Capitalism vs. Communism

[Distruzio]

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.

I file it under asshattery.

[Keronians]

How do you not know their quality?

Invalid question. The question is how do you know their quality?

What the fuck, does "Hope and Change" mean in terms of quality?

As for the cost, you know what it's costing you as a person. And, from there, can conclude whether or not it's value for money, or whether it's time to change to a platform which seems to have a better set of objectives, with a clear strategy.

The government changes taxes, fees and other forms of revenue generation, constantly. As well as changing spending, coverage, etc.

And you have yet to address the massive bundling.

Because I use them? I can tell whether or not a road is of good or bad quality because... I drive on it...

Everybody uses rhetoric. Do firms not use mission statements as a way to motivate outside stakeholder groups?

Obama had his own election programme which people SHOULD (key word there) have at least skimmed through before voting.

Yes, that's your cost (tax).

As for the bundling, I prefer it, tbh, as opposed to having to go through every firm offering street lighting, firms offering roads, firms offering electricity, etc., and then making an informed choice.

It's one massive headache, and would take me weeks to go through everything at best. Years, at worse.

[Keronians]

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


So?


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.

You really think the American government spends over 300% of GDP on its military?

[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.

I file it under asshattery.

Is this the asshattery section of capitalism or is capitalism just all filled under asshattery? I do agree though, it is asshattery.

[Distruzio]

I file it under asshattery.

Is this the asshattery section of capitalism or is capitalism just all filled under asshattery? I do agree though, it is asshattery.

Using an economic system to aggrandize the State is asshatery that is hardly limited to that economic system itself. Stalinism aggrandizes the State as much as corporatiam. And both are variations of fascism couched in communism and capitalism respectively. Both are as repulsive as the more pure fascism of Italy. Asshatery, it would seem, knows no economic bounds.

[Sociobiology]

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.

actually both are genetic, and universal, degree is what varies.

[Sociobiology]

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.

third-ed,

[Sociobiology]

Yes, you make a choice every several years.

That cost would be equally high in councils. A bureaucracy is still needed.

You make a choice every several years on enormous bundles of goods and services, without knowing their quality or cost. And you are stuck with the choice of the population, and the cost of that choice.

Really, there is no comparison.

there is not comparison, because he still gets a say, he gets a say even though he has little in the way of capital or leverage. when is the last time you negotiated a custom contract with a cell phone provider?

[Distruzio]

You make a choice every several years on enormous bundles of goods and services, without knowing their quality or cost. And you are stuck with the choice of the population, and the cost of that choice.

Really, there is no comparison.

there is not comparison, because he still gets a say, he gets a say even though he has little in the way of capital or leverage. when is the last time you negotiated a custom contract with a cell phone provider?

Are cell phone providers free to organize their networks the way they wish? No? I didn't think so either. So the lack of a "custom" contract is hardly the fault of providers. Moreover, I did get a chance to negotiate with Sprint when I purchased my phone. The negotiation was, of course, within reason.

[Grachmen]

Is this the asshattery section of capitalism or is capitalism just all filled under asshattery? I do agree though, it is asshattery.

Using an economic system to aggrandize the State is asshatery that is hardly limited to that economic system itself. Stalinism aggrandizes the State as much as corporatiam. And both are variations of fascism couched in communism and capitalism respectively. Both are as repulsive as the more pure fascism of Italy. Asshatery, it would seem, knows no economic bounds.

What Stalin had wasn't communism, nor even close to socialism, it was state capitalism, so even if you consider Stalinist Russia to be fascist, it's still capitalism. Communism is a stateless society, so saying fascism is a type of communism is like saying anarcho-statist. again. Also, ever instance of fascism has been pretty much a bourgeois reaction against working class strength.

[Distruzio]

Using an economic system to aggrandize the State is asshatery that is hardly limited to that economic system itself. Stalinism aggrandizes the State as much as corporatiam. And both are variations of fascism couched in communism and capitalism respectively. Both are as repulsive as the more pure fascism of Italy. Asshatery, it would seem, knows no economic bounds.

What Stalin had wasn't communism, nor even close to socialism, it was state capitalism, so even if you consider Stalinist Russia to be fascist, it's still capitalism. Communism is a stateless society, so saying fascism is a type of communism is like saying anarcho-statist. again.

Asshatery, further, seems to confuse those eager to apply it's definition and then dispute its application.

Stalinism was, in fact, closer to socialism and communism than he was Capitalism. I agree that his vanguard state was NOT socialist nor was it communist, but he and his compatriots used communist and socialist rhetoric to couch their fascism - their vanguardism. This is not really a disputable fact based upon interpretation. It is inclusive of your anti-capitalism perspective and my own pro-capitalism perspective.

I am separating the gov't political policies - their vanguardism - from their economic policies - their fascism.

You are confusing the two. Fascism is the use of gov't mandated cooperatives within the economy to aggrandize the state. This is not done in capitalist gov'ts as there are no cooperatives. It is not done in communist gov'ts as there is no gov't. It is done in socialist gov'ts as the cooperatives are the gov't.

