Capitalism vs. Communism

[Sibirsky]

So the state owns everything.

The state dictates everything.

The state owns all the media, and tells you what to think. Opposing views are not allowed.

The state sets wages and prices.

The state chooses everything, that gets manufactured. You do not have a competitor to work for, buy from, or listen to.

And then out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever, it disappears!

Or so the retarded fanboys say.

Reality of course shows, that with that much control over the useful idiots, and the rest of society, Joseph Stalin is far more likely.

And death, poverty, oppression, gulags.

This proves you don't know much about socialism -> communism.

What the fuck are you smoking?

It will never happen (communism), so I believe. (But I think some form of socialism is more feasable).

So you agree?

It is a very long fairy story to explain 'the transition', and it is very unrealistic, and the state plays a big role, but it is along the lines of through democratic control (of both politics and economics), the state (keep in mind it is democratic, so the state is 'controlled' by the people) guides the country, to achieve many socialistic-style goals, and when they are all achieved, and 'utopia' is reached, the state becomes obsolete and slowly degrades since people don't need it any more.

Not a very good explanation, and yes it is utter BS and will never happen.
But it a rough explanation. Do some research. 'True' socialism is state control via democracy, so it is not monopolised by politicians (like what happened in the Soviet Union).

Heres some good links to look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_politics

Hope that helps

Sanguinthium was talking about the government abolishing itself. That's communism.

I was just pointing out how... logical that is. Obviously, after it has achieved total control of the territory, it vanishes. What else is there left to do? It's mission complete, it withers away.

I was not talking about socialism. And socialism, unless it's of the free market variety (which would still be less efficient) is bloody stupid anyway. It's not efficient. There is no competition. There is no profit motive. Which drives competition, innovation, production, distribution. Everything.

[Sanguinthium]

Explain this line please.

on nationstates, my nation is classified as a capitalist paradise. the nation is more of a joke than anything.

[Sanguinthium]

So the state owns everything.

The state dictates everything.

The state owns all the media, and tells you what to think. Opposing views are not allowed.

The state sets wages and prices.

The state chooses everything, that gets manufactured. You do not have a competitor to work for, buy from, or listen to.

And then out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever, it disappears!

Or so the retarded fanboys say.

Reality of course shows, that with that much control over the useful idiots, and the rest of society, Joseph Stalin is far more likely.

And death, poverty, oppression, gulags.

This proves you don't know much about socialism -> communism.
It will never happen (communism), so I believe. (But I think some form of socialism is more feasable).

It is a very long fairy story to explain 'the transition', and it is very unrealistic, and the state plays a big role, but it is along the lines of through democratic control (of both politics and economics), the state (keep in mind it is democratic, so the state is 'controlled' by the people) guides the country, to achieve many socialistic-style goals, and when they are all achieved, and 'utopia' is reached, the state becomes obsolete and slowly degrades since people don't need it any more.

Not a very good explanation, and yes it is utter BS and will never happen.
But it a rough explanation. Do some research. 'True' socialism is state control via democracy, so it is not monopolised by politicians (like what happened in the Soviet Union).

Heres some good links to look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_politics

Hope that helps

finally, another rational individual!

[Sibirsky]

Explain this line please.

on nationstates, my nation is classified as a capitalist paradise. the nation is more of a joke than anything.

As are your arguments.

[North Calaveras]

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.

pssh. the better world will be one without the decadent beliefs of present day western civilization. a frugal, peaceful existence; there will be no government (umad sibirsky?) and all will live as one, with the community taking care of itself, instead of having the poor starving in the streets, while the rich buy that fifth vacation home.

How about another face palm?

I'm thinking of doing -

Ah. Did it.

Edit: Love the flag

black and yellow black and yellow...

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.

when you said

1. Nobody starves in America if you die from dehydration or starvation your simply stupid.

Hungary, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan. Support of Vietnam and North Korea.

The Soviet Union is not blameless as you paint them to be.

correct. however, since they were ASKED to enter Afghanistan, were responding to a invasion in germany, and were also helping 'nam and korea by their nations requests, i declare capitalism the loser.

Labor laws are useless. Prosperity creates the ability and demand for better conditions. All that's necessary. Government legislation is not necessary and has not worked.

well then, you approve of slavery. without labor laws, slavery would be legal.

