Capitalism vs. Communism

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

That awkward moment when I agree with a capitalist. The State, and Government are in fact two different things. The government is something like a general assembly or council, the state is something like the Police force, or military. I'm not sure why you would need coercion in communism though.

this just suddenly made a whole lot more sense to me.

You can have the sate (say, Canada) without the government (montreal)

and vice-versa.

however, in a communist society, there is no government OR state, as they are means for the bourgeois to oppress the masses.

Well, quick correction.

First, the state is larger than that, it is the entire bourgeois class.

Second, there is a government under communism. Local communal government, and a larger representative body of the communes meeting to discuss the proper utilization of accrued capital for distribution. There is however no state, as the class society has at this point been eliminated, thus eliminating the need for a state. But there is a government, always a government.

Prior to communism, of course, would have been the worker's state, which would have ensured that the proletariat was not re-subjugated by the former ruling class.

[Odins Scandinavia]

this just suddenly made a whole lot more sense to me.

You can have the sate (say, Canada) without the government (montreal)

and vice-versa.

however, in a communist society, there is no government OR state, as they are means for the bourgeois to oppress the masses.

Well, quick correction.

First, the state is larger than that, it is the entire bourgeois class.

Second, there is a government under communism. Local communal government, and a larger representative body of the communes meeting to discuss the proper utilization of accrued capital for distribution. There is however no state, as the class society has at this point been eliminated, thus eliminating the need for a state. But there is a government, always a government.

Prior to communism, of course, would have been the worker's state, which would have ensured that the proletariat was not re-subjugated by the former ruling class.

Anarcho-Communist, and pure communist, bro
i have maintained that the ideal cap for the government is counting votes.
Prior to communism comes the dictatorship of the proletariat, however, this is the most vulnerable step, as the process is liable to be infiltrated by provocateurs and bourgeois saboteurs.

[Shpionskiy]

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?

But that's Tommy. Everybody knows Tommy is a lazy bastard.

[Staeny]

(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 have to say though, from my experience, having everything you need in life doesn't necessarily create any definite motivation to innovate and improve. Me and my friends work voluntarily to maintain a local camp-site and we get our food provided, and being medium wealth British citizens it's fair to say that we have our basic needs and some beyond that met....and yet it still pisses me off when my mates fuck around ALL the time, getting much less work than we could do done, and I come up with most of the ideas. This isn't a self-exaltation...but from this and countless other experiences, people are going to more quickly rely on someone else to do something if they can do it better, or if they can actually be bothered. Except if we are actually responsible for putting up our own shelter or getting our own food....suddenly the compulsory nature of the task (ie the prospect of going hungry) really does seem to work. That is to say, that we end up spending time doing that rather than the voluntary work. I'm just questioning the lack of incentive is all...and that there fewer people that actually seem to aspire to higher tiers of needs.

[Staeny]

I was thinking of another thing yesterday too. Surely such a democratic system would have negative effects in some ways. Say I had the jobs of picking up litter in a group, and I was doing it much faster and more efficiently than others, which would mean it would all be done by the end of the day. On the other hand, the others see the temporary nature of this job and decide to work less hard and stretch it over the week, getting them more money and employment for longer. If they are the majority and I'm the minority, couldn't that result in me being fired, and inefficiency remaining.

[Staeny]

incredibly crude examples...but...

[Soviet Klaec]

In theory; Communism. In reality, Capitalism.


In theory, Communism is a far greater economic system then Capitalism. Everyone works for the benefit of the mass. There are no "rich people", and there is no "poverty line". Everyone has the same amount of wealth(how they choose to distribute it is their choice).

However, such is not the way of the world. Greed and personal gain fuel humans far more then collective well being. In such a way, Capitalism thrives over the far greater yet less acceptable way of Communism.

As for Socialism; It is a wonderful idea. However, it is quite the bastard child of both Capitalism and Communism in my eyes. Somewhere inbetween both, with very little to make it it's own.

