Capitalism vs. Communism

[New Azura]

Guys, we can settle this debate once and for all right now. Just ask yourself: would this have ever flied in Soviet Russia? Or mainland China, for that matter? Thus, I unequivocally denounce Socialism and endorse any socioeconomic model that propagates ideas such as that.

Game. Set. Match.

[Romaniztan]

I am a mix of all three systems, in that I believe that they can all be united. I favor private research power regulated by the government to produce goods and services for profit. The profit is given by government tax dollars, creating a collective of goods and services that are free for the community. Small business is also allowed, also for profit.

[Zersium]

Guys, we can settle this debate once and for all right now. Just ask yourself: would this have ever flied in Soviet Russia? Or mainland China, for that matter? Thus, I unequivocally denounce Socialism and endorse any socioeconomic model that propagates ideas such as that.

Game. Set. Match.

...
Awesome.

Hell, where was this? I'll sign up.

[Laissez-Faire]

(Image)

THAT is poverty; that picture is of an AMERICAN.

here is probably where you live:
(Image)

you have never had to worry about when you would eat, if your sister will be able to eat; you got food after waiting for three hours. get over yourself- this man gets food only if enough people care enough to spare a fucking dollar.


try living in poverty for a month, like i lived for almost my entire life, before you even begin to think what poverty is.

And what do you feel best serves the needy? You can toss around pictures and connect them to an agenda all you want, but it does not refute economic facts, nor the fact that your arguments have been refuted countless times, yet you seem to depend on those that have been debunked, hell, even on the evidence that has been debunked, alone.

Guys, we can settle this debate once and for all right now. Just ask yourself: would this have ever flied in Soviet Russia? Or mainland China, for that matter? Thus, I unequivocally denounce Socialism and endorse any socioeconomic model that propagates ideas such as that.

Game. Set. Match.

If that was the rule, NSG would cease to exist quite quickly.

[The Merchant Republics]

you have never had to worry about when you would eat, if your sister will be able to eat; you got food after waiting for three hours. get over yourself- this man gets food only if enough people care enough to spare a fucking dollar.

This is where yet more doublethink suddenly bubbles to the surface. Look at what you have just wrote.

this man gets food only if enough people care enough to spare a fucking dollar.

You're so called ideal society, is supposed to be based upon the exact same aspect of human nature, love, care and sympathy. Yet, here you imply that we cannot trust these elements to assist the poor.

Communism in it's "true" and fluffy-happy cloud version, supposed relies on this sympathy, charity and care to dominate the mind of every person. Yet you imply, most people won't even give a single dollar in help. Then demonstrably, you don't believe that sympathy and human kindness can build a society. Logically, if it can't feed the poor it certainly can't feed everyone.

Therefore, you must concede that your communism, socialism, whatever policies you want to see usurp capitalism must rely on some other motivator to induce us to work to the common good then human kindness, the elimination of the market system you must agree will destroy the motivation of self-benefit. So we're left with only one solution to motivate people to work towards the common good.

And that motivator is force, violence and threat. Your society, if it cannot rely on human kindness which you do not believe sufficient to provide for society, if it cannot rely on self-benefit, because it provides no means to seek it, then the only other motivator that exists in the human arsenal is threat and violence. This is the sad reality discovered by all failed socialist planners, this is the sad reality discovered by tyrants like Stalin, Castro, Mao and Kim Il Sung.

[Anti Neo Nazis]

you have never had to worry about when you would eat, if your sister will be able to eat; you got food after waiting for three hours. get over yourself- this man gets food only if enough people care enough to spare a fucking dollar.

This is where, more doublethink suddenly bubbles to the service. Look at what you have just wrote.

this man gets food only if enough people care enough to spare a fucking dollar.

You're so called ideal society, is supposed to be based upon the exact same aspect of human nature, love, care and sympathy. Yet, here you imply that we cannot trust these elements to assist the poor.

Communism in it's "true" and fluffy-happy cloud version, supposed relies on this sympathy, charity and care to dominate the mind of every person. Yet you imply, most people won't even give a single dollar in help. Then demonstrably, you don't believe that sympathy and human kindness can build a society. Logically, if it can't feed the poor it certainly can't feed everyone.

Therefore, you must concede that your communism, socialism, whatever policies you want to see usurp communism must rely on some other motivator to induce us to work to the common good then human kindness, the elimination of the market system you must agree will destroy the motivation of self-benefit. So we're left with only one solution to motivate people to work towards the common good.

