Capitalism vs. Communism

[Britennene]

We can only blame USSR for it's short time. The nation itself was amazing, and did work.

If a nation gets absorbed by manpower, it can work.

Did it get absorbed by a lack of a standing army, then it doesn't work.

Lack of a standing army, or the obesity of the army of USSR?

[Sovietiya]

We can only blame USSR for it's short time. The nation itself was amazing, and did work.

You do know he was speaking of the 'Free Territory' and not the USSR? Right?

[Sibirsky]

You do know he was speaking of the 'Free Territory' and not the USSR? Right?

Nope, did not know. In that case I retract the facepalm.

[Grachmen]

Personally I feel that the Paris Commune and Anarchist-Catalonia are better examples of socialism working. The Paris commune did little in terms of economics, and the Spanish Republic had no real authority outside the popular brigade during the Spanish revolution. In both cases, workers organized themselves to takeover the enterprises they worked for, and these enterprises became collectively owned and democratically run. And in both cases, the loss of involved military force. The Paris commune fought minor skirmishes with the army sent from Versailles, and eventually being taken out in an all out assault. The Anarchists in Catalonia fought a war on two fronts, one with the the Fascists on the Aragon front, and another with counter revolutionaries in Barcelona by giving power back to the Spanish republic, strengthening its police, and encouraging it to return power to the bourgeoisie. Several skirmishes were fought in the streets of Barcelona over collectivized enterprises and infrastructure like the telephone exchange. These cases of real socialism existing where defeated not by collapsing on themselves but by war. Orwell was even a part of the turmoil in spain, as a member of the P.O.U.M. (workers party of Marxist unification), and ended up part of the skirmishes in the street defending the collectivized enterprises with members of the C.N.T. against the counter revolutionaries.

[Staeny]

1. you actually pay for software?
2. I didn't like porthole, one or two. problem?
3. in a pure communist society, you wouldn't have to pay, or run the risk of getting caught by the (nonexistent) police.

If a pure communist society was even remotely achievable, I'd be a fucking communist.

But communism can not and never has existed, to the exception of some isolated tribes or communities.

same... I could do the bare minimum and get everything on a plate for me....

[Staeny]

OMG, it lasted a whole 3 years? Hold the presses! This just in, if the rest of the world played fair...

it was achieved, and therefore your post was wrong.

in short, deal with it.

this is why pure communism goes hand-in-hand with world communism.

considering it had to be protected and some form of enforcement of anarchist principles existed... I don't really see how it is any different from a constitutional government which would has anarchist principles fundamentally entrenched...so effectively there WAS a government preventing the power vacuum being filled.

[Norstal]

1. you actually pay for software?

Err, yeah? Seeing as I'm a computer scientist, it would just be highly ironic if I pirate all the software I get.

2. I didn't like porthole, one or two. problem?
3. in a pure communist society, you wouldn't have to pay, or run the risk of getting caught by the (nonexistent) police.

Yeah, because there'd be no currency, all forms of trade have to be reduced to bartering. Which sucks.

[Staeny]

And that's exactly why I oppose democracy and value individualism above all else. Because everybody -the majority and the minority- matters. Furthermore, I'm skeptical of the transition from socialism to communism, because I do not believe that it can or will work (and I define success as it being flexible enough to sustain itself).

Capitalism is many things, but socialism is the real road to poverty. It destroys incentives to rise and succeed, to invent and be great. It prevents flexibility and reacts slowly to change. Any country that has tried to adopt rigid socialist policies has failed, jobs are lost and the government must spend more that it does not have to "protect" the proletariat.

Those under socialist governments did worse than those under capitalist ones. To clarify, this isn't a defense of anything absolute, the free market included. But I scoff at the idea that socialism can ever be truly implemented without people starving, unemployment remaining high, and so on.

Lowering the bar for everybody doesn't make life better, it doesn't end poverty. It just impoverishes everyone.

there is no situation where one person is more important then 20. period.

wanna bet? look to venezuela!

this leads one to assume that the improvement in Venezuela is largely due the government being awash with oil money and it can put it where it wants...not necessarily socialist policies. It'd be interesting to compare it to other oil producing nations and how their system and circumstance have affected the country...such as say.... Norway....

[Staeny]

1. you actually pay for software?

Err, yeah? Seeing as I'm a computer scientist, it would just be highly ironic if I pirate all the software I get.

2. I didn't like porthole, one or two. problem?
3. in a pure communist society, you wouldn't have to pay, or run the risk of getting caught by the (nonexistent) police.

Yeah, because there'd be no currency, all forms of trade have to be reduced to bartering. Which sucks.

I don't imagine bartering would be needed....if the central planners were good at their jobs....everything should go where it's needed.