[Moral Libertarians]

government is a means of organizing, the state is a means of oppression and coercion. I don't mean state as in territory, I mean state as in the police are a force of oppression. I mean government as some kind of committee, council or assembly.

Why is it you AnComs can say such sensible things sometimes, but not at others?

[Grachmen]

government is a means of organizing, the state is a means of oppression and coercion. I don't mean state as in territory, I mean state as in the police are a force of oppression. I mean government as some kind of committee, council or assembly.

Why is it you AnComs can say such sensible things sometimes, but not at others?

why are AnCaps a contradiction

[Moral Libertarians]

Well, quick correction.

First, the state is larger than that, it is the entire bourgeois class.

Second, there is a government under communism. Local communal government, and a larger representative body of the communes meeting to discuss the proper utilization of accrued capital for distribution. There is however no state, as the class society has at this point been eliminated, thus eliminating the need for a state. But there is a government, always a government.

Prior to communism, of course, would have been the worker's state, which would have ensured that the proletariat was not re-subjugated by the former ruling class.

Anarcho-Communist, and pure communist, bro
i have maintained that the ideal cap for the government is counting votes.
Prior to communism comes the dictatorship of the proletariat, however, this is the most vulnerable step, as the process is liable to be infiltrated by provocateurs and bourgeois saboteurs.

Liable? The state will NOT wither away. That is a foolish pipe dream. You make the point that the state is corrupt and oppressive, then claim that relabelling it "dictatorship of the proletariat" will fundamentally change its nature.

[Moral Libertarians]

Why is it you AnComs can say such sensible things sometimes, but not at others?

why are AnCaps a contradiction

... They aren't?

[Grachmen]

why are AnCaps a contradiction

... They aren't?

Privatizing the state doesn't get rid of it. how can you be an anarchist if you just want to privatize the state?

[Moral Libertarians]

... They aren't?

Privatizing the state doesn't get rid of it. how can you be an anarchist if you just want to privatize the state?

Since when have I wanted to privatise the state? What an odd idea.

[Grachmen]

Privatizing the state doesn't get rid of it. how can you be an anarchist if you just want to privatize the state?

Since when have I wanted to privatise the state? What an odd idea.

well, how do you protect private property?

[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 have to say though, from my experience, having everything you need in life doesn't necessarily create any definite motivation to innovate and improve. Me and my friends work voluntarily to maintain a local camp-site and we get our food provided, and being medium wealth British citizens it's fair to say that we have our basic needs and some beyond that met....and yet it still pisses me off when my mates fuck around ALL the time, getting much less work than we could do done, and I come up with most of the ideas. This isn't a self-exaltation...but from this and countless other experiences, people are going to more quickly rely on someone else to do something if they can do it better, or if they can actually be bothered. Except if we are actually responsible for putting up our own shelter or getting our own food....suddenly the compulsory nature of the task (ie the prospect of going hungry) really does seem to work. That is to say, that we end up spending time doing that rather than the voluntary work. I'm just questioning the lack of incentive is all...and that there fewer people that actually seem to aspire to higher tiers of needs.

In my experience, If when I'm worried about paying bills, and having enough money for groceries, I spend most of my time thinking about that, but when I get paid enough to where I don't have to worry, it's easier to focus on my work. Daniel Pink, an economist, looked at several studies done with profit motive and human motivation, and concluded that once you get paid enough to take the issue of money off the table, you can then produce better results. He gave a lecture on it and RSAnimate did a video, here's a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

[Britennene]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrGdEwV-efs&feature=channel_video_title

"What do we have?
MOST OF THE MONEY
What do we want?
THE REST OF IT!!"

[Moral Libertarians]

Since when have I wanted to privatise the state? What an odd idea.

well, how do you protect private property?

I'd like to respond with something general, like "People will". For I believe that self-ownership comes naturally to people, and is axiomatically 'good' anyway.

I appreciate that this may not convince you, so I'll say instead "The legal system will protect and enforce property rights". It is true that this particular function of the state will be 'privatised' (not in the sense that the existing court/police system is simply placed into private hands and run for profit, but that rival courts and defence agencies compete freely for market share). Communities could also develop their own set of local rules, and communes could also emerge where anyone who wants to live there must agree to some kind of contract that states that the commune's property is owned by everyone.

