communism vs capitalism

[Doktor Avalanche]

It's the greatest mistake people make. They always want to bring up Capitalism vs. Communism, but this isn't really possible. That's like comparing Theocracy to Merchantilism. What Capt. Vietnam is meaning is either: Communism vs. Democracy or Marxism vs. Capitalism.

I completely agree. Marxism and Capitalism are Economic platforms/tools for society's financial services.

Current discussions regarding the pitfalls of a Capitalist society have sort of numbed me to what their discussions have been targeting. I assume the target is the United States'  Democratically Elected Republic instead of its Market Capitalism.

[Lannan13]

I completely agree. Marxism and Capitalism are Economic platforms/tools for society's financial services.

Current discussions regarding the pitfalls of a Capitalist society have sort of numbed me to what their discussions have been targeting. I assume the target is the United States'  Democratically Elected Republic instead of its Market Capitalism.

True, though the Opening Post seems to go on the economic side though.

[Hereno]

"Communism", as Marx had envisioned it, has never existed, 100.000,000 people have died under communist regimes throughout history, and also, explain how The United States got so powerful as a capitalist state while countries such as the Soviet Union failed. And don't get me started on North Korea and China. Vietnam is doing pretty good for itself though...

literally took until the very first post for some child to quote made up garbage out of the black book of communism

[Hereno]

Also, Communism is a political system while Capitalism is an economic system. Just saying.

No. Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

 

No. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit, while communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Hierophant

[Hereno]

It's the greatest mistake people make. They always want to bring up Capitalism vs. Communism, but this isn't really possible. That's like comparing Theocracy to Merchantilism. What Capt. Vietnam is meaning is either: Communism vs. Democracy or Marxism vs. Capitalism.

Saying "communism vs democracy" is about as weird as saying "capitalism vs democracy", except it's pretty obvious at this point even to a casual observer that wealth inequality has not just poisoned but defined American liberal democracy since its creation. Or are we going to pretend like the founding fathers didn't own slaves and restrict voting to white land-owning men?

 

If you want democracy where all people are equal, you have to give everyone an equal amount of power in the system. Economic equality and power inequality reinforce each other: having more power over the government allows you to change things to give yourself even more power over the government: both directly through passing laws that benefit you, as well as indirectly through the usage of money gained through law manipulation to increase your ability to manipulate the laws in your favor. The bourgeoisie as a class is not united as a single entity, but nevertheless, their interests as the bourgeoisie are one and the same. Because of this, the state functions as an instrument of class oppression of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. But this is always the character of any state so long as there is inequality. It can be overcome by rendering the state useless through giving everyone the same relationship to the means of production so that there are no longer class antagonisms spoiling our democratic process and the way that we allocate goods and services.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Hierophant

[Doktor Avalanche]

If you want democracy where all people are equal, you have to give everyone an equal amount of power in the system. Economic equality and power inequality reinforce each other: having more power over the government allows you to change things to give yourself even more power over the government: both directly through passing laws that benefit you, as well as indirectly through the usage of money gained through law manipulation to increase your ability to manipulate the laws in your favor. The bourgeoisie as a class is not united as a single entity, but nevertheless, their interests as the bourgeoisie are one and the same. Because of this, the state functions as an instrument of class oppression of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. But this is always the character of any state so long as there is inequality. It can be overcome by rendering the state useless through giving everyone the same relationship to the means of production so that there are no longer class antagonisms spoiling our democratic process and the way that we allocate goods and services.

And this is done in the United States through a Democratically Elected Republic. You elect Representatives who best represent you. We also have the ability to contact our Representatives to let them know where we stand on the issues at hand and what direction we desire to see the nation go.

[Hereno]

And this is done in the United States through a Democratically Elected Republic. You elect Representatives who best represent you. We also have the ability to contact our Representatives to let them know where we stand on the issues at hand and what direction we desire to see the nation go.

But in practice there is no correlation between public opinion and public policy, except for the opinions of those in the top 10%.

[WISD0MTREE]

But in practice there is no correlation between public opinion and public policy, except for the opinions of those in the top 10%.

Wait, they banned green tip ammo? 

[Hereno]

Wait, they banned green tip ammo?

dunno what that is but correlation implies more than one data point

[Spite]

There is no clear example of either a pure communistic or pure capitalistic system in force in the world today. All systems are necessarily hybrids, and all systems are flawed. Some however are more flawed than others. For the most part, people would prefer to live in a western liberal democracy if at all possible. Hence the one directional immigration. Ergo, the most desirable system of government and the most desirable economic system are the ones espoused by the West.