Also, ever instance of fascism has been pretty much a bourgeois reaction against working class strength.

I agree.

[Grachmen]

Asshatery, further, seems to confuse those eager to apply it's definition and then dispute its application.

Stalinism was, in fact, closer to socialism and communism than he was Capitalism. I agree that his vanguard state was NOT socialist nor was it communist, but he and his compatriots used communist and socialist rhetoric to couch their fascism - their vanguardism. This is not really a disputable fact based upon interpretation. It is inclusive of your anti-capitalism perspective and my own pro-capitalism perspective.

I am separating the gov't political policies - their vanguardism - from their economic policies - their fascism.

You are confusing the two. Fascism is the use of gov't mandated cooperatives within the economy to aggrandize the state. This is not done in capitalist gov'ts as there are no cooperatives. It is not done in communist gov'ts as there is no gov't. It is done in socialist gov'ts as the cooperatives are the gov't.

It's not really my perspective. Capitalism is basically defined by it's labor capital relationship. In capitalism, you have some one who owns capital, and laborers who apply their labor to that capital, and the value created is split. The difference between state capitalism and market capitalism, is basically, in State capitalism, capital is controlled by the state instead of a handful of affluent individuals. In socialism, capital needs to be collectively owned by everyone, and any existence of a state machine is to defend the rights of man from any privilege that remains, and it's role is suppose to be extremely limited. Stalin's Regime was widely separate from the population, authoritarian, and controlled capital.

[The Aryan Nations]

Using an economic system to aggrandize the State is asshatery that is hardly limited to that economic system itself. Stalinism aggrandizes the State as much as corporatiam. And both are variations of fascism couched in communism and capitalism respectively. Both are as repulsive as the more pure fascism of Italy. Asshatery, it would seem, knows no economic bounds.

What Stalin had wasn't communism, nor even close to socialism, it was state capitalism, so even if you consider Stalinist Russia to be fascist, it's still capitalism. Communism is a stateless society, so saying fascism is a type of communism is like saying anarcho-statist. again. Also, ever instance of fascism has been pretty much a bourgeois reaction against working class strength.

Fascism is Capitalism in Decay.

What Stalin had wasn't communism, nor even close to socialism, it was state capitalism, so even if you consider Stalinist Russia to be fascist, it's still capitalism. Communism is a stateless society, so saying fascism is a type of communism is like saying anarcho-statist. again.

Asshatery, further, seems to confuse those eager to apply it's definition and then dispute its application.

Stalinism was, in fact, closer to socialism and communism than he was Capitalism. I agree that his vanguard state was NOT socialist nor was it communist, but he and his compatriots used communist and socialist rhetoric to couch their fascism - their vanguardism. This is not really a disputable fact based upon interpretation. It is inclusive of your anti-capitalism perspective and my own pro-capitalism perspective.

I am separating the gov't political policies - their vanguardism - from their economic policies - their fascism.

You are confusing the two. Fascism is the use of gov't mandated cooperatives within the economy to aggrandize the state. This is not done in capitalist gov'ts as there are no cooperatives. It is not done in communist gov'ts as there is no gov't. It is done in socialist gov'ts as the cooperatives are the gov't.

Also, ever instance of fascism has been pretty much a bourgeois reaction against working class strength.

I agree.

ahem. perhaps this will sort things out.

and koba was such a promising yound man in the 1900 decade.

The philosophy of Stalinism is the philosophy of the elite, the bureaucracy, the organizers, the leaders, clothed in Marxist terminology. It is the extreme, the historical limit of the rationalism of the bourgeoisie, carefully organized to look like a new revolutionary doctrine.

Stalinism, the ideology of state-capitalism, is the reinstatement of uncritical materialism and uncritical idealism. The materialism is in the accumulation theory: the kernel of all Stalinist-Titoist philosophy is that the worker must work harder than he ever did before. The idealism is in the theory of the party: the leaders, the elite, must lead as they never did before.

No one is more conscious of this than the Stalinist bureaucracy itself. At the center of all ideological campaigns in Stalinist Russia is the attitude of the workers toward their work:

“'People ... consider labor as something alien to them ... regard their work joylessly or indifferently ... contrive to give society less output and worse quality and to take from the government and from society as much as they can.'"

[The Aryan Nations]

You can convince them to donate to charity. That's compassion.

What's wrong with pointing out that some people are more talented than others at certain things?

Or, increase taxation to social welfare. There are many ways. Charity usually goes to the wrong pockets.

You could just call them poor or unfortunate, because generalization is insulting.

here is how a nonprofit charity works.

80% goes into the charity for "distribution fees".

in laymens terms, for every $10 you donate, the crack baby in the commercial gets $2.

[The Aryan Nations]

1.Violence-phobia.
2. Gunphobia.
3. Pacifism.
4. Homophobia.
5. Etc.

Administrative functions, anyone?

are you a recruiter or something?

[The Aryan Nations]

The funny thing is too, that who wants to give money to the poor without tax? Certainly not the people who enjoy the lowering of the taxes.

