Capitalism vs. Communism

[Wanderjar]

The socialist 'ideal' ignores one simple piece of the human condition: the desire for individual advancement. Socialism stifles the desire to create, this is why the United States has been more innovative technologically than say Russia or even Western Europe to a lesser extent for the past sixty years or so. Without the incentive of wealth, individuals will not produce. There is no reason to do so.

Somehow the falacial concept of taxing the wealthy to give to the poor also comes to mind. How someone can justify, as I constantly hear being thrown about these days, taxing the rich at 75%+ percent is just utter nonsense. Sure, you can do that. But then the wealthy will cease to produce, it will no longer be in their interest to do so. Noone will invest any more, and the country's economy will implode or stagnate at best. Low taxes on everyone (promoting spending, which is the single most important driving force in an economy, which is seconded of course by real-investment), low spending, small militaries (if any at all) and a regulatory apparatus designed to keep the fox out of the hen-house so to speak with respect to business and fairness, is the key to an economies success.

[Grachmen]

Wanderjar, you sir have just done a fantastic job of ignoring everything I just said.

[Sovietiya]

The socialist 'ideal' ignores one simple piece of the human condition: the desire for individual advancement. Socialism stifles the desire to create, this is why the United States has been more innovative technologically than say Russia or even Western Europe to a lesser extent for the past sixty years or so. Without the incentive of wealth, individuals will not produce. There is no reason to do so.

Somehow the falacial concept of taxing the wealthy to give to the poor also comes to mind. How someone can justify, as I constantly hear being thrown about these days, taxing the rich at 75%+ percent is just utter nonsense. Sure, you can do that. But then the wealthy will cease to produce, it will no longer be in their interest to do so. Noone will invest any more, and the country's economy will implode or stagnate at best. Low taxes on everyone (promoting spending, which is the single most important driving force in an economy, which is seconded of course by real-investment), low spending, small militaries (if any at all) and a regulatory apparatus designed to keep the fox out of the hen-house so to speak with respect to business and fairness, is the key to an economies success.

1. Not true unless the socialist society is that of a command economy. Also many socialists realise that equality of outcome is stupid. Equality of opportunity is mainly on the agenda.

2.
a) I think most, left or right wing will agree that 75%+ tax rate is absurd.
b) I have but one thing to say about trickle-down economics. "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink." - You can cut taxes for the wealthy all you want, it does not mean they will invest. In fact, the whole point of investing is so they get money in return; by cutting taxes, you have effectively just given the money to them, therefore there is no incentive to invest. (EDIT: Also keep in mind that people think and want in the short-term. They could use all the money they got from taxes to get more money later, but they would have less money now. This is why asset strippers exist and why trickle-down economics does not work; heh, more like gushing-up economics if you ask me).

[The Aryan Nations]

The socialist 'ideal' ignores one simple piece of the human condition: the desire for individual advancement. Socialism stifles the desire to create, this is why the United States has been more innovative technologically than say Russia or even Western Europe to a lesser extent for the past sixty years or so. Without the incentive of wealth, individuals will not produce. There is no reason to do so.

Somehow the falacial concept of taxing the wealthy to give to the poor also comes to mind. How someone can justify, as I constantly hear being thrown about these days, taxing the rich at 75%+ percent is just utter nonsense. Sure, you can do that. But then the wealthy will cease to produce, it will no longer be in their interest to do so. Noone will invest any more, and the country's economy will implode or stagnate at best. Low taxes on everyone (promoting spending, which is the single most important driving force in an economy, which is seconded of course by real-investment), low spending, small militaries (if any at all) and a regulatory apparatus designed to keep the fox out of the hen-house so to speak with respect to business and fairness, is the key to an economies success.

1. Not true unless the socialist society is that of a command economy. Also many socialists realise that equality of outcome is stupid. Equality of opportunity is mainly on the agenda.