Force, violence and threat. Your society, if it cannot rely on human kindness which you do not believe sufficient to provide for society, if it cannot rely on self-benefit, because it provides no means to seek it, then the only other motivator that exists in the human arsenal is threat and violence. This is the sad reality discovered by all failed socialist planners, this is the sad reality discovered by tyrants like Stalin, Castro, Mao and Kim Il Sung.

Checkmate

[Ecans]

Easy. Communism can not, will not and has not worked. It is a fine example of the disconnect between theory and the real world. It's the people, stupid. They can not be plugged into the equations because as a variable, humans stink. They are just too...human!

[Zersium]

Easy. Communism can not, will not and has not worked. It is a fine example of the disconnect between theory and the real world. It's the people, stupid. They can not be plugged into the equations because as a variable, humans stink. They are just too...human!

I know right? all fleshy and stupid-likez.

[Conscentia]

I don't like how capitalists claim the capitalist system is superior by using pro-market arguments rather than pro-capitalism arguments.
The market is not exclusive to capitalism.

Also, pointing to countries and going 'look see, communism and socialism are evil and stupid because America and Europe are awesome and capitalist and ussr, cuba and china are evil and corrupt therefore communism and socialism cause corruption and intentional nastiness therefore capitalism is awesome, blah, blah, blah' is not a valid argument against socialism.

Yes, real life examples can and should be used like experiment results, but countries are very complex and their problems are not all down to economics. Many are, not all of them. You can't blame all of a nations problems and flaws on it's economic system.
If you could, I could argue that capitalism causes imperialism and/or fascism - which we all know it doesn't.

[The Merchant Republics]

Easy. Communism can not, will not and has not worked. It is a fine example of the disconnect between theory and the real world. It's the people, stupid. They can not be plugged into the equations because as a variable, humans stink. They are just too...human!

But humans don't stink.

Humanity rules. Humans are capable of absolutely inspiring acts of courage, determination, charity and goodness, we have done things that have forever impacted our world, not just for the worse but for the better in many, many ways.

Humans rule, humanity is the great and we are the greatest when we are free to exercise what makes us great, our capacity for individual excellence and voluntary cooperation. The reason communism fails is that it robs us of these things.

[Conscentia]

you have never had to worry about when you would eat, if your sister will be able to eat; you got food after waiting for three hours. get over yourself- this man gets food only if enough people care enough to spare a fucking dollar.

This is where yet more doublethink suddenly bubbles to the surface. Look at what you have just wrote.

this man gets food only if enough people care enough to spare a fucking dollar.

You're so called ideal society, is supposed to be based upon the exact same aspect of human nature, love, care and sympathy. Yet, here you imply that we cannot trust these elements to assist the poor.

Communism in it's "true" and fluffy-happy cloud version, supposed relies on this sympathy, charity and care to dominate the mind of every person. Yet you imply, most people won't even give a single dollar in help. Then demonstrably, you don't believe that sympathy and human kindness can build a society. Logically, if it can't feed the poor it certainly can't feed everyone.

Therefore, you must concede that your communism, socialism, whatever policies you want to see usurp capitalism must rely on some other motivator to induce us to work to the common good then human kindness, the elimination of the market system you must agree will destroy the motivation of self-benefit. So we're left with only one solution to motivate people to work towards the common good.

And that motivator is force, violence and threat. Your society, if it cannot rely on human kindness which you do not believe sufficient to provide for society, if it cannot rely on self-benefit, because it provides no means to seek it, then the only other motivator that exists in the human arsenal is threat and violence. This is the sad reality discovered by all failed socialist planners, this is the sad reality discovered by tyrants like Stalin, Castro, Mao and Kim Il Sung.

Have you ever heard of Market Socialism, or Syndicalism?

[Sovietiya]

Easy. Communism can not, will not and has not worked. It is a fine example of the disconnect between theory and the real world. It's the people, stupid. They can not be plugged into the equations because as a variable, humans stink. They are just too...human!

I know right? all fleshy and stupid-likez.

I could say the exact same about libertarianism. I am not vouching for communism either. Yes it is impossible (communism), but there are other ways of handling the economy is that neither free market or centrally planned (both in my opinion are a pathetic joke).

Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

There are many others, and some you can combine.

EDIT: @Conscentia - Small world

[The Merchant Republics]

This is where yet more doublethink suddenly bubbles to the surface. Look at what you have just wrote.

You're so called ideal society, is supposed to be based upon the exact same aspect of human nature, love, care and sympathy. Yet, here you imply that we cannot trust these elements to assist the poor.