State socialism is anti-freedom. That makes it evil.

state socialism (such as denmark, sweden, to an extent cuba) have shown to work; sweden and denmark are stable, with some of the happiest people in the world in sweden, and cuba would be much better if we didnt have massive trade sanctions, huge embargo, etc etc.

considering that sweden is among the freest nations on earth, your argument is moot.

Exactly where does it say anything about being poor in the bolded and underlined statement, for that matter it doesn't even imply it.

[Die Kain Imperium]

I am a capitalist because I believe that man exists to use his mind for himself. Any obstruction of such an idea, I believe, is an obstruction of nature. Man works for himself to sustain himself and, if he desires, advance himself. Self-advancement is hindered in all other economic systems besides capitalism. Socialism forcibly takes from Man what he has accomplished, Communism demands he sacrifice his well being for the sake of strangers, and even older systems like feudalism restrict what man is able to obtain through the societal institution of strict social classes.

Capitalism was revolutionary at its conception, and would continue to be had the major governments of the world not decided that some sort of blurred line between private enterprise and concern for "the less fortunate". Mixed economies inevitably drift towards statist socialism and worse. These systems take from the individual to provide for the means of the collective. In most cases, the rational person calls this theft. And it is.

I am a capitalist because I am a man who loves his life and likes to use his mind.

[Sanguinthium]

on nationstates, my nation is classified as a capitalist paradise. the nation is more of a joke than anything.

As are your arguments.

really? your arguments follow the same format-

"socialism is bad! they will keel everybody!"
"state socialism will kill us all!"
"pssh. i lived in a postsocialist country. i know better"
" "

[Sanguinthium]

Exactly where does it say anything about being poor in the bolded and underlined statement, for that matter it doesn't even imply it.

you did imply it; if you starve to death, its either because your a rich/mid class anorexic, a homeless man, or a poor man who refuses to go on welfare from pride.

[Beskie]

CAPITALISM!!!!!

[Sibirsky]

As are your arguments.

really? your arguments follow the same format-

"socialism is bad! they will keel everybody!"
"state socialism will kill us all!"
"pssh. i lived in a postsocialist country. i know better"
" "

No, they aren't.

My arguments are, there is no competition. There is no innovation. There is massive inefficiency, due to central planning. Shortages are common, standards of living are low.

All these claims, are backed up by real world data.

[Mortelatuzia]

Communism I personally think is a little too...extreme. Though some form of Socialism would be nice, but definatly not this Capitalist Heaven the US has become which is slowly sinking into a pit of eternal despair. As long as it ain't the bloody, backstabbing, ungrateful United States of America; then I'm fine with all 3.

[Sanguinthium]

really? your arguments follow the same format-

"socialism is bad! they will keel everybody!"
"state socialism will kill us all!"
"pssh. i lived in a postsocialist country. i know better"
" "

No, they aren't.

My arguments are, there is no competition. There is no innovation. There is massive inefficiency, due to central planning. Shortages are common, standards of living are low.

All these claims, are backed up by real world data.

1. there isn't supposed to be. the state takes care of everything.
2. the Soviets sure didn't ever invent anything; its obvious the Kosmonauts were american.
3. inefficiency is only a mild concern; ignoring the fact that the soviet military was incredibly wellmanaged and efficient
4. Shortages in a truly communist society are nonexistent. in the soviet union (sorta socialist; arguable either way), my father (who lived in leningrad from 58-75) never noticed them;must be pretty invisible to a lower class man.
5. Standards of living are FRUGAL. there is no excess, there is no profligate ways of life. this is what a capitalist will never be able to understand.

[Sibirsky]

Communism I personally think is a little too...extreme. Though some form of Socialism would be nice, but definatly not this Capitalist Heaven the US has become which is slowly sinking into a pit of eternal despair. As long as it ain't the bloody, backstabbing, ungrateful United States of America; then I'm fine with all 3.

People die to come here. People from places like socialist haven China, scrimp and save for years to stow away in containers to come here.

The only bloody, ungrateful backstabber is you.

