Capitalism vs. Communism

[Sibirsky]

Looks like I'm done here.

*lights up a fat cigar*

[Laissez-Faire]

Looks like I'm done here.

*lights up a fat cigar*

All one really can do at this point.

[Moral Libertarians]

Looks like I'm done here.

*lights up a fat cigar*

All one really can do at this point.

How about another face palm?

I'm thinking of doing -

Ah. Did it.

Edit: Love the flag

[Keronians]

All one really can do at this point.

Edit: Love the flag

I'm shocked.

[Moral Libertarians]

Edit: Love the flag

I'm shocked.

Wear 'em proud...

[Keronians]

I'm shocked.

Wear 'em proud...

I still think you should join TLLH and I on the winning side.

Yes, it was a joke.

[Norstal]

You can give them to me, you know.

I need to feed myself for the next thread.

Ah, the disadvantages of not being a libertarian. Always on the fence. Arguing against both sides...

You can argue that one part, and only one part, of Communism that is right.

That, capitalism will inevitably fail.

Hear me out before you go all apeshit on me. Capitalism will die out either from the human race being extinct or from it being replaced by a better economic theory. As in any social sciences, progress must be made. Without it, it's not a science anymore. It's just...something really messy. Communism was a theory that aims to replace capitalism, but as we all know, it has not worked out so well either in theory (go take an economics or poli-sci class) seeing as it's incredibly dependent on the proletariat-bourgeois class theory and other things that have been proven wrong.

I think there's a better theory than capitalism or any subsets of it. We just haven't discovered it yet. In the meantime, I would have to support a mixed-market, with a high degree of privatization or something like that. I don't know, I'm not a bloody statesman.

[Sibirsky]

You can give them to me, you know.

I need to feed myself for the next thread.

Ah, the disadvantages of not being a libertarian. Always on the fence. Arguing against both sides...

You can argue that one part, and only one part, of Communism that is right.

That, capitalism will inevitably fail.

Hear me out before you go all apeshit on me. Capitalism will die out either from the human race being extinct or from it being replaced by a better economic theory. As in any social sciences, progress must be made. Without it, it's not a science anymore. It's just...something really messy. Communism was a theory that aims to replace capitalism, but as we all know, it has not worked out so well either in theory (go take an economics or poli-sci class) seeing as it's incredibly dependent on the proletariat-bourgeois class theory and other things that have been proven wrong.

I think there's a better theory than capitalism or any subsets of it. We just haven't discovered it yet. In the meantime, I would have to support a mixed-market, with a high degree of privatization or something like that. I don't know, I'm not a bloody statesman.

Capitalism will evolve.

The post scarcity world that Marx had a hard on for, will only exist in certain industries. Scarcity, will remain.

Digital storage, transistors, shit like that, will be next to nothing, or nothing in cost.

Waterfront land, something that we cannot manufacture in unlimited quantity, will remain scarce and expensive. Markets and capitalism, will remain.

Now, if humans are extinct that is another story.

[The Divine Imperium]

Socialism is just the new way to say communism.

[Norstal]

You can argue that one part, and only one part, of Communism that is right.

That, capitalism will inevitably fail.

Hear me out before you go all apeshit on me. Capitalism will die out either from the human race being extinct or from it being replaced by a better economic theory. As in any social sciences, progress must be made. Without it, it's not a science anymore. It's just...something really messy. Communism was a theory that aims to replace capitalism, but as we all know, it has not worked out so well either in theory (go take an economics or poli-sci class) seeing as it's incredibly dependent on the proletariat-bourgeois class theory and other things that have been proven wrong.

I think there's a better theory than capitalism or any subsets of it. We just haven't discovered it yet. In the meantime, I would have to support a mixed-market, with a high degree of privatization or something like that. I don't know, I'm not a bloody statesman.

Capitalism will evolve.

The post scarcity world that Marx had a hard on for, will only exist in certain industries. Scarcity, will remain.

Digital storage, transistors, shit like that, will be next to nothing, or nothing in cost.

Waterfront land, something that we cannot manufacture in unlimited quantity, will remain scarce and expensive. Markets and capitalism, will remain.