[Doktor Avalanche]

But in practice there is no correlation between public opinion and public policy, except for the opinions of those in the top 10%.

In practice, less than 40% of the population votes, and that is a fantastic voter turnout when it is 40%.

[Miles Dyson]

Neither systems are sustainable. Mutualism is the answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

[Doktor Avalanche]

Neither systems are sustainable. Mutualism is the answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

SEKIII4THEWIN!!!

[Hereno]

There is no clear example of either a pure communistic or pure capitalistic system in force in the world today. All systems are necessarily hybrids, and all systems are flawed. Some however are more flawed than others. For the most part, people would prefer to live in a western liberal democracy if at all possible. Hence the one directional immigration. Ergo, the most desirable system of government and the most desirable economic system are the ones espoused by the West.

 

But you're ignoring the context. Yeah, it's better to be in a wealthy country than a poor country, specifically because capitalism is a global system that exists independent of individual national borders. I could make the same argument about, say, Islam being a better religion than Christianity, because of the wealth and intellectual prestige of cities like Baghdad and Alexandria during the "dark ages". It's rubbish.

 

In practice, less than 40% of the population votes, and that is a fantastic voter turnout when it is 40%.

 

In the beginning the only people who could vote had to own land and be white men and those are the times some people want us to go back to. Still, if you know anything about statistics, 40% of 350 million people should be a very, very representative sample. 

 

Neither systems are sustainable. Mutualism is the answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

There's more than one type of mutualism, though. Which are you advocating?

[Redael]

So in communism if I work hard, i get just as much money as everyone else, screw that I'll just pretend to work, in that case only captialism can stop me

[Lannan13]

So in communism if I work hard, i get just as much money as everyone else, screw that I'll just pretend to work, in that case only captialism can stop me

Incentives are a key thing in the economic structure. 

[Lannan13]

In my most honnest opinion, I think that Communism, as a concept is a great thing. The issue here is that it is an awesome theory in general, but in application it fails due to human nature. That is the problem of most theories out there.

[Miles Dyson]

 

But you're ignoring the context. Yeah, it's better to be in a wealthy country than a poor country, specifically because capitalism is a global system that exists independent of individual national borders. I could make the same argument about, say, Islam being a better religion than Christianity, because of the wealth and intellectual prestige of cities like Baghdad and Alexandria during the "dark ages". It's rubbish.

 

 

In the beginning the only people who could vote had to own land and be white men and those are the times some people want us to go back to. Still, if you know anything about statistics, 40% of 350 million people should be a very, very representative sample. 

 

 

There's more than one type of mutualism, though. Which are you advocating?

 

Mutualism is a refined version of classical anarchist economics; first proposed by philosophers such as Josiah Warren, Pierre Proudhon (first self-proclaimed anarchist), and later developed by Benjamin Tucker, author of Individual Liberty. Like socialism, individualist anarchism and mutualism grew out of the cooperative and intentional community movement(s), as well as the broader labor movement. Unlike most other forms of socialism and left anarchism, however, mutualists believe in free markets, not planned economics; and advocate an interest-free banking system, cooperative business models, the labor theory of value (cost principle), and personal property, based on occupancy and use; instead of the artificial private property of capitalism, which requires the state to mandate it's authenticity. Check the link for more.

[Big Brother]

So in communism if I work hard, i get just as much money as everyone else, screw that I'll just pretend to work, in that case only captialism can stop me

 

No, this statement is the result of lacking knowledge regarding how Communism would actually function. You wouldn't get any money, because there wouldn't be any money. There wouldn't be any need for currency, there wouldn't be any boss or employer that pays you. This wage relationship exists in a Capitalist economy, but not a Communist economy, and the notion that "everyone gets paid the same in Communism" is just a silly misunderstanding.

 

In my most honnest opinion, I think that Communism, as a concept is a great thing. The issue here is that it is an awesome theory in general, but in application it fails due to human nature. That is the problem of most theories out there.

 

"Human nature". What an arbitrary, watered down concept. Some people say that humans are violent by nature, and the only things keeping us from hurting each other are laws and the like. Others say that humans are peaceful by nature, and that we only turn violent because of hierarchical power structures. Some say we seek social connections out of love for others, some say it's because of the fear of being alone. Some say we're greedy, others say we're giving.