Communism in it's "true" and fluffy-happy cloud version, supposed relies on this sympathy, charity and care to dominate the mind of every person. Yet you imply, most people won't even give a single dollar in help. Then demonstrably, you don't believe that sympathy and human kindness can build a society. Logically, if it can't feed the poor it certainly can't feed everyone.

Therefore, you must concede that your communism, socialism, whatever policies you want to see usurp capitalism must rely on some other motivator to induce us to work to the common good then human kindness, the elimination of the market system you must agree will destroy the motivation of self-benefit. So we're left with only one solution to motivate people to work towards the common good.

And that motivator is force, violence and threat. Your society, if it cannot rely on human kindness which you do not believe sufficient to provide for society, if it cannot rely on self-benefit, because it provides no means to seek it, then the only other motivator that exists in the human arsenal is threat and violence. This is the sad reality discovered by all failed socialist planners, this is the sad reality discovered by tyrants like Stalin, Castro, Mao and Kim Il Sung.

Have you ever heard of Market Socialism, or Syndicalism?

Yes. To both.

Those are very different systems, and my argument here should not be interpreted as a condemnation of either, it is specifically addressed to Sanguithium's political views.

I am in fact quite open to the idea of market socialism, I would say a Propertarian version of Mutualism would be the most desirable economic system; indeed the only reason I am not a mutualist is that I believe that the only way mutualism could dominate a free market would be to make capitalism or property illegal, and that in itself is against my deeply held beliefs.

Syndcalism tends, in my opinion toward the same suppression of self-benefit that exists in state socialism, albeit I admit, to a far lesser extent and would still fail to be as productive as a capitalist society.

[Laissez-Faire]

I don't like how capitalists claim the capitalist system is superior by using pro-market arguments rather than pro-capitalism arguments.
The market is not exclusive to capitalism.

Also, pointing to countries and going 'look see, communism and socialism are evil and stupid because America and Europe are awesome and capitalist and ussr, cuba and china are evil and corrupt therefore communism and socialism cause corruption and intentional nastiness therefore capitalism is awesome, blah, blah, blah' is not a valid argument against socialism.

I honestly do not see how this is an example of the discussion here. I have seen pointing to "socialist" nations and saying they are superior, though, through various "statistics".

Yes, real life examples can and should be used like experiment results, but countries are very complex and their problems are not all down to economics. Many are, not all of them. You can't blame all of a nations problems and flaws on it's economic system.
If you could, I could argue that capitalism causes imperialism and/or fascism - which we all know it doesn't.

I think that's been a well-established fact.

[Laissez-Faire]

I know right? all fleshy and stupid-likez.

I could say the exact same about libertarianism. I am not vouching for communism either. Yes it is impossible (communism), but there are other ways of handling the economy is that neither free market or centrally planned (both in my opinion are a pathetic joke).

Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

There are many others, and some you can combine.

EDIT: @Conscentia - Small world

I think we've determine why "kinship" doesn't work as well as it might seem on paper.

Secondly, in nearly any case, such a proposition is talking about moderating government regulation with a "free" market, both of which far from establishes a balance.

[Sovietiya]

Have you ever heard of Market Socialism, or Syndicalism?

Yes. To both.

Those are very different systems, and my argument here should not be interpreted as a condemnation of either, it is specifically addressed to Sanguithium's political views. I'm even open to the idea of market socialism, I would say a Propertarian version of Mutualism would be the most desirable economic system, the only reason I am not a mutualist is that I believe that mutualism can only be implemented by making capitalism illegal, and that in itself is against my deeply held beliefs.

Syndcalism tends, in my opinion toward the same suppression of self-benefit that exists in state socialism, albeit I admit, to a far lesser extent and would still fail to be as productive as a capitalist society.

Concerning the part about making capitalism illegal, I think not. People can still set up a business vai capitalist school of thought, but I think the main thing would not to be to restrict someone from setting up the capitalist style of business, but to instead encourage and help the growth of the other kind, y'know, to level the playing field, as it were. Then this can test Market Socialism's mettle and see what happens.

[Sovietiya]

I could say the exact same about libertarianism. I am not vouching for communism either. Yes it is impossible (communism), but there are other ways of handling the economy is that neither free market or centrally planned (both in my opinion are a pathetic joke).

Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

There are many others, and some you can combine.

EDIT: @Conscentia - Small world

I think we've determine why "kinship" doesn't work as well as it might seem on paper.

Secondly, in nearly any case, such a proposition is talking about moderating government regulation with a "free" market, both of which far from establishes a balance.