Now, if humans are extinct that is another story.

Yes, I do agree with that.

Also, another thing to point out why capitalism has been so successful. It's really close to the cell theories in biology. It's not too different with, can't remember what the specific theory is called, how cells survive by competing with other cells for resources. It has nothing to do with evolution, as it has nothing to do with survival of the fittest or any of that sort, but more with how cells work. Wonder what would happen if we try to make economic theories based on the workings of biology....

Just something I came across in my studies, but again, I agree with that. Marx has a lot of holes in his theory.

[Laissez-Faire]

Yes, I do agree with that.

Also, another thing to point out why capitalism has been so successful. It's really close to the cell theories in biology. It's not too different with, can't remember what the specific theory is called, how cells survive by competing with other cells for resources. It has nothing to do with evolution, as it has nothing to do with survival of the fittest or any of that sort, but more with how cells work. Wonder what would happen if we try to make economic theories based on the workings of biology....

Just something I came across in my studies, but again, I agree with that. Marx has a lot of holes in his theory.

It's an interesting thought how the most simple of theories can work the most efficiently. Nature certainly has the advantage over mankind there.

It's probably one of the greater failures of theories like those of Marx that they assume too much control of the complexities of the market.

[Terra Agora]

You claim that their economies of scale comes from the government. I disagree.

No, not all of them. However, their ability to have such great economies of scale comes from the government.

No, they don't. If anything, they act like a decentralised economy. They have individuals, branches, departments, divisions, etc. all working together towards one common objective. I don't see what's so inefficient about that.

It's very inefficient, corporations make the same mistake planners do.

They have more bureaucracy, yes, but they translate corporate objectives to their own deparmental, divisional, etc. objectives. When all of them are put together, the corporation achieves its aim.

Never said they the corporation doesn't "achieve this aim" but you're not looking at how they are achieving it.

Why does that have to be inefficient?

Look at the "Progressive Era" almost all of those regulations were lobbied for by corporations. Corporations cannot compete when they get to a certain size (and this is with government transportation subsidies, communication subsidies, etc already). If they never had those things they would have never gotten

How so? The first diseconomy of scale that pops out to me is communication. That can be easily solved by trimming the hierarchy down, and making it wider. This would also result in more delegation, which is a more efficient form of working.

Exactly! However they don't need to do this for obvious reasons.

The current corporate model would not last in a free market.

[Sanguinthium]

It's the pain of frustration.

I know, Sanguinthium claimed I hated poor people or something crazy like that, i told him to show me where i did, he refuses to reply to me now

sorry, must have missed that. can you send me the link to where i say that? i forgot.

[Sanguinthium]

Norstal, no-one can possibly come up with this stuff and blindly spew it up unless they genuinely believe in it, can they?

Well, seeing as he doesn't even know what he's debating about...

i know exactly what i talk about; i am not a troll, and i am being serious on this thread. that is only in my sig as a disclaimer to MODS. i have said this before to you (not on this thread.)

YOU people just ignore the uncomfortable truths.

[Keronians]

You claim that their economies of scale comes from the government. I disagree.

No, not all of them. However, their ability to have such great economies of scale comes from the government.

No, they don't. If anything, they act like a decentralised economy. They have individuals, branches, departments, divisions, etc. all working together towards one common objective. I don't see what's so inefficient about that.

It's very inefficient, corporations make the same mistake planners do.

They have more bureaucracy, yes, but they translate corporate objectives to their own deparmental, divisional, etc. objectives. When all of them are put together, the corporation achieves its aim.

Never said they the corporation doesn't "achieve this aim" but you're not looking at how they are achieving it.

Why does that have to be inefficient?

Look at the "Progressive Era" almost all of those regulations were lobbied for by corporations. Corporations cannot compete when they get to a certain size (and this is with government transportation subsidies, communication subsidies, etc already). If they never had those things they would have never gotten

How so? The first diseconomy of scale that pops out to me is communication. That can be easily solved by trimming the hierarchy down, and making it wider. This would also result in more delegation, which is a more efficient form of working.