1. there isn't supposed to be. the state takes care of everything.
2. the Soviets sure didn't ever invent anything; its obvious the Kosmonauts were american.
3. inefficiency is only a mild concern; ignoring the fact that the soviet military was incredibly wellmanaged and efficient
4. Shortages in a truly communist society are nonexistent. in the soviet union, my father (who lived in leningrad from 58-75) never noticed them;must be pretty invisible to a lower class man.
5. Standards of living are FRUGAL. there is no excess, there is no profligate ways of life. this is what a capitalist will never be able to understand.

1. Competition improves quality and prices. This is econ 0.01
2. what fucking use was that to the Soviet people?
3. inefficiency is a massive concern. it leads to a much lower standard of living.
4. shortages in a planned economy are common, due to inefficiency.
5. so you want to be poor?

[5-star Generals]

Communist

[Sanguinthium]

Communism I personally think is a little too...extreme. Though some form of Socialism would be nice, but definatly not this Capitalist Heaven the US has become which is slowly sinking into a pit of eternal despair. As long as it ain't the bloody, backstabbing, ungrateful United States of America; then I'm fine with all 3.

People die to come here. People from places like socialist haven China, scrimp and save for years to stow away in containers to come here.

The only bloody, ungrateful backstabber is you.

1. there isn't supposed to be. the state takes care of everything.
2. the Soviets sure didn't ever invent anything; its obvious the Kosmonauts were american.
3. inefficiency is only a mild concern; ignoring the fact that the soviet military was incredibly wellmanaged and efficient
4. Shortages in a truly communist society are nonexistent. in the soviet union, my father (who lived in leningrad from 58-75) never noticed them;must be pretty invisible to a lower class man.
5. Standards of living are FRUGAL. there is no excess, there is no profligate ways of life. this is what a capitalist will never be able to understand.

1. Competition improves quality and prices. This is econ 0.01
2. what fucking use was that to the Soviet people?
3. inefficiency is a massive concern. it leads to a much lower standard of living.
4. shortages in a planned economy are common, due to inefficiency.
5. so you want to be poor?

1. seeing as quality and prices are controlled by the state, your point is moot.
2. international pride, research purposes...
3. inefficiency is just fine.
4. apparently nobody noticed in Leningrad
5. in sweden, through high taxes and wealth redistribution, most everybody is middle class.

[Sibirsky]

1. seeing as quality and prices are controlled by the state, your point is moot.
2. international pride, research purposes...
3. inefficiency is just fine.
4. apparently nobody noticed in Leningrad
5. in sweden, through high taxes and wealth redistribution, most everybody is middle class.

1. No it isn't. What incentive does the state have to produce quality goods? What the fuck are you going to do? Buy from the competition? Oh, you don't have that option.

2. Useless. None of that technology made it to consumer level products.

3.

4. You do realize, that St. Petersburg is the 2nd largest, and 2nd most important city?

5. Sweden is capitalist.

[Valourium]

I am an American citizen, yet I still believe that communism is a very amazing form of government. No social classes to complain about, and as long as there are natural resources in your country, you don't have to worry about your next meal or your next job. Yes, there are communist nations such as North Korea that ignore the needs of their people. But that's not the form of government killing the people, that's the leader. As long as there is a good leader, communism would allow everyone to live a good life. You are given the money required for your next meal, your home, and transportation. Your country is also generally safe from anyone who dared to invade. This is because in communism, everything is manageable. All resources are managed by the government, so employers can't be greedy with wages. They also can't fire you because they don't like your ethics. The thing is, in a country lead with communism, if you live, you eat, and if you eat, you live. That's why I believe that communism is a great solution to many problems.

[Sibirsky]

I am an American citizen, yet I still believe that communism is a very amazing form of government. No social classes to complain about, and as long as there are natural resources in your country, you don't have to worry about your next meal or your next job. Yes, there are communist nations such as North Korea that ignore the needs of their people. But that's not the form of government killing the people, that's the leader. As long as there is a good leader, communism would allow everyone to live a good life. You are given the money required for your next meal, your home, and transportation. Your country is also generally safe from anyone who dared to invade. This is because in communism, everything is manageable. All resources are managed by the government, so employers can't be greedy with wages. They also can't fire you because they don't like your ethics. The thing is, in a country lead with communism, if you live, you eat, and if you eat, you live. That's why I believe that communism is a great solution to many problems.

