Capitalism vs. Communism

[Zortaw]

Private companies don't screw up the country, hysteria does.

True but both go hand in hand.

Not really, the more people get informed about stuff the more hysteria comes, leading to a greater saving. People don't trust anymore, get money off the banks, they don't consume anymore etc. That leads to a crisis, not the banks.

[Trotskylvania]

Excuse me?

So, suppose we were living in a left libertarian nation. Could I set up a private enterprise? Could I negotiate wages with my employees?

This argument is no better than asking if one could own slaves in a free society. It fundamentally fails to understand the nature of freedom.

[Staeny]

So, suppose we were living in a left libertarian nation. Could I set up a private enterprise? Could I negotiate wages with my employees?

This argument is no better than asking if one could own slaves in a free society. It fundamentally fails to understand the nature of freedom.

I don't think you can equate slavery with an employee negotiating wages with his employees....i don't want to get into a wage slavery argument or something like 'well the worker is a slave to society'. Slaves are owned and forced to work for nothing, regardless of what they want. Employees can get a decent wage to live on, if they have good enough credentials they can have a multitude of positions open to them and can resign whenever they want.

[Trotskylvania]

This argument is no better than asking if one could own slaves in a free society. It fundamentally fails to understand the nature of freedom.

I don't think you can equate slavery with an employee negotiating wages with his employees....i don't want to get into a wage slavery argument or something like 'well the worker is a slave to society'. Slaves are owned and forced to work for nothing, regardless of what they want. Employees can get a decent wage to live on, if they have good enough credentials they can have a multitude of positions open to them and can resign whenever they want.

They are both authoritarian, hierarchical relationships that are directly anti-thetical to any libertarian ethos. The fact that one is worse than the other is irrelevant: they both embody anti-individualism at the core.

[Sibirsky]

So, suppose we were living in a left libertarian nation. Could I set up a private enterprise? Could I negotiate wages with my employees?

This argument is no better than asking if one could own slaves in a free society. It fundamentally fails to understand the nature of freedom.

You understand freedom?

[Sibirsky]

I don't think you can equate slavery with an employee negotiating wages with his employees....i don't want to get into a wage slavery argument or something like 'well the worker is a slave to society'. Slaves are owned and forced to work for nothing, regardless of what they want. Employees can get a decent wage to live on, if they have good enough credentials they can have a multitude of positions open to them and can resign whenever they want.

They are both authoritarian, hierarchical relationships that are directly anti-thetical to any libertarian ethos. The fact that one is worse than the other is irrelevant: they both embody anti-individualism at the core.

There is hierarchy in both systems. Just because the workers own the business, you do not think they would have bosses?

[Trotskylvania]

They are both authoritarian, hierarchical relationships that are directly anti-thetical to any libertarian ethos. The fact that one is worse than the other is irrelevant: they both embody anti-individualism at the core.

There is hierarchy in both systems. Just because the workers own the business, you do not think they would have bosses?

Managers they elect and can recall at anytime.

[Sibirsky]

There is hierarchy in both systems. Just because the workers own the business, you do not think they would have bosses?

Managers they elect and can recall at anytime.

So it is more democratic. But not without a hierarchy.

[Britennene]

Compared to the 600 trillion (Literally) used in the military, yes. It is a minimal number.

$600 billion. Actually a bit more. But you're off by a factor of almost 1000.

Well, that's your opinion. I bet millions of others disagree.

So?

:I Well, a brave new world.

I'm not fully in favour of equal pay, actually. Equality is desirable, if we could maintain that equality without a dictator rising to power.

Why is equality desirable? Are there levels of equality that are desirable?

EDIT: No. It's trillions. Use Google.
Because we're all human, and some people cannot just watch as some people are lower than others.

[Britennene]

It's my duty to make sure that those people get their lives back in order.


Yes, the government corruption. The corruption which could disappear if greed would disappear.

But greed will not disappear. It's a basic human trait.

Not everyone is greedy. Compassion is a basic human trait, and greed is a personal one, based on genetics.

[Grachmen]

Managers they elect and can recall at anytime.

So it is more democratic. But not without a hierarchy.

but it's a much more horizontal structure. And management should be a little more proactive with the work they are managing. A head chief still cooks, a chief of surgery still performs surgery, etc. Also, by making management an elected position, they become accountable to those they are in a position to manage. there have been instances of even more horizontal methods of management put into practice before, and proven successful.

[Staeny]

So it is more democratic. But not without a hierarchy.

but it's a much more horizontal structure. And management should be a little more proactive with the work they are managing. A head chief still cooks, a chief of surgery still performs surgery, etc. Also, by making management an elected position, they become accountable to those they are in a position to manage. there have been instances of even more horizontal methods of management put into practice before, and proven successful.

head chefs and chiefs of surgery are not always the owners of the business. Equally, they are not necessarily qualified to make financial decisions for the business, nor do they necessarily have any interest in the welfare of their co-workers, considering they are in a head position. To add, I would argue that a head chef becomes head chef because he is the best cook or a chief of surgery because he is the best surgeon, and may often be sourced from outside a business as are CEO s.