Exactly! However they don't need to do this for obvious reasons.

The current corporate model would not last in a free market.

1) How? Subsidies? As I pointed out earlier, there are many more subsidies for small firms than for large ones.

2) And that would be?

3) They are achieving their aims by best allocating their available resources... Right?

4) I'd like a definition of this size. What is it? When they get to a national level? Multinational? I haven't quite studied the Progressive Era, so I can't speak much on the matter, but, during Wilson's government, didn't the Democrats actively fight against trusts?

5) AFAIK, most large corporations have taken a step towards trimming down the chain of command and making it wider...

[Sanguinthium]

You can argue that one part, and only one part, of Communism that is right.

That, capitalism will inevitably fail.

Hear me out before you go all apeshit on me. Capitalism will die out either from the human race being extinct or from it being replaced by a better economic theory. As in any social sciences, progress must be made. Without it, it's not a science anymore. It's just...something really messy. Communism was a theory that aims to replace capitalism, but as we all know, it has not worked out so well either in theory (go take an economics or poli-sci class) seeing as it's incredibly dependent on the proletariat-bourgeois class theory and other things that have been proven wrong.

I think there's a better theory than capitalism or any subsets of it. We just haven't discovered it yet. In the meantime, I would have to support a mixed-market, with a high degree of privatization or something like that. I don't know, I'm not a bloody statesman.

Capitalism will evolve.

The post scarcity world that Marx had a hard on for, will only exist in certain industries. Scarcity, will remain.

Digital storage, transistors, shit like that, will be next to nothing, or nothing in cost.

Waterfront land, something that we cannot manufacture in unlimited quantity, will remain scarce and expensive. Markets and capitalism, will remain.

Now, if humans are extinct that is another story.

you cannot manufacture anything in an unlimited quantity; that is blatant lack of logic; humans cannot create something from nothing; the resources will eventually run out, and the slaves that capitalism causes will be extinct.
also, real slaves are produced by capitalism; by simply posting the emote, you show your being uneducated on this subject, and your posts approach flaming. you have not posted a single logical argument, you have just raged. i henceforth ask for logic.

(from previous link)
Wage slavery as a concept can be a general criticism of capitalism, defined as a condition in which a capitalist class (a minority of the population) controls all of the necessary non-human components of production (capital, land, industry, etc.) that workers use to produce goods. This sort of criticism is generally associated with socialist and anarchist criticisms of capitalism, and could conceivably be traced back to pre-capitalist figures like Gerrard Winstanley from the radical Christian Diggers movement in England, who wrote in his 1649 pamphlet, The New Law of Righteousness, that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself."

Aristotle made the statement "[a]ll paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind". Cicero wrote in 44 BC that "…vulgar are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay for mere manual labour, not for artistic skill; for in their case the very wage they receive is a pledge of their slavery." Somewhat similar criticisms have also been expressed by some proponents of liberalism, like Henry George, Silvio Gesell and Thomas Paine, as well as the Distributist school of thought within the Roman Catholic Church. Criticism of capitalism on these grounds, however, might not always be connected to the belief that one should have freedom to work without a boss.

To Marx and anarchist thinkers like Bakunin and Kropotkin their concept of wage slavery was as a class condition in place due to the existence of private property and the state. This class situation rested primarily on:

the existence of property not intended for active use,
the concentration of ownership in few hands,
the lack of direct access by workers to the means of production and consumption goods
the perpetuation of a reserve army of unemployed workers.

and secondarily on:

the waste of workers' efforts and resources on producing useless luxuries;
the waste of goods so that their price may remain high; and
the waste of all those who sit between the producer and consumer, taking their own shares at each stage without actually contributing to the production of goods.


perfect explanation of capitalist slavery.
Capitalism has become so deeply ingrained in the American psyche as the only viable economic system, that it's no longer just considered "un-American" to question it; it's considered impossible. Culture, politics, and educational institutions present capitalism not as one of many economic systems, but as the only economic system that won't eventually result in the dictatorial rule of a corrupt government or a brutal autocrat. And it's not just any form of capitalism that is the law of the land in the U.S. — it's unfettered capitalism. But as much as we live unquestioningly by capitalist principles, do we even know what capitalism is?