[Norstal]

I don't imagine bartering would be needed....if the central planners were good at their jobs....everything should go where it's needed.

But then that requires a state. Something to protect the central planners. It wouldn't be (his version of) communism anymore.

[Staeny]

I don't imagine bartering would be needed....if the central planners were good at their jobs....everything should go where it's needed.

But then that requires a state. Something to protect the central planners. It wouldn't be (his version of) communism anymore.

true....that does suck...and surely a monetary system would end up occurring again?

[Odins Scandinavia]

You do know he was speaking of the 'Free Territory' and not the USSR? Right?

Nope, did not know. In that case I retract the facepalm.

this is... unprecedented...

[Odins Scandinavia]

If a pure communist society was even remotely achievable, I'd be a fucking communist.

But communism can not and never has existed, to the exception of some isolated tribes or communities.

same... I could do the bare minimum and get everything on a plate for me....

Common misconception. from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. if you dont do your hardest, we give you less.

[Odins Scandinavia]

I don't imagine bartering would be needed....if the central planners were good at their jobs....everything should go where it's needed.

But then that requires a state. Something to protect the central planners. It wouldn't be (his version of) communism anymore.

in the actual marxist form of communism (including marxist-leninism) the staeless, classless society votes on everything. there is no central authority, and it is pretty much run on a county-by-county basis (as a frame of reference). the government is limited to counting votes (if that even counts- pardon the pun).

[Keronians]

same... I could do the bare minimum and get everything on a plate for me....

Common misconception. from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. if you dont do your hardest, we give you less.

Really? I've always interpreted that as you are made to do whatever you're good at, and you're just given whatever is required to live.

[Sibirsky]

Nope, did not know. In that case I retract the facepalm.

this is... unprecedented...

[Sibirsky]

same... I could do the bare minimum and get everything on a plate for me....

Common misconception. from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. if you dont do your hardest, we give you less.

Needs do not change based on performance or ability.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I'm moving this discussion here because it's off topic in another thread.

I believe simply that socialism is democracy, and democracy is socialism. Once we open our lives to a democratic process and stop accepting authoritarianism for authoritarianism's sake, we will be democratic socialists by default. It's about an awakening to the inadequacies in our lives and seeking to replace corrupt institutions with egalitarian ones.

Egalitarian institutions like?

How would you implement socialism? Not central planning, I assume, so probably market socialism?

Like trade unions as a prime model for bringing democracy outside of just the political sphere.

I would provide state aid to workers seeking to purchase their workplace and engage in indirect wealth redistribution(Education reform as opposed to land reform, for example,) to help fix society. Central planning doesn't work, and a market is the most efficient way to run an economy, as most things will manage themselves when allowed to.

[Odins Scandinavia]

Common misconception. from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. if you dont do your hardest, we give you less.

Needs do not change based on performance or ability.

this is true. assuming everyone does their hardest, they get what they need. if not enough, say, grain is brought in, they have a famine, and everyone will get less.

Needs DO however change on how hard you work. if you are a lazy fuck you need less food, for example.

[Numer]

I am a capitalist because natural laws themselves lean towards capitalism. In nature, species compete with each other for survival and the fittest wins. Capitalism essentially works the same way, as those who work hard enough or are cunning enough to scale the economic ladder will in turn benefit from the system. While it would be ideal that every human could live comfortably and be completely equal, it is simply not practical on a mass scale. I'm not saying that capitalism is perfect, but is the best system under which humanity can thrive. Besides, every human should have free will and not be bogged down by legislature or an all-encompassing political state.

Also, obviously hardship can be experienced under the capitalist system, but ultimate success can be as well, something that communism cannot offer. What benefits or pleasures is one offered once in the communist system? The pride or joy that comes from one's contribution to the state? I know it may be materialist of me, but I would not mind enjoying the physical rewards granted under the capitalist system.

And think of the great civilizations of the past. Would any of those grand empires achieve as much under a system where everyone is equal? How would the Pyramids be built if the farmers building it were given the same luxuries as the pharaoh? Humanity would not achieve its full potential under communism.

This is just my opinion on the matter.

[Occupied Deutschland]

same... I could do the bare minimum and get everything on a plate for me....

Common misconception. from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. if you dont do your hardest, we give you less.

See, then the question becomes who is figuring out how much someone's "hardest" is.
Because a democratic association of people probably isn't going to be able figure it out. (I baked as much bread as I could but TOMMY didn't work as hard as he should have!)

Which means there's going to have to be some dude with a spreadsheet of everyone's production for the last X time period and if it falls down for some reason account for any factors that might affect this (weather for farmers, etc.) Which opens it up to all kinds of abuses and power-grabbing.

