature in that it goes against capitalism. Capitalism itself is a fairly natural way for humans to run things - it's tailored to suit our way of thinking. I wouldn't take John Rawl's thoughts on face value though. Philosophers only extrapolate from the limited information they themselves have. In most cases, this information is second-hand, and also, most philosophers have never had first hand experience about what they're talking about. Therefore, it doesn't actually reflect reality in most cases. It may be beneficial to absorb some information from conflicting sources and then make your own interpretation. Personally, i think the result will not be a lower standard of living. For example, in the USSR, living conditions actually improved over time. The only difference is that relatively, the improvements there occured at a slower pace than those of other industrial nations.
Actually, many philosphers know very much about what they're talking about, especially when it comes to philosophy regarding economy and politics. They try to provide a theory that is bullet proof, so they wouldn't gain anything on not studying whatever topic they have taken on since that would only lead to their theory getting completely bashed. Regarding the USSR, you seem to be forgetting the cost of the improved living standard. The collective farming during the 20's with the five year plans lead to massive resistance from the farmers and many of them chose to rather slaughter their animals than to hand them over to the collective. Sure the illiteracy was pretty much wiped out, but you also had to put up with worse food and places to live. Also, the work output and disciplin became way more strict.
I was just thinking about when I said it would be nice if things were free. What i meant by that is things that are needed. Food should be free just as long as giving it out is moderated like what is done at a soup kitchen else someone will take more than they need. Its really sad when a person starves because they cannot afford to eat. But then that would complicate things if food was free but the price can at least maybe be reduced. Alo housing prices should be lower , although times have become better for people with less money who are lucky to not have to pay for rent. Never mind. I lost my train of thought.
Stalin's policy of collectivization and the terror in the early years of the USSR did indeed come at a high human cost, but these were both used in order to consolidate and reinforce State, control over the people. Improved living standards did benefit greatly from this, but collectivization and the terror would've been implemented anyway. Lenin's theory of monopoly capitalism is just one of many which have been proved wrong. Ugh, everyone here is so wise T_T. little kiddies like me can't compete *twiddles thumbs*
I'm not really sure if worse places to live and food, as well as less consumption goods, could are improved living standards. Huh? Lenin wasn't a philosopher, he was a political leader.
Yes, but he also had strong philosophical views and ideas. For example, his unique interpretation of Marxism.
What would happen: World would go into chaos. Don't graveddig. If a thread's last post is older than 3 days, leave it alone.