What? Charities do exist. Charities do raise hundreds of billions of dollars. People do care and are compassionate.

of which they receive 20%.

Hundreds of billions of dollars is minimal?


What? This doesn't make sense. I don't make my money from the government. Taking any amount that is not voluntary is force.


I am relatively poor. Computers are cheap these days. You can get a brand new one for under $200.

I was speaking of the talented when pointing out that equality is not desirable, and pointing out that some people deserve higher pay than others.

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

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

: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.

*cough* anarcho-communism is the true communism

[Trotskylvania]

Fascism is Capitalism in Decay.

On the contrary, as German Jewish philosopher Walter Benjamin noted, with good reason, "Every fascism is an index of a failed revolution."

[The Aryan Nations]

Fascism is Capitalism in Decay.

On the contrary, as German Jewish philosopher Walter Benjamin noted, with good reason, "Every fascism is an index of a failed revolution."

Au Contraire, the original fascists, the nazis threw socialists in the camps! i have no doubt siberky holds a similar sentiment!

[Trotskylvania]

On the contrary, as German Jewish philosopher Walter Benjamin noted, with good reason, "Every fascism is an index of a failed revolution."

Au Contraire, the original fascists, the nazis threw socialists in the camps! i have no doubt siberky holds a similar sentiment!

And they took power in the wake of the disillusionment and paranoia caused by the failure of the German Revolution immediately after WW1. Without the flashy "success" and subsequent overthrow of Berlin's Spartakusbund or the Bavarian Soviet Republic, National Socialism would not have found such fertile ground among the German petit-bourgeoisie and intelligentsia.

And they weren't the original fascists. The Italian Fascists too, rose to power in the reaction following the failures and overreach of the biennio rosso

[The Aryan Nations]

Au Contraire, the original fascists, the nazis threw socialists in the camps! i have no doubt siberky holds a similar sentiment!

And they took power in the wake of the disillusionment and paranoia caused by the failure of the German Revolution immediately after WW1. Without the flashy "success" and subsequent overthrow of Berlin's Spartakusbund or the Bavarian Soviet Republic, National Socialism would not have found such fertile ground among the German petit-bourgeoisie and intelligentsia.

And they weren't the original fascists. The Italian Fascists too, rose to power in the reaction following the failures and overreach of the biennio rosso

quite. i still prefer the lenin quote

[Grachmen]

Fascism is Capitalism in Decay.

On the contrary, as German Jewish philosopher Walter Benjamin noted, with good reason, "Every fascism is an index of a failed revolution."

Spain has got to play the wild card again though. The Revolution didn't take place until after fascism reared it's ugly head during the Spanish Civil war, but I can't help but feel that Franco would have never gained enough ground to take over Spain had it not been for Stalin undermining the revolution, and essentially sabotaging the anarchists on the front line. So it still fits the quote somewhat, just in a strange way.

[Occupied Deutschland]

What? Charities do exist. Charities do raise hundreds of billions of dollars. People do care and are compassionate.

of which they receive 20%.

Actually, here's a list of charities that spent >75% on actual service programs. Many of them did much better than that

Edit Sidenote: The charities linked to above alone spent, according to this charity watchdog, over six and a half BILLION dollars alone on actual program expenses. That's $6,527,255,220 for anyone who wants a more exact figure.

[The Merchant Republics]

of which they receive 20%.

Actually, here's a list of charities that spent >75% on actual service programs. Many of them did much better than that

Edit Sidenote: The charities linked to above alone spent, according to this charity watchdog, over six and a half BILLION dollars alone on actual program expenses. That's $6,527,255,220 for anyone who wants a more exact figure.

Anyone find the irony in the fact that many avowed communists don't believe human compassion and charity can provide for the less fortunate? I know it's not fundamentally the same incentives in the economy, but you can't pretend that the parallels don't exist.
Is that irony, maybe just hypocrisy?

[Staeny]

Actually, here's a list of charities that spent >75% on actual service programs. Many of them did much better than that

Edit Sidenote: The charities linked to above alone spent, according to this charity watchdog, over six and a half BILLION dollars alone on actual program expenses. That's $6,527,255,220 for anyone who wants a more exact figure.

Anyone find the irony in the fact that many avowed communists don't believe human compassion and charity can provide for the less fortunate? I know it's not fundamentally the same incentives in the economy, but you can't pretend that the parallels don't exist.
Is that irony, maybe just hypocrisy?

My uncle was a communist as a youth until his father made him give all his wage to a soup kitchen and made him eat there on Christmas.

[Britennene]

Actually, here's a list of charities that spent >75% on actual service programs. Many of them did much better than that

Edit Sidenote: The charities linked to above alone spent, according to this charity watchdog, over six and a half BILLION dollars alone on actual program expenses. That's $6,527,255,220 for anyone who wants a more exact figure.

Anyone find the irony in the fact that many avowed communists don't believe human compassion and charity can provide for the less fortunate? I know it's not fundamentally the same incentives in the economy, but you can't pretend that the parallels don't exist.
Is that irony, maybe just hypocrisy?