2.
a) I think most, left or right wing will agree that 75%+ tax rate is absurd.
b) I have but one thing to say about trickle-down economics. "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink." - You can cut taxes for the wealthy all you want, it does not mean they will invest. In fact, the whole point of investing is so they get money in return; by cutting taxes, you have effectively just given the money to them, therefore there is no incentive to invest. (EDIT: Also keep in mind that people think and want in the short-term. They could use all the money they got from taxes to get more money later, but they would have less money now. This is why asset strippers exist and why trickle-down economics does not work; heh, more like gushing-up economics if you ask me).

im pretty sure there is an entirely different reason that strippers exist. [/joke]

other than that, win.

[Bluth Corporation]

The socialist 'ideal' ignores one simple piece of the human condition: the desire for individual advancement.

You say that like that's some part of some sort of essential, innate human nature.

Ethnographic research pretty clearly demonstrates otherwise.

[Sovietiya]

1. Not true unless the socialist society is that of a command economy. Also many socialists realise that equality of outcome is stupid. Equality of opportunity is mainly on the agenda.

2.
a) I think most, left or right wing will agree that 75%+ tax rate is absurd.
b) I have but one thing to say about trickle-down economics. "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink." - You can cut taxes for the wealthy all you want, it does not mean they will invest. In fact, the whole point of investing is so they get money in return; by cutting taxes, you have effectively just given the money to them, therefore there is no incentive to invest. (EDIT: Also keep in mind that people think and want in the short-term. They could use all the money they got from taxes to get more money later, but they would have less money now. This is why asset strippers exist and why trickle-down economics does not work; heh, more like gushing-up economics if you ask me).

im pretty sure there is an entirely different reason that strippers exist. [/joke]

other than that, win.

1)

2) Why thank you, sir.

[Wanderjar]

Wanderjar, you sir have just done a fantastic job of ignoring everything I just said.

I wasn't really responding to you. But now that I have read what you said, all I really can say is that it's a well written social-liberal party-line piece, with no basis in reality.

@Sovietiya: You mistake what real investment is: every single cent that a man places in a bank becomes an investment because it is loanable. In this way, the money does circulate throughout the economy whether he trades the stock market or not (which isn't really a form of capitalisation anyway, just trading investment ownership thats already been created). Now, at the moment banks won't loan because it isn't in their interest to (no pun intended about the interest part ). If the Federal Reserve didn't mandate short-term rates (admittedly of over-exaggerated importance by some anti-Fed talking heads) and allowed all rates to be mandated by the market itself, as well as most importantly allowing banks to sink or swim on their own, we wouldn't be in this mess.

In 2008, the banks should've been allowed to fail, with the FDIC ensuring the depositors their money as they are mandated to do. There would not have been some kind of systemic and apocalyptic collapse. The inefficient and poorly run banks and investment firms would've failed, like they should, and others who aren't inefficient would have purchased their assets and everything would've been much better in probably about a year, maybe two tops. Cronyism, allowed by the Republicans, created the problem. This isn't capitalism, but corporatism/corporate welfare, which is terribly inefficient and unsustainable.

[Grachmen]

This is the theory of a renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow, who based this theory of human motivation by studying healthy individuals in society. It appears if you want to maximize the productivity of society, you should attempt to meet everyone's basic needs rather than just a few lucky individuals. so under this assessment of human motivation, it's actually capitalism that restricts advancement.

[Wanderjar]

(Image)

This is the theory of a renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow, who based this theory of human motivation by studying healthy individuals in society. It appears if you want to maximize the productivity of society, you should attempt to meet everyone's basic needs rather than just a few lucky individuals. so under this assessment of human motivation, it's actually capitalism that restricts advancement.

I'm sorry, but thats just silly. If this were the case, the USSR wouldn't have had only 1/5th of the productivity of the United States and needed to be given billions of dollars in food-aid shipments by the gracious hearts of the American and Canadian people just so its people wouldn't starve.

Capitalism enables everyone to achieve whatever they set their ambitions to do, while a socialist economy restricts the successful and prevents them from achieving. This psychologist's logic is flawed.