In fact, there is no single agreed-upon definition of capitalism. But capitalism generally involves the following: that the means of production are privately owned; that supply, demand, prices, and investments are set by the private sector and market forces rather than planning; and that profit goes to business owners and investors. It's a system which, by its nature, is going to drive profit to the owners and investors of business and production. And when they make profit, they get wealthier. Since there are usually only a few owners of business as opposed to many, this means that the result of capitalism is often a few wealthy people and a whole lot of less-wealthy people.

On the one hand, the sort of wealth inequality which capitalism creates makes the step to slavery much smaller than it would be in a more economically-balanced society. Historically, slaves have been associated with the very wealthy; middle-class and lower income people don't have a slave-owning history like the rich do. For modern-day slavery, the slave-master relationship breaks down on economic lines more often than anything else — race, gender, religion, etc. It's an easy bit of logic to point out that since capitalism is a source of economic inequality and inequality encourages slavery, that capitalism does breed slavery.

On the other hand, modern-day slavery exists all around the world, in countries which are capitalist, communist, socialist, and hybrid economies. If capitalism is to blame, then how to you explain human trafficking in places like communist China and North Korea or hybrid socialist systems like Denmark? Slavery is a complex system that has existed over thousand of years in diverse cultures and economies. How can you blame it on something so modern as capitalism?

The answer may not be simple, but the question is worth asking. As we work to end modern-day slavery and learn how to live with the legacy of historic slavery, we can't afford to take anything for granted. Is capitalism the best system? Maybe not. Is it the worst? Probably not? Is it the only option out there? Definitely not.

[Sanguinthium]

The Soviet Union, Cuba and all other supposedly "Socialist" countries were not Socialist, they were not even close. By comparison to England they were more Capitalist.

its true and you know it. your mind just refuses to accept it. its called a confirmation bias, man

This is too much.



Oh, you're not a hypocrite; you freely admit to your goals, some of which are suppressing freedom of speech in favour of government pap, and tolerating the compulsorily sterilisation of hapless individuals.

You admit to these as your goals; however they are incompatible with my conception of what it means to be human. Thus, I am strongly opposed to your ideology.

i dont support it, and never did. i was saying i got over it because it didnt affect me in any way and my ancestors business is none of my concern as a response to his constant whining about the purges of the 1930s

[Keronians]

you cannot manufacture anything in an unlimited quantity; that is blatant lack of logic; humans cannot create something from nothing; the resources will eventually run out, and the slaves that capitalism causes will be extinct.

Yes, resources will run out. That's why we have scarcity: limited resources, unlimited wants. The same goes for EVERY economic system in existence. We encourage technological development, and employ capital goods in production because they allow us to produce more for the same cost in resources.

also, real slaves are produced by capitalism; by simply posting the emote, you show your being uneducated on this subject, and your posts approach flaming. you have not posted a single logical argument, you have just raged. i henceforth ask for logic.

Despite his excessive use of , his arguments make sense. Well, more than yours, anyway.

(from previous link)
Wage slavery as a concept can be a general criticism of capitalism, defined as a condition in which a capitalist class (a minority of the population) controls all of the necessary non-human components of production (capital, land, industry, etc.) that workers use to produce goods. This sort of criticism is generally associated with socialist and anarchist criticisms of capitalism, and could conceivably be traced back to pre-capitalist figures like Gerrard Winstanley from the radical Christian Diggers movement in England, who wrote in his 1649 pamphlet, The New Law of Righteousness, that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself."

Aristotle made the statement "[a]ll paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind". Cicero wrote in 44 BC that "…vulgar are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay for mere manual labour, not for artistic skill; for in their case the very wage they receive is a pledge of their slavery." Somewhat similar criticisms have also been expressed by some proponents of liberalism, like Henry George, Silvio Gesell and Thomas Paine, as well as the Distributist school of thought within the Roman Catholic Church. Criticism of capitalism on these grounds, however, might not always be connected to the belief that one should have freedom to work without a boss.