1. You didn't read the article. When it mentions 'kinship', it means not to discriminate based on sex, age, race, sexuality etc.
2. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Please explain what you mean?

[Laissez-Faire]

I think we've determine why "kinship" doesn't work as well as it might seem on paper.

Secondly, in nearly any case, such a proposition is talking about moderating government regulation with a "free" market, both of which far from establishes a balance.

1. You didn't read the article. When it mentions 'kinship', it means not to discriminate based on sex, age, race, sexuality etc.
2. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Please explain what you mean?

1. I read that, yes.
2. Government cannot be trusted to moderate a "balance" of a free market and government protection.

[Conscentia]

Have you ever heard of Market Socialism, or Syndicalism?

Yes. To both.

Those are very different systems, and my argument here should not be interpreted as a condemnation of either, it is specifically addressed to Sanguithium's political views.

I am in fact quite open to the idea of market socialism, I would say a Propertarian version of Mutualism would be the most desirable economic system; indeed the only reason I am not a mutualist is that I believe that mutualism could dominate a free market would be to make capitalism or property illegal, and that in itself is against my deeply held beliefs.

Syndcalism tends, in my opinion toward the same suppression of self-benefit that exists in state socialism, albeit I admit, to a far lesser extent and would still fail to be as productive as a capitalist society.

Suppression of self-benefit?

[Alagassia]

i like all this talk it's great goes back to the old Maxim: " Talk is Cheap"

[Conscentia]

1. You didn't read the article. When it mentions 'kinship', it means not to discriminate based on sex, age, race, sexuality etc.
2. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Please explain what you mean?

Government cannot be trusted to moderate a "balance" of a free market and government protection.

Scandinavia seems to be doing well with it.

[The Merchant Republics]

Yes. To both.

Those are very different systems, and my argument here should not be interpreted as a condemnation of either, it is specifically addressed to Sanguithium's political views. I'm even open to the idea of market socialism, I would say a Propertarian version of Mutualism would be the most desirable economic system, the only reason I am not a mutualist is that I believe that mutualism can only be implemented by making capitalism illegal, and that in itself is against my deeply held beliefs.

Syndcalism tends, in my opinion toward the same suppression of self-benefit that exists in state socialism, albeit I admit, to a far lesser extent and would still fail to be as productive as a capitalist society.

Concerning the part about making capitalism illegal, I think not. People can still set up a business vai capitalist school of thought, but I think the main thing would not to be to restrict someone from setting up the capitalist style of business, but to instead encourage and help the growth of the other kind, y'know, to level the playing field, as it were. Then this can test Market Socialism's mettle and see what happens.

I understand as far as that, what I'm saying is that regardless of any encouragement of mutualist organization, in a free market, capitalist firms will tend to out-compete them. That's not set in stone, I forsee a free economy would maintain a reasonably mix of worker-owned, corporate-owned and privately-owned firms, but that capitalism will always dominate, it's simply more efficient, and to some more desirable.

"Wage slavery" and corporations much like the state, are popular because they provide safety, even at the cost of possible benefits from taking economic risks privately or cooperatively, for that reason, I prefer a system which doesn't surpress these institutions, but rather makes certain that they cannot harm those who don't wish to take part. In the present, corporations and the state collude to force themselves upon the unwilling, this is not ideal, this is not the free market, but the solution is not to eliminate the market. The market is what they are harming.

[Sanguinthium]

Uhhh yeah Socialism is the First phase towrds Communism. Go get an education dumbass

No, it's not actually.

Feudalism is the first step to communism. It is more accurate to say that socialism is the first step in a post-capitalist society towards communism. Marx believed that each step, each type of society was leading towards communism.

the process is something like this

cave men ---> agrarian barter ---> feudalism ---> mercantilism ---> capitalism ---> socialism ---> government becomes arbitrary, withers ---> communism.

[Sovietiya]

i like all this talk it's great goes back to the old Maxim: " Talk is Cheap"

Hehe indeed. I have advanced post-rank two times all thanks to this thread!
I just love socio-economic debate.

The thing is while capitalism is dandy and all, advocating a 100% free market is not the best course of action, to put it lightly.
I would rather not return to the times of Industrial Britain, where small children worked in the mines, and the adult miners could abuse the children because the more coal they mined, the more money they got.

[Laissez-Faire]

I would rather not return to the times of Industrial Britain, where small children worked in the mines, and the adult miners could abuse the children because the more coal they mined, the more money they got.

Who says that abuse is the result of deregulation?