[Grachmen]

now that I have read what you said, all I really can say is that it's a well written social-liberal party-line piece, with no basis in reality.

fascinating, you seem to think historical examples, and established psychological theories as no basis in reality.

[Wanderjar]

now that I have read what you said, all I really can say is that it's a well written social-liberal party-line piece, with no basis in reality.

fascinating, you seem to think historical examples, and established psychological theories as no basis in reality.

I saw no historical example, though I provided the best one I could think of. You gave me a psychology theory that simply doesn't mesh into reality.

[Grachmen]

(Image)

This is the theory of a renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow, who based this theory of human motivation by studying healthy individuals in society. It appears if you want to maximize the productivity of society, you should attempt to meet everyone's basic needs rather than just a few lucky individuals. so under this assessment of human motivation, it's actually capitalism that restricts advancement.

I'm sorry, but thats just silly. If this were the case, the USSR wouldn't have had only 1/5th of the productivity of the United States and needed to be given billions of dollars in food-aid shipments by the gracious hearts of the American and Canadian people just so its people wouldn't starve.

Your working under the assumption that the U.S.S.R. had anything resembling socialism, communism or even any kind equality.



quite a while ago on this thread, we established the that Soviet union wasn't socialist, communist or even had the slightest sense of equality.

[Grachmen]

fascinating, you seem to think historical examples, and established psychological theories as no basis in reality.

I saw no historical example, though I provided the best one I could think of. You gave me a psychology theory that simply doesn't mesh into reality.

I mentioned the Paris commune and Anarchist Catalonia. Also, Maslow's hierarchy of needs was based off of studying healthy individuals, I simply applied it to a much larger scale.

[Wanderjar]

Okay, then lets operate for clarity under the assumption that we're either talking about an anarcho-syndicated Spanish Republic type situation, or a European social democracy, eh?

[Sovietiya]

I'm sorry, but thats just silly. If this were the case, the USSR wouldn't have had only 1/5th of the productivity of the United States and needed to be given billions of dollars in food-aid shipments by the gracious hearts of the American and Canadian people just so its people wouldn't starve.

Your working under the assumption that the U.S.S.R. had anything resembling socialism, communism or even any kind equality.



quite a while ago on this thread, we established the that Soviet union wasn't socialist, communist or even had the slightest sense of equality.

Well I agree and disagree. Marx does say in the Communist Manifesto that the state should take a large role in the economy, and Russia did that. But then after they got themselves to a stable level, they should have moved on. If WW2 did not happen, they could have done it sooner. But probably around the Khrushchev era, they could have introduced socialist self-management (see The Economy of Yugoslavia).

[Wanderjar]

I saw no historical example, though I provided the best one I could think of. You gave me a psychology theory that simply doesn't mesh into reality.

I mentioned the Paris commune and Anarchist Catalonia. Also, Maslow's hierarchy of needs was based off of studying healthy individuals, I simply applied it to a much larger scale.

Okay, but the Paris Commune ended with the starving deaths of hundreds of people and was a disaster, and Anarchist Catalonia has been demonstrated to have been hell on earth with cronyism, mafia-esque practices and simply wasn't particularly stable in any way or form. Frankly, the industrial production of its population wasn't great either.

[Grachmen]

Okay, then lets operate for clarity under the assumption that we're either talking about an anarcho-syndicated Spanish Republic type situation, or a European social democracy, eh?

I qualify as an anarcho-syndicate, but I'm not really dogmatic, and often support anarcho-communism, Anarcho-collectivism etc. European Social democracy is also, very capitalist, just regulated capitalist.

Socialism is a system of workers self management to put it simply.

The Soviet union had a top down approach that prevented it from every really reaching that goal; Anarchist Catalonia, and the Paris commune on the other hand, workers took control over the means of production directly, and ran it themselves democratically, a more bottom up approach.