Several flaws in this argument.

To begin with, today, capital can be borrowed cheaply. All one needs is a good business plan. Land can be acquired via capital. Labour can also be acquired via capital.

Enterprise comes from you: your business idea.

If you don't want a job, you don't have to take it. There are also numerous laws protecting workers' rights, as well as allowing for their association via trade unions.

You also forget that the firms that abuse their workers are generally unproductive, because badly motivated workers are not very productive. One of the reasons Japan was so successful, was its great motivation theories, and inserting variety in the work of workers using cell production, job rotation, etc. Quality circles are also a Japanese invention.

To Marx and anarchist thinkers like Bakunin and Kropotkin their concept of wage slavery was as a class condition in place due to the existence of private property and the state. This class situation rested primarily on:

the existence of property not intended for active use,
the concentration of ownership in few hands,
the lack of direct access by workers to the means of production and consumption goods
the perpetuation of a reserve army of unemployed workers.

and secondarily on:

the waste of workers' efforts and resources on producing useless luxuries;
the waste of goods so that their price may remain high; and
the waste of all those who sit between the producer and consumer, taking their own shares at each stage without actually contributing to the production of goods.


perfect explanation of capitalist slavery.

Sorry, but that is not even worthy of addressing.

Capitalism has become so deeply ingrained in the American psyche as the only viable economic system, that it's no longer just considered "un-American" to question it; it's considered impossible. Culture, politics, and educational institutions present capitalism not as one of many economic systems, but as the only economic system that won't eventually result in the dictatorial rule of a corrupt government or a brutal autocrat. And it's not just any form of capitalism that is the law of the land in the U.S. — it's unfettered capitalism. But as much as we live unquestioningly by capitalist principles, do we even know what capitalism is?

Alright, first of all, many people on here aren't American, so if someone were to tell them that they aren't, they'd just confirm it for you.

Yes, we know what capitalism is. It is when the means of production are primarily owned privately.

In fact, there is no single agreed-upon definition of capitalism. But capitalism generally involves the following: that the means of production are privately owned; that supply, demand, prices, and investments are set by the private sector and market forces rather than planning; and that profit goes to business owners and investors. It's a system which, by its nature, is going to drive profit to the owners and investors of business and production. And when they make profit, they get wealthier. Since there are usually only a few owners of business as opposed to many, this means that the result of capitalism is often a few wealthy people and a whole lot of less-wealthy people.

Aha! If you're going to quote Wikipedia, cite it. That first sentence is almost completely copypasta.

Wrong. And the reason is that the owners need to compensate the workforce. Do you think that people like Cristiano Ronaldo, or Messi, are investors? No. Their large influx of capital comes from their labour. Their specialist skill: football (or soccer).

On the one hand, the sort of wealth inequality which capitalism creates makes the step to slavery much smaller than it would be in a more economically-balanced society. Historically, slaves have been associated with the very wealthy; middle-class and lower income people don't have a slave-owning history like the rich do. For modern-day slavery, the slave-master relationship breaks down on economic lines more often than anything else — race, gender, religion, etc. It's an easy bit of logic to point out that since capitalism is a source of economic inequality and inequality encourages slavery, that capitalism does breed slavery.

It's an easy bit of logic to point out that capitalism =/= slavery.

On the other hand, modern-day slavery exists all around the world, in countries which are capitalist, communist, socialist, and hybrid economies. If capitalism is to blame, then how to you explain human trafficking in places like communist China and North Korea or hybrid socialist systems like Denmark? Slavery is a complex system that has existed over thousand of years in diverse cultures and economies. How can you blame it on something so modern as capitalism?

The answer may not be simple, but the question is worth asking. As we work to end modern-day slavery and learn how to live with the legacy of historic slavery, we can't afford to take anything for granted. Is capitalism the best system? Maybe not. Is it the worst? Probably not? Is it the only option out there? Definitely not.

Nice copypasta. That last paragraph is a textbook reflective conclusion of articles.