They're socialist.

But you ever stop and wonder, why every single time, that happens?

[Sanguinthium]

1. seeing as quality and prices are controlled by the state, your point is moot.
2. international pride, research purposes...
3. inefficiency is just fine.
4. apparently nobody noticed in Leningrad
5. in sweden, through high taxes and wealth redistribution, most everybody is middle class.

1. No it isn't. What incentive does the state have to produce quality goods? What the fuck are you going to do? Buy from the competition? Oh, you don't have that option.

2. Useless. None of that technology made it to consumer level products.

3.

4. You do realize, that St. Petersburg is the 2nd largest, and 2nd most important city?

5. Sweden is capitalist.

1. the state owns the the means of production, therefore, the state has the option to produce quality goods so that their buildings etc dont fall apart.
2. aluminum foil, swedish sleep systems, cell phones, digital pictures
3.
4. you said earlier that everywhere except moscow faced shortages.
5. wealth redistribution is capitalist?

[Sanguinthium]

I am an American citizen, yet I still believe that communism is a very amazing form of government. No social classes to complain about, and as long as there are natural resources in your country, you don't have to worry about your next meal or your next job. Yes, there are communist nations such as North Korea that ignore the needs of their people. But that's not the form of government killing the people, that's the leader. As long as there is a good leader, communism would allow everyone to live a good life. You are given the money required for your next meal, your home, and transportation. Your country is also generally safe from anyone who dared to invade. This is because in communism, everything is manageable. All resources are managed by the government, so employers can't be greedy with wages. They also can't fire you because they don't like your ethics. The thing is, in a country lead with communism, if you live, you eat, and if you eat, you live. That's why I believe that communism is a great solution to many problems.

They're socialist.

But you ever stop and wonder, why every single time, that happens?

there are no means of production. N. Korea is a fascist fundamentalist state that worships Kim Jong-il.
they dont own the means of production, they dont have welfare, they dont have any social programs..

[Sibirsky]

1. the state owns the the means of production, therefore, the state has the option to produce quality goods so that their buildings etc dont fall apart.
2. aluminum foil, swedish sleep systems, cell phones, digital pictures
3.
4. you said earlier that everywhere except moscow faced shortages.
5. wealth redistribution is capitalist?

1. What are you talking about? What incentive is there for the state to produce quality goods? What examples are there of quality goods being produced in socialist economies?

2. Bullshit.

3. Inefficiency, by it's very definition, leads to a lower standard of living.

4. So fucking what? Shortages were common, and were the norm.

5. The means of production are privately owned and they have free markets. They aren't even remotely close to socialism.

[Sibirsky]

They're socialist.

But you ever stop and wonder, why every single time, that happens?

there are no means of production. N. Korea is a fascist fundamentalist state that worships Kim Jong-il.
they dont own the means of production, they dont have welfare, they dont have any social programs..

The cult of personality is common. It keeps people obedient.

The means of production are state owned.

They have welfare, and guaranteed universal healthcare. It sucks of course, in quality, but it's there.

[Sanguinthium]

1. the state owns the the means of production, therefore, the state has the option to produce quality goods so that their buildings etc dont fall apart.
2. aluminum foil, swedish sleep systems, cell phones, digital pictures
3.
4. you said earlier that everywhere except moscow faced shortages.
5. wealth redistribution is capitalist?

1. What are you talking about? What incentive is there for the state to produce quality goods? What examples are there of quality goods being produced in socialist economies?

2. Bullshit.

3. Inefficiency, by it's very definition, leads to a lower standard of living.

4. So fucking what? Shortages were common, and were the norm.

5. The means of production are privately owned and they have free markets. They aren't even remotely close to socialism.

1. i mean if they produce shit buildings, the countries buildings will fall to shit. what incentive do they have to produce shitty items?

2. umad?

3. inefficiency is fine; its simply more expensive. if you love capitalism so much, look at the efficiency of the health-care sector.

4. except between 1958-1975 in leningrad, apparently.