[Grachmen]

well, how do you protect private property?

I'd like to respond with something general, like "People will". For I believe that self-ownership comes naturally to people, and is axiomatically 'good' anyway.

I appreciate that this may not convince you, so I'll say instead "The legal system will protect and enforce property rights". It is true that this particular function of the state will be 'privatised' (not in the sense that the existing court/police system is simply placed into private hands and run for profit, but that rival courts and defence agencies compete freely for market share). Communities could also develop their own set of local rules, and communes could also emerge where anyone who wants to live there must agree to some kind of contract that states that the commune's property is owned by everyone.

"It is true that this particular function of the state will be 'privatised'" see, that's exactly what I'm talking about. who enforces local rules? Capitalism is all about protecting property. "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." (Adam Smith, the wealth of nations) If property simply belonged to everyone, why do we need force to defend it, who are we defending it from? Though an estate, owned by an individual, has to be protected. If I worked on a farm that was 'owned' by some one else, how will they ensure I give them the fruits of my labor to them without force?

[Sovietiya]

Privatizing the state doesn't get rid of it. how can you be an anarchist if you just want to privatize the state?

Since when have I wanted to privatise the state? What an odd idea.

I guess Grachmen has read Jennifer Government too many times.

[Moral Libertarians]

I'd like to respond with something general, like "People will". For I believe that self-ownership comes naturally to people, and is axiomatically 'good' anyway.

I appreciate that this may not convince you, so I'll say instead "The legal system will protect and enforce property rights". It is true that this particular function of the state will be 'privatised' (not in the sense that the existing court/police system is simply placed into private hands and run for profit, but that rival courts and defence agencies compete freely for market share). Communities could also develop their own set of local rules, and communes could also emerge where anyone who wants to live there must agree to some kind of contract that states that the commune's property is owned by everyone.

"It is true that this particular function of the state will be 'privatised'" see, that's exactly what I'm talking about. who enforces local rules? Capitalism is all about protecting property. "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." (Adam Smith, the wealth of nations) If property simply belonged to everyone, why do we need force to defend it, who are we defending it from? Though an estate, owned by an individual, has to be protected. If I worked on a farm that was 'owned' by some one else, how will they ensure I give them the fruits of my labor to them without force?

Firstly, Adam Smith, although a supporter of the labour theory of value, was a strong supporter of the market, so I frankly doubt he said anything of the kind; or if he did, it was intended to mean something entirely different from what you think it does.

Protection of property can be carried out by the legal system. Even a state one (although, as the past 200-odd years have demonstrated, their incentives to do so have been poor).

And, although you own the fruits of your labour, if you use someone else's land or capital to produce them, you must compensate them. The amount will be determined beforehand by negotiation, and enshrined in a contract.

[Grachmen]

"It is true that this particular function of the state will be 'privatised'" see, that's exactly what I'm talking about. who enforces local rules? Capitalism is all about protecting property. "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." (Adam Smith, the wealth of nations) If property simply belonged to everyone, why do we need force to defend it, who are we defending it from? Though an estate, owned by an individual, has to be protected. If I worked on a farm that was 'owned' by some one else, how will they ensure I give them the fruits of my labor to them without force?

Firstly, Adam Smith, although a supporter of the labour theory of value, was a strong supporter of the market, so I frankly doubt he said anything of the kind; or if he did, it was intended to mean something entirely different from what you think it does.

Protection of property can be carried out by the legal system. Even a state one (although, as the past 200-odd years have demonstrated, their incentives to do so have been poor).

And, although you own the fruits of your labour, if you use someone else's land or capital to produce them, you must compensate them. The amount will be determined beforehand by negotiation, and enshrined in a contract.

Adam Smith was a supporter of the Market, not necessarily capitalism. The market mechanism exist in both distributism and socialism, so you can't define capitalism by the existence of a market. Also, the Labour theory of Value was the theory that Marxism was built on, apparently no one has read Das Kapital.