[The Merchant Republics]

the waste of workers' efforts and resources on producing useless luxuries;

This is why I have to wonder if self-proclaimed communists and socialists are actively dishonest in their claims that their society will lead to "better quality of life", I realize of course, that no sane person would advocate a policy which he thinks would make people poorer and more uncomfortable in life.

However, when you say something like that. Something to the order of, "Luxuries are useless and we are wasting time on their production" that I must draw that conclusion. Why in the heck are luxuries a bad thing? They certainly don't hurt the poor, if it wasn't for the luxury value of Diamonds, Botswana, one of the richest (and might I mention freest) African nations, would be significantly worse off, the production of luxury goods gives poor people money for food. The relationship is positive.

But communists and socialists alike seem hell-bent on a world of grey, industrial bleakness in the name of equality. Because heaven help us if a person wants to be an artist, maybe you can paint after you've paid your share of time in the Coal Mines working for the good of your fellow man, not that paint is in your fellow man's interest either, you'll have to make it yourself, though Lenin help you if you sell your paint to anyone else you horrid capitalist you.

[Sibirsky]

you cannot manufacture anything in an unlimited quantity; that is blatant lack of logic; humans cannot create something from nothing; the resources will eventually run out, and the slaves that capitalism causes will be extinct.

Did you read what I wrote? Transistors, are cheap and getting cheaper. With advances in technology, they will cost next to nothing. We can put them everywhere and anywhere. Into everything. No added cost.

Paper. Infinitely available. I just replant god damn fucking trees.

also, real slaves are produced by capitalism; by simply posting the emote, you show your being uneducated on this subject, and your posts approach flaming. you have not posted a single logical argument, you have just raged. i henceforth ask for logic.

I provided logic in big red letters.

(from previous link)
Wage slavery as a concept can be a general criticism of capitalism, defined as a condition in which a capitalist class (a minority of the population) controls all of the necessary non-human components of production (capital, land, industry, etc.) that workers use to produce goods. This sort of criticism is generally associated with socialist and anarchist criticisms of capitalism, and could conceivably be traced back to pre-capitalist figures like Gerrard Winstanley from the radical Christian Diggers movement in England, who wrote in his 1649 pamphlet, The New Law of Righteousness, that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself."

And the state perpetuates the situation. If I was taxed less, and regulated less, I could eventually work myself out of wage slavery.

The solutions your quote promotes is a disaster. A massive tragedy of the commons.

Aristotle made the statement "[a]ll paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind". Cicero wrote in 44 BC that "…vulgar are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay for mere manual labour, not for artistic skill; for in their case the very wage they receive is a pledge of their slavery." Somewhat similar criticisms have also been expressed by some proponents of liberalism, like Henry George, Silvio Gesell and Thomas Paine, as well as the Distributist school of thought within the Roman Catholic Church. Criticism of capitalism on these grounds, however, might not always be connected to the belief that one should have freedom to work without a boss.

To Marx and anarchist thinkers like Bakunin and Kropotkin their concept of wage slavery was as a class condition in place due to the existence of private property and the state. This class situation rested primarily on:

the existence of property not intended for active use,
the concentration of ownership in few hands,
the lack of direct access by workers to the means of production and consumption goods
the perpetuation of a reserve army of unemployed workers.

Perpetuated and exacerbated by the state.

and secondarily on:

the waste of workers' efforts and resources on producing useless luxuries;
the waste of goods so that their price may remain high; and
the waste of all those who sit between the producer and consumer, taking their own shares at each stage without actually contributing to the production of goods.

Nonsense.

Luxuries are not useless if there is demand for them. Planned obsolescence is a myth. Distribution is valuable. The USSR had ample production of some goods, yet shortages remained due to an inefficient distribution system.

I'm in the god damn distribution business. As is, Distruzio. FFS, Toyota has inventory of 2 hours at a plant. They rely on suppliers and distributors to keep things going. They are good at making cars. Not moving them. Maersk is good at moving shit on the high sea. FedEx is good at moving shit on the ground and through the air. Johnson Controls is good at making some parts Toyota uses.

They all rely on each other. And benefit from each other. And we benefit from it. Division of labor, is like economics 0.0000000000001.

perfect explanation of capitalist slavery.