[Mavorpen]

(Image)

This is the theory of a renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow, who based this theory of human motivation by studying healthy individuals in society. It appears if you want to maximize the productivity of society, you should attempt to meet everyone's basic needs rather than just a few lucky individuals. so under this assessment of human motivation, it's actually capitalism that restricts advancement.

I'm sorry, but thats just silly. If this were the case, the USSR wouldn't have had only 1/5th of the productivity of the United States and needed to be given billions of dollars in food-aid shipments by the gracious hearts of the American and Canadian people just so its people wouldn't starve.



HA! The USSR wasn't truly Communist. I fail to see how Socialism impedes on progress. All of your people have a quality education, better health, and better security. This has been evident in history. For the last 30 years however, world governments have begun to do an 180 and go the capitalistic route. They've lowered corporate taxes, lowered regulation, etc. Guess what? The world economy is deteriorating. Capitalism worked for America throughout history because of the simple fact that it DOES do a good job of allowing exponential growth (especially in GDP), but what happens when the growth hits a brick wall by something such as environmental destruction? What happens when resources become limited? What happens when food, water, etc. becomes a problem? Capitalism can't fix it, and that is when Socialism comes into play. I'm not saying Capitalism is bad ideally, but the world has reached a point where it's not the best system.

Capitalism enables everyone to achieve whatever they set their ambitions to do, while a socialist economy restricts the successful and prevents them from achieving. This psychologist's logic is flawed.

[Wanderjar]

Okay, then lets operate for clarity under the assumption that we're either talking about an anarcho-syndicated Spanish Republic type situation, or a European social democracy, eh?

I qualify as an anarcho-syndicate, but I'm not really dogmatic, and often support anarcho-communism, Anarcho-collectivism etc. European Social democracy is also, very capitalist, just regulated capitalist.

Socialism is a system of workers self management to put it simply.

The Soviet union had a top down approach that prevented it from every really reaching that goal; Anarchist Catalonia, and the Paris commune on the other hand, workers took control over the means of production directly, and ran it themselves democratically, a more bottom up approach.

Yes they did. And I will concede to you one thing that I would never say to any other kind of socialist, the SINGLE and ONLY form of socialism that I believe can work is anarcho-syndicalism. Kind of. Socially, no it would collapse under itself. But simply viewing its economic model for what it is, yeah, it could and in ways just as well as a capitalist economy. Why? Because it IS a capitalist economy, the only difference is that rather than a merchant class investing in the company, the workers own the means of production and invest in it themselves. Of course, we're going to ignore the fact that every instance of it's implementation (basically only in Spain) devolves into trade union gangsters seizing control and more cronyism, but from a purest sense, I can respect the syndicate ideology.

[Sovietiya]

I mentioned the Paris commune and Anarchist Catalonia. Also, Maslow's hierarchy of needs was based off of studying healthy individuals, I simply applied it to a much larger scale.

Okay, but the Paris Commune ended with the starving deaths of hundreds of people and was a disaster, and Anarchist Catalonia has been demonstrated to have been hell on earth with cronyism, mafia-esque practices and simply wasn't particularly stable in any way or form. Frankly, the industrial production of its population wasn't great either.

I do not know much about Anarchist Catalonia, but to speak of the Paris Commune...

LOL! Your statement could not be more ignorant. The starvation was caused by the Franco-Prussian war, not by the economic system they used.

[Grachmen]

I mentioned the Paris commune and Anarchist Catalonia. Also, Maslow's hierarchy of needs was based off of studying healthy individuals, I simply applied it to a much larger scale.

Okay, but the Paris Commune ended with the starving deaths of hundreds of people and was a disaster, and Anarchist Catalonia has been demonstrated to have been hell on earth with cronyism, mafia-esque practices and simply wasn't particularly stable in any way or form. Frankly, the industrial production of its population wasn't great either.

