Capitalism vs. Communism

[Uirokeilendh]

1. Ignorant cynics?
2. Technically the pre-civilisation humans did live in societies which fall under the definition of communism. They survived well enough.
3. Dictator fans?

1. People who understand what happened the last guy claimed it would be "stateless classless moneyless"

2.
a) Because their goal was to not get eaten by sabretooth tigers and cave bears... Once we became the dominant predator (for the most part) we stopped worrying about other animals killing is, and started killing each other.
b) I'm pretty sure they would have had some chieftain or strongest warrior or shaman or some shit
c) So the goal of communism is to de-evolve society? Cool, thats appealing...

3. Ever heard of racism? What if your black, and your "commune" is 95% white, and they all get together and decide they just get to take your shit? Real equal there, huh?
And since when does state = dictator?

1. Only morons thought that they would skip straight ahead into communism. The plan was always abolish capitalism and establish socialism first. Corruption due to other factors prevented any real attempt at completing the transition.

2.
A) You view of pre-civilisation society is inaccurate. I'd advise you read a few well sourced history books.
B) There were always dominant leader-type figures, but not a true leader. Think alpha male gorilla not president of the tribe. It doesn't constitute a state.
C) I never said it would be appealing. And they see it as liberating society from the oppressive hierarchies and exploitation.

3. The opposite of tyranny of majority is tyranny of minority, the most extreme form of which is autocracy.

[New American Union]

I wrote a speech about this very topic in Grade 7. Communism was the victor, but Capitalism did have it's perks.

[Dex (Ancient)]

True communism hasn't been achieved yet, it involves a classless society, the soviet union etc. created a new aristocracy with their bureaucracy.

[Persya]

Perhaps he meant that there is little technological progress in communist nations. The only research that exists is conducted by the government, and it might not benefit the population. If you are talking about anarcho-communism, then there is no research at all.

There's no state in communism.


How many times do we have to repeat this?

Correction; in Marxism

[Uirokeilendh]

There's no state in communism.


How many times do we have to repeat this?

Correction; in Marxism

Actually, it was already correct.

[Paixao]

No connection. Try again.

Perhaps he meant that there is little technological progress in communist nations. The only research that exists is conducted by the government, and it might not benefit the population. If you are talking about anarcho-communism, then there is no research at all.

Little technological progress??

The Soviet Union got an object into space first, a man into space first AND a woman into space first!

[Persya]

Correction; in Marxism

Actually, it was already correct.

Under communism there are more idealogies.

Like National Socialism is a part of Fascism.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

No state in communism?Well,the dictators or other leaders must just be protecting borders for nothing.

JESUS CHRIST WHY DON'T PEOPLE LISTEN AND LEARN?!

It is not difficult (he says, repeating himself for what must be the twentieth bloody time in this thread).

The dictators of the Eastern Bloc, USSR, China et al. are NOT communists, because they did not achieve, nor did they move towards, classless, stateless, moneyless societies in which the means of production are held in common.

Perhaps he meant that there is little technological progress in communist nations. The only research that exists is conducted by the government, and it might not benefit the population. If you are talking about anarcho-communism, then there is no research at all.

Little technological progress??

The Soviet Union got an object into space first, a man into space first AND a woman into space first!

As the USSR wasn't communist, the point is moot.

[Paixao]

Little technological progress??

The Soviet Union got an object into space first, a man into space first AND a woman into space first!

As the USSR wasn't communist, the point is moot.

True,hence the claim that 'communist nations' make little technological progress is also moot, seeing as we've never actually had one

[Steinweg]

Communism is a vile, wretched thing. It strips the populace of its rights, freedoms, and riches. It stays corrupt in the higher reaches of society, while the majority of the population are toiling, suffering, and begging to their own deaths. Just the concept of it is a disgusting notion.

Capitalism, for sure.

[Paixao]

Also... I've lost faith in this whole argument... Its degenerated into in-fighting and name calling, sigh...

[The Huskar Social Union]

Also... I've lost faith in this whole argument... Its degenerated into in-fighting and name calling, sigh...

That is usually what happens in ideological debates from what i have seen, especially on the web.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Communism is a vile, wretched thing. It strips the populace of its rights, freedoms, and riches. It stays corrupt in the higher reaches of society, while the majority of the population are toiling, suffering, and begging to their own deaths. Just the concept of it is a disgusting notion.

For God's sake actually read about what communism is, not what the Soviet Union was.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Capitalism is a vile, wretched thing. It strips the populace of its rights, freedoms, and riches. It stays corrupt in the higher reaches of society, while the majority of the population are toiling, suffering, and begging to their own deaths. Just the concept of it is a disgusting notion.

Communism, for sure.