No, it's bullshit.

Capitalism has become so deeply ingrained in the American psyche as the only viable economic system, that it's no longer just considered "un-American" to question it; it's considered impossible. Culture, politics, and educational institutions present capitalism not as one of many economic systems, but as the only economic system that won't eventually result in the dictatorial rule of a corrupt government or a brutal autocrat. And it's not just any form of capitalism that is the law of the land in the U.S. — it's unfettered capitalism. But as much as we live unquestioningly by capitalist principles, do we even know what capitalism is?

In fact, there is no single agreed-upon definition of capitalism. But capitalism generally involves the following: that the means of production are privately owned; that supply, demand, prices, and investments are set by the private sector and market forces rather than planning; and that profit goes to business owners and investors. It's a system which, by its nature, is going to drive profit to the owners and investors of business and production. And when they make profit, they get wealthier. Since there are usually only a few owners of business as opposed to many, this means that the result of capitalism is often a few wealthy people and a whole lot of less-wealthy people.

There is lot more wealthy people, and middle class people in capitalist systems, than in your shithole fantasies. Our poor, are materially better off than the middle classes of planned economies.

On the one hand, the sort of wealth inequality which capitalism creates makes the step to slavery much smaller than it would be in a more economically-balanced society. Historically, slaves have been associated with the very wealthy; middle-class and lower income people don't have a slave-owning history like the rich do. For modern-day slavery, the slave-master relationship breaks down on economic lines more often than anything else — race, gender, religion, etc. It's an easy bit of logic to point out that since capitalism is a source of economic inequality and inequality encourages slavery, that capitalism does breed slavery.

On the other hand, modern-day slavery exists all around the world, in countries which are capitalist, communist, socialist, and hybrid economies. If capitalism is to blame, then how to you explain human trafficking in places like communist China and North Korea or hybrid socialist systems like Denmark? Slavery is a complex system that has existed over thousand of years in diverse cultures and economies. How can you blame it on something so modern as capitalism?

The answer may not be simple, but the question is worth asking. As we work to end modern-day slavery and learn how to live with the legacy of historic slavery, we can't afford to take anything for granted. Is capitalism the best system? Maybe not. Is it the worst? Probably not? Is it the only option out there? Definitely not.

You dream of perpetuating slavery.

I dream of not having to read anything of your shit again.

[Sibirsky]

Despite his excessive use of , his arguments make sense. Well, more than yours, anyway.

Every single one of the :Sibirsky:'s is justifiable in response to the nonsense he keeps posting.

He deserves an entire thread of facepalms, all to himself.

[Moral Libertarians]

the waste of workers' efforts and resources on producing useless luxuries;

This is why I have to wonder if self-proclaimed communists and socialists are actively dishonest in their claims that their society will lead to "better quality of life", I realize of course, that no sane person would advocate a policy which he thinks would make people poorer and more uncomfortable in life.

However, when you say something like that. Something to the order of, "Luxuries are useless and we are wasting time on their production" that I must draw that conclusion. Why in the heck are luxuries a bad thing? They certainly don't hurt the poor, if it wasn't for the luxury value of Diamonds, Botswana, one of the richest (and might I mention freest) African nations, would be significantly worse off, the production of luxury goods gives poor people money for food. The relationship is positive.

But communists and socialists alike seem hell-bent on a world of grey, industrial bleakness in the name of equality. Because heaven help us if a person wants to be an artist, maybe you can paint after you've paid your share of time in the Coal Mines working for the good of your fellow man, not that paint is in your fellow man's interest either, you'll have to make it yourself, though Lenin help you if you sell your paint to anyone else you horrid capitalist you.

Nice MR! I was just thinking this myself.

Saying "luxuries are useless" implies that every single extra good and service that an individual acquires above subsistence level is useless, by definition. Anything which does not fulfil the purpose of keeping a worker alive is decadent and a 'waste' of resources.

