Capitalism vs. Communism

[Primordial Luxa]

As bad as Capitalism can be (if implemented wrongly, as in big business Capitalism; Jeffersonian farming Capitalism is a better option), it's a much better choice than Communism.

Only if you hate freedom and worship slavery and submission.

For everyone else, communism is not only clearly morally superior, it's literally the only option consistent with external reality.

That's why it's used by everyone
(Sarcasm)

[Jassysworth 1]

Only if you hate freedom and worship slavery and submission.

For everyone else, communism is not only clearly morally superior, it's literally the only option consistent with external reality.

That's why it's used by everyone
(Sarcasm)

Yeah... because I see SOOOOO many communist societies around me...

CLEARLY it is realistic to build a stateless, moneyless, AND classless society with direct democracy and complete workplace democracy + stability and order with millions of people.



NOT.

Capitalism wins any day...

[Primordial Luxa]

It doesn't matter if a systems morally sound because morality have no place in goverment. What matters is what works.

What "works" means nothing if it comes at the expense of treating your fellow man imhumanely and dishonorably. Hell, slavery worked too.

No it still has meaning to those in the system and in charge of the system.
If i have citizens living and average of 150 years, each with a base income of $500,000, and each having extensive civil rights to do anything that doesn't hurt another citizen, then I have a utopia.
Notice how morale's don't play a part in any of these things, im only using logic.

[Salandriagado]

Pure capitalism assumes:

1) People are purely "rational actors" (they aren't)
2) Everybody has access to perfect information (they don't)
3a) These same people that are purely rational actors are also perfectly charitable (they aren't) or
3b) Only the top fraction of a percentage of the population matters, everybody else is just there to provide labour (they aren't)

HINT: Just 1 and 2 alone give internal contradictions - for example, a "rational actor" who discovers something conceal it as it will be to their benefit. This immediately denies everybody else access to perfect information.

How does it assume any of that?

1, 2 (and usually 3a) are axioms of pretty well every free-market driven economic theory I can think of. If you don't take 3a, then you necessarily conclude that life for everybody but those at the top will be shit, and therefore, if you continue to support it, you're stuck with 3b.

[Salandriagado]

This is entirely and completely bullshit. Take the UK, for example. Most of the means of production is privately owned. However, there is also a significant slice that is publicly owned (take, by way of example, Bio Products Laboratory - a solely government-owned business).

Wrong, the UK and all the other western nations are 100% capitalist. Government ownership is statism, not socialism. That's the same reason most of us socialist will tell you the USSR wasn't socialist, merely state capitalism. In other words, statism taken to its limits.

Wrong again. Some of the means of production (such as those owned by BPL) are collectively owned. Hence, mixed economy.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Capitalism assumes nothing, that is why it is superior.

Pure capitalism assumes:

1) People are purely "rational actors" (they aren't)
2) Everybody has access to perfect information (they don't)
3a) These same people that are purely rational actors are also perfectly charitable (they aren't) or
3b) Only the top fraction of a percentage of the population matters, everybody else is just there to provide labour (they aren't)

HINT: Just 1 and 2 alone give internal contradictions - for example, a "rational actor" who discovers something conceal it as it will be to their benefit. This immediately denies everybody else access to perfect information.

Those aren't general assumptions at all.

[Salandriagado]

Pure capitalism assumes:

1) People are purely "rational actors" (they aren't)
2) Everybody has access to perfect information (they don't)
3a) These same people that are purely rational actors are also perfectly charitable (they aren't) or
3b) Only the top fraction of a percentage of the population matters, everybody else is just there to provide labour (they aren't)

HINT: Just 1 and 2 alone give internal contradictions - for example, a "rational actor" who discovers something conceal it as it will be to their benefit. This immediately denies everybody else access to perfect information.

Those aren't general assumptions at all.

Yes, they are. 1 and 2 are in pretty much every capitalist economic theory ever.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Those aren't general assumptions at all.