A legal system is the state. how do you protect contracts without force, without the state.

[Mavorpen]

"It is true that this particular function of the state will be 'privatised'" see, that's exactly what I'm talking about. who enforces local rules? Capitalism is all about protecting property. "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." (Adam Smith, the wealth of nations) If property simply belonged to everyone, why do we need force to defend it, who are we defending it from? Though an estate, owned by an individual, has to be protected. If I worked on a farm that was 'owned' by some one else, how will they ensure I give them the fruits of my labor to them without force?

Firstly, Adam Smith, although a supporter of the labour theory of value, was a strong supporter of the market, so I frankly doubt he said anything of the kind; or if he did, it was intended to mean something entirely different from what you think it does.

Protection of property can be carried out by the legal system. Even a state one (although, as the past 200-odd years have demonstrated, their incentives to do so have been poor).

And, although you own the fruits of your labour, if you use someone else's land or capital to produce them, you must compensate them. The amount will be determined beforehand by negotiation, and enshrined in a contract.

One thing wrong with this. How in the world would you use someone else's land or capital to produce labor? Let's think about this. If everything except your home is publicly owned, how would you work under someone else? When you work in a factory, the PUBLIC builds the factory.

[Moral Libertarians]

Firstly, Adam Smith, although a supporter of the labour theory of value, was a strong supporter of the market, so I frankly doubt he said anything of the kind; or if he did, it was intended to mean something entirely different from what you think it does.

Protection of property can be carried out by the legal system. Even a state one (although, as the past 200-odd years have demonstrated, their incentives to do so have been poor).

And, although you own the fruits of your labour, if you use someone else's land or capital to produce them, you must compensate them. The amount will be determined beforehand by negotiation, and enshrined in a contract.

Adam Smith was a supporter of the Market, not necessarily capitalism. The market mechanism exist in both distributism and socialism, so you can't define capitalism by the existence of a market. Also, the Labour theory of Value was the theory that Marxism was built on, apparently no one has read Das Kapital.

A legal system is the state. how do you protect contracts without force, without the state.

And modern economists, even non-Austrian ones, accept objective theories of value as incorrect.

A legal system does not imply the presence of a state. Regardless, how do you expect to enforce order in your communist society?

[Grachmen]

Adam Smith was a supporter of the Market, not necessarily capitalism. The market mechanism exist in both distributism and socialism, so you can't define capitalism by the existence of a market. Also, the Labour theory of Value was the theory that Marxism was built on, apparently no one has read Das Kapital.

A legal system is the state. how do you protect contracts without force, without the state.

And modern economists, even non-Austrian ones, accept objective theories of value as incorrect.

A legal system does not imply the presence of a state. Regardless, how do you expect to enforce order in your communist society?

actually, only Austrian, Neo-classical, and Neo-liberal schools of economics reject an objective theory of value, and these same schools also have a tendency to view economics in a static picture.

what you just asked me is a commonly asked question, it's on several anarchist FAQs. I'll just link you to one, since it gives a more thorough explanation than I have care enough to give. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI5.html#seci58

[Grachmen]

Firstly, Adam Smith, although a supporter of the labour theory of value, was a strong supporter of the market, so I frankly doubt he said anything of the kind; or if he did, it was intended to mean something entirely different from what you think it does.

Protection of property can be carried out by the legal system. Even a state one (although, as the past 200-odd years have demonstrated, their incentives to do so have been poor).

And, although you own the fruits of your labour, if you use someone else's land or capital to produce them, you must compensate them. The amount will be determined beforehand by negotiation, and enshrined in a contract.

One thing wrong with this. How in the world would you use someone else's land or capital to produce labor? Let's think about this. If everything except your home is publicly owned, how would you work under someone else? When you work in a factory, the PUBLIC builds the factory.

when all capital is public, contracts and property protection isn't necessary. with private capital, some kind of state is needed to protect it, with public capital, the state isn't necessary.