Yet, as MR says, the major attraction of communism/socialism is its supposed ability to 'liberate' the masses from their 'slavery', and give them a better standard of life than they would have achieved while slaving for the capitalists. Hold up; the workers were alive, right? They were trading their labour for enough resources to survive, weren't they? Thus, any better quality of life they receive after the revolution - better food, better clothes, a more comfortable house, whatever - is composed of useless luxury. It is not required, therefore it is worthless, and resources shouldn't be 'wasted' in its production.

Yet the whole purpose of the revolution was to better the lives of the workers! But now, that constitutes a waste of resources! Only capitalists misuse resources in such a needless way.


If you take the precepts of Marxian "economics" as true, then they lead to an inherent contradiction. Thus, communism as envisaged by Karl is inevitably going to lead to feudalism and other nightmarish realities. The workers deserve more luxury; luxury is useless.

A textbook example of doublethink.

[Sibirsky]

Wrong. And the reason is that the owners need to compensate the workforce. Do you think that people like Cristiano Ronaldo, or Messi, are investors? No. Their large influx of capital comes from their labour. Their specialist skill: football (or soccer).

Supply and demand.

Very limited supply (at their level of skill). Extremely large market to sell to. Billions of people watching at the marque events.

[Keronians]

This is why I have to wonder if self-proclaimed communists and socialists are actively dishonest in their claims that their society will lead to "better quality of life", I realize of course, that no sane person would advocate a policy which he thinks would make people poorer and more uncomfortable in life.

However, when you say something like that. Something to the order of, "Luxuries are useless and we are wasting time on their production" that I must draw that conclusion. Why in the heck are luxuries a bad thing? They certainly don't hurt the poor, if it wasn't for the luxury value of Diamonds, Botswana, one of the richest (and might I mention freest) African nations, would be significantly worse off, the production of luxury goods gives poor people money for food. The relationship is positive.

But communists and socialists alike seem hell-bent on a world of grey, industrial bleakness in the name of equality. Because heaven help us if a person wants to be an artist, maybe you can paint after you've paid your share of time in the Coal Mines working for the good of your fellow man, not that paint is in your fellow man's interest either, you'll have to make it yourself, though Lenin help you if you sell your paint to anyone else you horrid capitalist you.

Nice MR! I was just thinking this myself.

Saying "luxuries are useless" implies that every single extra good and service that an individual acquires above subsistence level is useless, by definition. Anything which does not fulfil the purpose of keeping a worker alive is decadent and a 'waste' of resources.

Yet, as MR says, the major attraction of communism/socialism is its supposed ability to 'liberate' the masses from their 'slavery', and give them a better standard of life than they would have achieved while slaving for the capitalists. Hold up; the workers were alive, right? They were trading their labour for enough resources to survive, weren't they? Thus, any better quality of life they receive after the revolution - better food, better clothes, a more comfortable house, whatever - is composed of useless luxury. It is not required, therefore it is worthless, and resources shouldn't be 'wasted' in its production.

Yet the whole purpose of the revolution was to better the lives of the workers! But now, that constitutes a waste of resources! Only capitalists misuse resources in such a needless way.


If you take the precepts of Marxian "economics" as true, then they lead to an inherent contradiction. Thus, communism as envisaged by Karl is inevitably going to lead to feudalism and other nightmarish realities. The workers deserve more luxury; luxury is useless.

A textbook example of doublethink.

This is a good argument which I can agree with.

And me agreeing with you and TMR is saying something about Sanguinthium.

[North Calaveras]

1. for some reason, i cannot believe you when you say that. most likely for calling poor people stupid. and any asian religions churches are the worst places on earth, but thats not the topic.

2. and now you have lost all respect, you obviously dont understand what THEORY means either, in the scientific sense (and yes, economics is scientific). heres the sum: a generalized statement supported by a large body of facts.

who can most afford to pay taxes? rich folk. who needs every penny they can get? poor people. now tell me, what rational society would rob the poor so the rich can enjoy a tax break?

1. You don't have to believe me. by the way i NEVER called poor people stupid. How about you quote me, I would LOVE for you to quote me on that one.

2. I don't give a crap, they are both unsuccessful systems

To: Sanguithium
sorry, not hated but you said I was calling poor people stupid. Regardless, please show me evidence of where I was calling poor people stupid.