The Paris commune of 1871, not the Paris commune of the French revolution. The Paris commune of 1871 was ended when the french regular army marched on the city of Paris, and broke out in several battles and skirmishes, eventually being taken out by military strength. Catalonia, is a subject I studied extensively. the Socialist revolution built in Catalonia was undermined by Stalin who didn't want to alienate his ally of France by allowing a socialist society to develop. It ended with the anarchists and Marxists skirmishing with Stalinist forces in the Streets of Barcelona. The fight was started when the Anarchists and Marxists refused to give up the telephone exchange, and decollectivize. Then Franco eventually took over all of Spain.

[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.

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.

1. Never mentioned Social Darwinism or slavery. Simply stated the connection between nature and capitalism that I had observed by myself. Please do not put words in my mouth.
2. While these communities worked on small scales, a whole nation can not successfully work this way and still compete with a capitalist nation. There are too many variables that a capitalist democracy can deal with successfully that a communist nation cannot.
3. While self-actualization may be achieved by a people living under a communist government, they will never achieve that equal to a wonder such as the Pyramids (just one example) Also, you may not see the significance of an achievement such as this, but the fact is that construction of monuments and public works such as these fully demonstrate the creativity and complexity of the civilization that bores them.
4. Humans are greedy. Accept it. It is a fact of life. No matter how equal a system sets out to make its people, greed will cause inequality. At least a democracy with a capitalist economy allows for social mobility to counteract this.
5. Capitalism actually creates equality through social mobility.

[Wanderjar]

Okay, but the Paris Commune ended with the starving deaths of hundreds of people and was a disaster, and Anarchist Catalonia has been demonstrated to have been hell on earth with cronyism, mafia-esque practices and simply wasn't particularly stable in any way or form. Frankly, the industrial production of its population wasn't great either.

The Paris commune of 1871, not the Paris commune of the French revolution. The Paris commune of 1871 was ended when the french regular army marched on the city of Paris, and broke out in several battles and skirmishes, eventually being taken out by military strength. Catalonia, is a subject I studied extensively. the Socialist revolution built in Catalonia was undermined by Stalin who didn't want to alienate his ally of France by allowing a socialist society to develop. It ended with the anarchists and Marxists skirmishing with Stalinist forces in the Streets of Barcelona. The fight was started when the Anarchists and Marxists refused to give up the telephone exchange, and decollectivize. Then Franco eventually took over all of Spain.

I know of both of these, I'm a European history major/grad student myself. The point I'm trying to make is that regardless of how they ended, I'm referring to what occurred DURING their existance.

[Numer]

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.

Sounds like brainwashing lol

[Grachmen]

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.

1. Never mentioned Social Darwinism or slavery. Simply stated the connection between nature and capitalism that I had observed by myself. Please do not put words in my mouth.
2. While these communities worked on small scales, a whole nation can not successfully work this way and still compete with a capitalist nation. There are too many variables that a capitalist democracy can deal with successfully that a communist nation cannot.
3. While self-actualization may be achieved by a people living under a communist government, they will never achieve that equal to a wonder such as the Pyramids (just one example) Also, you may not see the significance of an achievement such as this, but the fact is that construction of monuments and public works such as these fully demonstrate the creativity and complexity of the civilization that bores them.
4. Humans are greedy. Accept it. It is a fact of life. No matter how equal a system sets out to make its people, greed will cause inequality. At least a democracy with a capitalist economy allows for social mobility to counteract this.

1 In nature species compete with each other (Darwinism) in capitalism, people compete with each other (social Darwinism)
2 Paris in 1871 was a city of over 2 million, Catalonia is about a quarter of Spain. not small communities, these were large scale.
3 the pyramids again, aren't an achievement. You have no way of proving this really outside of theory, and I've provided theory to back me up.
4 Tabula Rasa (blank Slate) this is a nature vs nurture argument, although a certain amount of greed is breed into us, so is a certain amount of altruism, both have their part in the survival of the human race. Though, our abundance of greed and lack of altruism has a lot to do with the fact that Capitalism rewards greed and punishes altruism.