Surely that just had to happen.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Capitalism is a vile, wretched thing. It strips the populace of its rights, freedoms, and riches. It stays corrupt in the higher reaches of society, while the majority of the population are toiling, suffering, and begging to their own deaths. Just the concept of it is a disgusting notion.

Communism, for sure.

Surely that just had to happen.

nice one.

[Sociobiology]

stunning argument

Knowledge doesn't go away because the state does. Neither do people.

Technology require huge numbers of specialists working in cooperation, which cannot happen without a state. You need hundreds of thousands of people in the same place,
As for the second part societies split all the time it is the existence of states that all but stopped this, because it scales positively allowing for growth only limited by resources.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Knowledge doesn't go away because the state does. Neither do people.

Technology require huge numbers of specialists working in cooperation, which cannot happen without a state.

People need a state to co-operate?

You need hundreds of thousands of people in the same place,
As for the second part societies split all the time it is the existence of states that all but stopped this, because it scales positively allowing for growth only limited by resources.

Source, please.

[Sociobiology]

I think some misconceptions need to be cleared up: stateless (in the Marxist sense) doesn't mean no government. Stateless means no class uses the government to enforce its hegemony. The only way this is possible is with the abolition of class altogether. So yes, there will be a government in a communist society (mostly an administrative apparatus used for distribution and economic calculations) but it will not be a state.

It is a state by definition

you cant say it is not a state then describe it perfectly as a state.
Also define class, because in anthropology having an administration would be a separate class, because of the difference is social power.
as an example one of the first class divides we know forms is between skilled and unskilled labor.

you are describing a lack of corruption not statelessness.

[Sociobiology]

Technology require huge numbers of specialists working in cooperation, which cannot happen without a state.

People need a state to co-operate?

for large populations, in the same place.
and if you need a source for that scroll backwards I have provided it several times. It is a basic conclusion of Anthropology, having to do with social control above the size our instincts evolved for. humans need formal systems of law and punishment in populations above ~150 because our our instinctual natural method involves keeping track of everyones behavior so we can decide for ourselves who should be shunned. We However cannot keep track of more than ~150 people. So when the population rises above this we either invent a formal specialized system or the society splits and separates.

Dunbars number is a well recognized piece of anthropology.
And I use ~150, because the experimental results show that the bell curve for people ranges from 90-290 depending on the method used to determine it. regardless of the actual number that is still a painfully small number.

[Paixao]

Also... I've lost faith in this whole argument... Its degenerated into in-fighting and name calling, sigh...

That is usually what happens in ideological debates from what i have seen, especially on the web.

Urgh... That said, I don't think I've ever seen an argument/debate on the web that actually changed anybody's mind or in which either side 'backed down'... *sigh*

[Sociobiology]

you do have to break it down (or more precisely it breaks down naturally) if you do not have formal laws and law enforcement.

Do you?

see red, then see below

But surely small collections of communes will be more likely to self-police effectively by promoting community values and inclusivity?

within themselves yes they police just fin but they end up fighting with each other. fighting between communities. This is actually how band societies exist right now. Tribal warfare usually because of and endless cycle of preemptive attack, revenge, and general distrust. literally "I know everyone in my community is trustworthy but I can't trust those people over there because I don't know them", which leads to infighting whenever they have to share anything, including space.
that is the advantage of a state make one large community so many many people can cooperate.

a collection of communes would be a representative democracy most likely.

Direct democracy is integral to communism.

direct democracy does not work on large scales due to the scope involved, too many decisions each day.

I'd view the different communes sharing services such as water and electricity as vital, while still retaining independence from one another in other matters.

different communities do not share well without some overarching form of conflict resolution unfortunately our choices are laws or violence, and humans default to threat and violence.

[Sociobiology]

That is usually what happens in ideological debates from what i have seen, especially on the web.

Urgh... That said, I don't think I've ever seen an argument/debate on the web that actually changed anybody's mind or in which either side 'backed down'... *sigh*

I have. it is a rare and beautiful thing, and it gives me hope for humanity.
we may not like change but we can do it.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Urgh... That said, I don't think I've ever seen an argument/debate on the web that actually changed anybody's mind or in which either side 'backed down'... *sigh*

I have. it is a rare and beautiful thing, and it gives me hope for humanity.
we may not like change but we can do it.

Ive seen a few as well, but most of the time, reasonable intelligent discussions turn in to a name calling no evidence of claims shitstorm.

[Sociobiology]

No connection. Try again.

Perhaps he meant that there is little technological progress in communist nations. The only research that exists is conducted by the government, and it might not benefit the population. If you are talking about anarcho-communism, then there is no research at all.

I mean that without a state your community size becomes so small technological progress is impossible.

[CTALNH]

Technology require huge numbers of specialists working in cooperation, which cannot happen without a state.

People need a state government to co-operate?

I think I just made his "communism" more possible