Although maybe you've got an explanation that I'm just completely missing?

[The Aryan Nations]

Common misconception. from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. if you dont do your hardest, we give you less.

See, then the question becomes who is figuring out how much someone's "hardest" is.
Because a democratic association of people probably isn't going to be able figure it out. (I baked as much bread as I could but TOMMY didn't work as hard as he should have!)

Which means there's going to have to be some dude with a spreadsheet of everyone's production for the last X time period and if it falls down for some reason account for any factors that might affect this (weather for farmers, etc.) Which opens it up to all kinds of abuses and power-grabbing.

Although maybe you've got an explanation that I'm just completely missing?

the socialist process, which is required to actually achieve communism (stateless society without the process gives you somalia), has taught several generations the value of the many over the value of the few. children, their children, their childrens children, etc etc, have all been taught the value of hard work, and value of the community.

[Numer]

See, then the question becomes who is figuring out how much someone's "hardest" is.
Because a democratic association of people probably isn't going to be able figure it out. (I baked as much bread as I could but TOMMY didn't work as hard as he should have!)

Which means there's going to have to be some dude with a spreadsheet of everyone's production for the last X time period and if it falls down for some reason account for any factors that might affect this (weather for farmers, etc.) Which opens it up to all kinds of abuses and power-grabbing.

Although maybe you've got an explanation that I'm just completely missing?

the socialist process, which is required to actually achieve communism (stateless society without the process gives you somalia), has taught several generations the value of the many over the value of the few. children, their children, their childrens children, etc etc, have all been taught the value of hard work, and value of the community.

Just because a child is taught something doesn't mean they will carry out this doctrine flawlessly. Stating just from my experience in a catholic school, although being taught certain values or ethics for 12 years (my entire childhood), many of peers definitely didn't not carry out these virtues/principles.

[The Aryan Nations]

the socialist process, which is required to actually achieve communism (stateless society without the process gives you somalia), has taught several generations the value of the many over the value of the few. children, their children, their childrens children, etc etc, have all been taught the value of hard work, and value of the community.

Just because a child is taught something doesn't mean they will carry out this doctrine flawlessly. Stating just from my experience in a catholic school, although being taught certain values or ethics for 12 years (my entire childhood), many of peers definitely didn't not carry out these virtues/principles.

which is why one generation won't cut it. we are talking 200 years or so. eventually the idea will be so close to perfect that it wont really matter.

[Grachmen]

I am a capitalist because natural laws themselves lean towards capitalism. In nature, species compete with each other for survival and the fittest wins. Capitalism essentially works the same way, as those who work hard enough or are cunning enough to scale the economic ladder will in turn benefit from the system. While it would be ideal that every human could live comfortably and be completely equal, it is simply not practical on a mass scale. I'm not saying that capitalism is perfect, but is the best system under which humanity can thrive. Besides, every human should have free will and not be bogged down by legislature or an all-encompassing political state.

Also, obviously hardship can be experienced under the capitalist system, but ultimate success can be as well, something that communism cannot offer. What benefits or pleasures is one offered once in the communist system? The pride or joy that comes from one's contribution to the state? I know it may be materialist of me, but I would not mind enjoying the physical rewards granted under the capitalist system.

And think of the great civilizations of the past. Would any of those grand empires achieve as much under a system where everyone is equal? How would the Pyramids be built if the farmers building it were given the same luxuries as the pharaoh? Humanity would not achieve its full potential under communism.

This is just my opinion on the matter.

hmm, were to start. First, you justify capitalism with essentially Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism was also use to justify slavery, racism and bigotry. Second, you make the common misconception of equating a communist or socialist economy with a command economy (we'll clear this up for you a little bit latter in this diatribe). Third, you justify capitalism by massive inequality in capitalism, even slavery, yet equate capitalism with liberty. Also, the pyramids though grand, are not really useful, and simply demonstrate exactly how early humanity had such engineering capability. You also seem to ignore the human need for self actualization.

Now again, the state is generally considered undesirable by socialists and communists. A commonly ignored aspect of communism is a stateless society. During the Spanish Civil war and the Paris commune for an example, the existing state had no influence over economics, but the workers organized and took over the enterprises they worked for, and ran them democratically. In fact, in Spain, the second republic had no power outside the popular brigade, and the Paris commune's assembly only acted to enforce rights, and granting pensions to the companions and children of the people who were killed in the revolt.

Now, according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, if all of the bottom needs are met, such as food, shelter, security, etc. then theoretically, humans will start to act upon the needs of the top tiers (which includes morality, creativity, self actualization etc.) which would further the potential of humanity rather than hold it back.