Yes, they are. 1 and 2 are in pretty much every capitalist economic theory ever.

In basic economic theory, perhaps. The more advanced theories, and indeed the more relevant theories, incorporate situations where those assumptions do not hold, since, well, they often don't.

[Ashlak]

I believe in a mixed economy, so I suppose that puts me on the capitalist side. Communism is an overly idealistic pipe dream from the 19th century that will never work.

[Gerraustria]

Fuck communism.

[Sociobiology]

first learn to quote.

second are you speaking for all modern nations or the US? because you are wrong either way but I want to know what I am arguing with.

Learn to quote? WTF are you talking about?

you included other peoples post as if they were part of mine because you quoted incorrectly.
.

I'm speaking of ALL modern nations, not one of them is socialist. There can be no intermediate, you either have workplace democracy and common ownership of the means of production or you don't!!!

wrong
and I point to every modern nation as an example all of which have some means of production publicly owned and some privately owned.
again reality proves you wrong.

unions, regulation, worker rights, common currency, unemployment, social security, public parks, emergency services, how, many, more, do ,I , need, to list...

Ok, the welfare state is a capitalist attempt to pacify the people by adapting socialist ideas to a capitalist system, it still isn't socialism.

its as much socialism as it is capitalism.

[Sociobiology]

Wrong, the UK and all the other western nations are 100% capitalist. Government ownership is statism, not socialism. That's the same reason most of us socialist will tell you the USSR wasn't socialist, merely state capitalism. In other words, statism taken to its limits.

Wrong again. Some of the means of production (such as those owned by BPL) are collectively owned. Hence, mixed economy.

To add, in any representative or democratic state, state owned equals collectively owned.
Its even in the the name, state is the name for the type of SOCIETY, not the type of government.

[Anarchos]

Why must there only be two choices? Are we that unimaginative? Is there no other way?

Humanity is doomed.

I blame all of this shit on you.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Why must there only be two choices? Are we that unimaginative? Is there no other way?

Humanity is doomed.

I blame all of this shit on you.

I'm so sorry.

[Bakkan]

Capitalism is better than communism BY FAR.. at least it achieves what it set out for. However that being said, the capitalist goals probably aren't the best goals for society if you really think about it. Both are very poor and shallow ways to structure a society/economy, but capitalism is the better of the two, and probably the most practical one I can think of. Note: Practical does not necessarily mean well designed, simply self-sustaining, it is very easy to indulge ourselves.

[Alyekra]

As bad as Capitalism can be (if implemented wrongly, as in big business Capitalism; Jeffersonian farming Capitalism is a better option), it's a much better choice than Communism.

Only if you hate freedom and worship slavery and submission.

For everyone else, communism is not only clearly morally superior, it's literally the only option consistent with external reality.

Slavery is not Capitalism.

[Democratic Republic of the Triumvirate]

Only if you hate freedom and worship slavery and submission.

For everyone else, communism is not only clearly morally superior, it's literally the only option consistent with external reality.

Slavery is not Capitalism.

No but slavery can exist under capitalism and can't exist under (true) communism.
Also debt bondage can be classed as a form of slavery.

[Stanisburg]

Jeffersonian farming capitalism involved a lot of slavery.

[Salandriagado]

Yes, they are. 1 and 2 are in pretty much every capitalist economic theory ever.

In basic economic theory, perhaps. The more advanced theories, and indeed the more relevant theories, incorporate situations where those assumptions do not hold, since, well, they often don't.

Really? Kindly find me a theory that doesn't hold them.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

In basic economic theory, perhaps. The more advanced theories, and indeed the more relevant theories, incorporate situations where those assumptions do not hold, since, well, they often don't.

Really? Kindly find me a theory that doesn't hold them.

Have you heard of models, such as oligopolistic competition, which are often structured with asymmetric or incomplete information? Or sequential games in economics with unknown payoffs?