 

I'm rambling but the point is, there is no agreement on what human nature actually is. There's no universal consensus, no actual strict definition of which exact traits belong to human nature. Many, many people define human nature in many different ways.

 

So taking all this into account, how can you say that Communism fails application because of human nature? How can you make such a statement, when no one even knows or actually agrees on what human nature really is? The easy answer is: You can't. Or you can, but you'd be wrong.

 

Unless you can empirically prove and define exactly what human nature is, by which I mean define which characteristics inherently belong to human nature, you'll always be wrong by blaming something on it. You might as well say Communism cannot be applied because magical pixies from the moon don't like the color red.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Big Brother

[Fox Fire]

Communism doesn't work. Next thread. 

[Hereno]

Mutualism is a refined version of classical anarchist economics; first proposed by philosophers such as Josiah Warren, Pierre Proudhon (first self-proclaimed anarchist), and later developed by Benjamin Tucker, author of Individual Liberty. Like socialism, individualist anarchism and mutualism grew out of the cooperative and intentional community movement(s), as well as the broader labor movement. Unlike most other forms of socialism and left anarchism, however, mutualists believe in free markets, not planned economics; and advocate an interest-free banking system, cooperative business models, the labor theory of value (cost principle), and personal property, based on occupancy and use; instead of the artificial private property of capitalism, which requires the state to mandate it's authenticity. Check the link for more.

I'm a big fan of Proudhon, although I disagree with a lot of mutualist stuff. Money is a big one. Mutualism, to me, seems like the opposite of a "refined version" of "classical anarchist economics" (especially seeing as it goes back to the beginning just like more collectivist forms of anarchism) - a long-abandoned tendency that was more or less absorbed by the others which got rid of most of the weird leftovers (like banks) that don't really make sense in the context of a post-capitalist society.

 

Communism doesn't work. Next thread.

A++ contribution, would read again.

[Spite]

But you're ignoring the context. Yeah, it's better to be in a wealthy country than a poor country, specifically because capitalism is a global system that exists independent of individual national borders. I could make the same argument about, say, Islam being a better religion than Christianity, because of the wealth and intellectual prestige of cities like Baghdad and Alexandria during the "dark ages". It's rubbish.

 

 

In the beginning the only people who could vote had to own land and be white men and those are the times some people want us to go back to. Still, if you know anything about statistics, 40% of 350 million people should be a very, very representative sample.

 

 

There's more than one type of mutualism, though. Which are you advocating?

So basically you have no counterargument? Countries with a stable, liberal and democratic system and a free market become wealthy. Countries without those things tend to be poor. The values that liberal democracies espouse-personal freedom, free markets, robust legal systems etc are exactly what allow wealth to be generated.

 

I'm not a rabid capitalist, but communism in a pure form goes against human nature, robs people of their self development, stops them leaving a legacy to their children. And that's exactly why it has never existed and never will. It's a philosophical pipe dream and even debating how awesome it would be is pointless.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Spite

[Stujenske]

It apparently does not do better in education. 

If that's the case, why do American students perform so poorly to their European counterparts?

[Abu Haddad]

If that's the case, why do American students perform so poorly to their European counterparts?

Because Europe is essensitaly a democratically socialist society/

America doesn't have a welfare state and is completely unorganised compared to the much more developed Europe

[Hereno]

So basically you have no counterargument? Countries with a stable, liberal and democratic system and a free market become wealthy. Countries without those things tend to be poor. The values that liberal democracies espouse-personal freedom, free markets, robust legal systems etc are exactly what allow wealth to be generated.

 

I'm not a rabid capitalist, but communism in a pure form goes against human nature, robs people of their self development, stops them leaving a legacy to their children. And that's exactly why it has never existed and never will. It's a philosophical pipe dream and even debating how awesome it would be is pointless.

where do you think that wealth comes from? oh wait, like you said, you think it materializes out of thin air like magic.

 

let me ask you something: once china stops having sweatshops, where is our sweatshop labor going to be located? like are you completely oblivious to the fact that we live in a global economy? do you really think it's as easy as changing a few laws and bam insta-wealthy western capitalist nation?

 

not everybody can be a millionaire. the wealth of the west is built on exploitation and is unsustainable.