5. except that my point is that the government redistributed the wealth, by heavily taxing the rich. except whenever an aspect of socialism works, that becomes capitalism magically in your mind. confirmation bias, again.
the Swedish economic system (i should know, i hold dual citizenship and spend winters there) is really strange; the nation is sorta capitalist in that the nation doesn't control the means; however, they do control how the means are used. the Swedish government has the corporations under its control to the extent that our laws limit economic activity from socialist policy, such as massive labor laws, really strict laws really high taxes, and requiring two average workers to serve on the board to protect worker interest, 80% of the population is in a union, and the fact that government controls 50% of all national revenue.. but again, when socialism works, you ignore it, deny it, or call it capitalism. ignoring the fact that we have a budget surplus of $15 billion (99 million Kronor), i think we can agree that socialist policy, such as wealth redistribution has helped Sweden immensely; and back in the days of your boy McCarthy, you could be declared a communist for being a labor union organizer. think about that before supporting unions.

the country is the closest nation to socialism on the entire earth. your ancestors negative experience with a one form of socialism (something you can't get over) the socialist process WORKS. there is no reason for you yourself to be this ridiculously upset whenever somebody uses logic against you.

there are no means of production. N. Korea is a fascist fundamentalist state that worships Kim Jong-il.
they dont own the means of production, they dont have welfare, they dont have any social programs..

The cult of personality is common. It keeps people obedient.

The means of production are state owned.

They have welfare, and guaranteed universal healthcare. It sucks of course, in quality, but it's there.

the North Korean and Cuban states are not socialist for the same reason that Obama’s regime, Vietnam, and china are not. None of these regimes are headed for communism. None of them are out to radically reorganize society in order to eliminate all oppression. Socialism can only be understood as a transition to communism — to be advancing toward communism is what it means for society to be organized around the most farsighted and long-term interests of the proletariat.

[Sibirsky]

1. i mean if they produce shit buildings, the countries buildings will fall to shit. what incentive do they have to produce shitty items?

I am talking about all products. It's a god damn fact, that consumer goods are not as abundant, and are of much lower quality in socialist economies.

2. umad?

No, I just disagree.

3. inefficiency is fine; its simply more expensive. if you love capitalism so much, look at the efficiency of the health-care sector.

Only an idiot, would be perfectly fine with paying more, for less. The healthcare system in the US, is not a free market system. But capitalist. That's a bad combination.

4. except between 1958-1975 in leningrad, apparently.

You do realize that the USSR was much larger than that, correct? By 1991 shortages were common, even in Moscow. And outside of Moscow, shortages were common, everywhere.

5. except that my point is that the government redistributed the wealth, by heavily taxing the rich. except whenever an aspect of socialism works, that becomes capitalism magically in your mind. confirmation bias, again.
the Swedish economic system (i should know, i hold dual citizenship and spend winters there) is really strange; the nation is sorta capitalist in that the nation doesn't control the means; however, they do control how the means are used. the Swedish government has the corporations under its control to the extent that our laws limit economic activity from socialist policy, such as massive labor laws, really strict laws really high taxes, and requiring two average workers to serve on the board to protect worker interest, 80% of the population is in a union, and the fact that government controls 50% of all national revenue.. but again, when socialism works, you ignore it, deny it, or call it capitalism. ignoring the fact that we have a budget surplus of $15 billion (99 million Kronor), i think we can agree that socialist policy, such as wealth redistribution has helped Sweden immensely; and back in the days of your boy McCarthy, you could be declared a communist for being a labor union organizer. think about that before supporting unions.

the country is the closest nation to socialism on the entire earth. your ancestors negative experience with a one form of socialism (something you can't get over) the socialist process WORKS. there is no reason for you yourself to be this ridiculously upset whenever somebody uses logic against you.

You have not used any logic whatsoever. You just spout nonsense.

Sweden is not socialist. A welfare state is not socialism. McCarthy is dead. Good riddance.

the North Korean and Cuban states are not socialist for the same reason that Obama’s regime, Vietnam, and china are not. None of these regimes are headed for communism. None of them are out to radically reorganize society in order to eliminate all oppression. Socialism can only be understood as a transition to communism — to be advancing toward communism is what it means for society to be organized around the most farsighted and long-term interests of the proletariat.

North Korea and Cuba are socialist. Not all socialism, is headed for communism. Get over yourself.

[Izrahell]

Building the Big Red Machine

"There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists - to their mutual benefit.''

-Antony C. Sutton
Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio ... feller.htm