[Grachmen]

but it's a much more horizontal structure. And management should be a little more proactive with the work they are managing. A head chief still cooks, a chief of surgery still performs surgery, etc. Also, by making management an elected position, they become accountable to those they are in a position to manage. there have been instances of even more horizontal methods of management put into practice before, and proven successful.

head chefs and chiefs of surgery are not always the owners of the business. Equally, they are not necessarily qualified to make financial decisions for the business, nor do they necessarily have any interest in the welfare of their co-workers, considering they are in a head position. To add, I would argue that a head chef becomes head chef because he is the best cook or a chief of surgery because he is the best surgeon, and may often be sourced from outside a business as are CEO s.

Referring to horizontal management, not horizontal ownership. the head chef analogy was just an example of management taking part in the work they are suppose to be managing. Horizontal ownership is required in socialism, but non-existent in capitalism. Owners of private capital don't always take part in management, in fact, they usually don't.

[The USOT]

but it's a much more horizontal structure. And management should be a little more proactive with the work they are managing. A head chief still cooks, a chief of surgery still performs surgery, etc. Also, by making management an elected position, they become accountable to those they are in a position to manage. there have been instances of even more horizontal methods of management put into practice before, and proven successful.

head chefs and chiefs of surgery are not always the owners of the business. Equally, they are not necessarily qualified to make financial decisions for the business, nor do they necessarily have any interest in the welfare of their co-workers, considering they are in a head position. To add, I would argue that a head chef becomes head chef because he is the best cook or a chief of surgery because he is the best surgeon, and may often be sourced from outside a business as are CEO s.

The workers on the other hand, do.
The whole point is that within an industry, voted representatives on a small scale can make descisions effectivly, be held accountable and replaced easily if need be AND be far more in touch with their industry than some man promoted on high by another man. Elected positions work because people are able to very much see who has got the better ideas and who makes the work place more efficient, whilst remaining humane and ethical.

[Sovietiya]

Managers they elect and can recall at anytime.

So it is more democratic. But not without a hierarchy.

Well; when it comes to worker co-operatives, they can be run in either two fashions (to my knowledge):

1. Democratic Hierarchy (what you just said).
or
2. Balanced Job Complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_job_complex)

[Phaedrus Imperator]

This whole damned thread is discriminatory. I'm a fascist; where's my place on the survey?!

Probably in the communism vs nazism thread.

Oh, good! A place for crazy-ass extremists like me, where I will be among my like-minded, world-domination crazed peers...
You were being sarcastic, weren't you.

[Grachmen]

I just file fascism under capitalism. I mean, when you have a strong centralized hierarchical state merging with corporate powers, that seems like capitalism to me, maybe not market capitalist, but capitalism none the less.

[Britennene]

Here's a little something I found.

[Mushrenia]

Here's a little something I found.

(Image)

> The majority of the people in that propaganda art aren't proles

You were saying?

[South Benson]

Both are crap, society and human nature is to a balance between things, like the collective-individual balance.
Communism is too collectivist, and Capitalism is too individualistic. While I believe in profit motive, and what looks like on the surface capitalism, the fact of the matter is my preferred economic system would be based off of the middle ground of individual wants and collective needs, therefore having a fundamentally different starting outlook than capitalism. Plus its a mass media myth that the only two economic systems are Socialism, and Capitalism, there are alternatives you know....

[Britennene]

Here's a little something I found.

(Image)

> The majority of the people in that propaganda art aren't proles

You were saying?

What's a 'prole'? And this "propaganda art" is quite accurate.

[Dolmart]

Both are crap, society and human nature is to a balance between things, like the collective-individual balance.
Communism is too collectivist, and Capitalism is too individualistic. While I believe in profit motive, and what looks like on the surface capitalism, the fact of the matter is my preferred economic system would be based off of the middle ground of individual wants and collective needs, therefore having a fundamentally different starting outlook than capitalism. Plus its a mass media myth that the only two economic systems are Socialism, and Capitalism, there are alternatives you know....

I second this.

[The USOT]

Managers they elect and can recall at anytime.

So it is more democratic. But not without a hierarchy.

But a far more limited hierarchy, which is infinitly more accountable.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Here's a little something I found.

(Image)

I found something just as accurate

Edit: EG Neither are accurate representations of the economic systems. There's a reason it's called "propaganda art".

[South Benson]

Here's a little something I found.

(Image)

I found something just as accurate

Edit: EG Neither are accurate representations of the economic systems. There's a reason it's called "propaganda art".

A rather inaccurate poster, first off:
A. Communism (pure Marxist communism) calls for the eventually abolition of the state, not totalitarianism like stated in the poster.
B. American capitalism is not fair, just look at our GINI coefficient, and look at any measure of successes in this country, the working people are getting screwed by fat cats*.

*By the same token working people should not get punished by lazy ideologues and radical college students either as in communism.