I will concede that 1 is very common, but that's because the definition of "rationality" is very broad and very diverse. If I derive utility from the welfare of others, it would be rational of me to give things away, even though that isn't a payoff-maximising decision. In economics, that is still considered "rational behaviour", since I am maximising my utility through my choices. Even then, there are concepts such as bounded rationality, which assumes irrational behaviour will arise as a consequence of incomplete information and a time constraint.

Economics is quite a diverse subject, and this was just based on my early undergraduate-level knowledge of economics. I'm sure someone with a firmer grasp could be more detailed.

[Obamacult]

Slavery is not Capitalism.

No but slavery can exist under capitalism and can't exist under (true) communism.
Also debt bondage can be classed as a form of slavery.

If debt bondage is slavery, then the American people are screwed, courtesy of the federal govt.

See little box on the bottom right titled US unfunded liabilities for specifics.

[Frisivisia]

No but slavery can exist under capitalism and can't exist under (true) communism.
Also debt bondage can be classed as a form of slavery.

If debt bondage is slavery, then the American people are screwed, courtesy of the federal govt.

See little box on the bottom right titled US unfunded liabilities for specifics.

Debt =/= debt bondage

[Obamacult]

If debt bondage is slavery, then the American people are screwed, courtesy of the federal govt.

See little box on the bottom right titled US unfunded liabilities for specifics.

Debt =/= debt bondage

There is a naive ill-informed current among the young (16-34 year olds) that the national debt is either out of sight out of mind or they have been misled to believe that federal govt. charges on the national credit card will not impact them.

Indeed for the first time in American history -- the current generation may well experience lower standards of living and less opportunities than the previous generation. Already the adverse effects of the debt and deficit are undermining growth and dynamism in the nation, not to mention govt. services that progressives fawn over.

The following is peer reviewed research whose findings conclude the dangerous ill effects of debt on the economy.

Recent academic, NGO and peer reviewed research on the deleterious effects of public debt :

Failing to rapidly begin bending the long-run debt-GDP curve down risks a growth disaster, whose severity could be much worse even than the recent deep recession and tragically anemic recovery. Left unchecked, it eventually risks a lost generation of growth, a long-run growth depression

the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

Our results suggest that the positive short term economic stimulus from additional debt decreases drastically when the initial debt level is high, and might even become negative. The reverse would imply that when the debt ratio is very high, reducing it would have beneficial effects for annual growth.

The results, based on a range of econometric techniques, suggest an inverse relationship between initial debt and subsequent growth, controlling for other determinants of growth: on average, a 10 percentage point increase in the initial debt-to-GDP ratio is associated with a slowdown in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.2 percentage points per year, with the impact being smaller (around 0.15) in advanced economies.

Historical data from the Index of Economic Freedom show a clear negative relationship between the accumulation of debt and economic freedom. In general, countries with lower levels of public debt as a percentage of GDP tend to enjoy high levels of economic freedom....Faced with such a loss of economic freedom and the negative economic impacts likely to accompany it, the temptation for future generations may be to borrow even more themselves to pay off past debts.

Our examination of debt and economic activity in industrial countries leads us to conclude that there is a clear linkage: high debt is bad for growth. When public debt is in the range of 85% of GDP, further increases in debt may have a significant impact on growth

In the current economic environment, the results represent an additional argument in favour of swiftly implementing ambitious strategies for debt reduction. If policy makers let high debt ratios linger for fear that fiscal consolidation measures will be unpopular with voters, this will undermine growth prospects and thus will put an additional burden on fiscal sustainability. This debt-based argument thus adds to the positive growth effects of fiscal reduction found in the literature for the long term and frequently also in the short term.

In contrast, your personal opinion, while appreciated, comes without a shred of factual, logical or empirically supported evidence

[Death Metal]

Haven't you been already told to stop with the copypasta-as-posts?

[Threlizdun]

well then it is, learn the difference between a state and a government.
public property exists.

Our interests are truly secured by the state? I suppose genocide, deathcamps, war, killing squads, rape, theft, and suppression are all in our best interest. Silly me to think otherwise.

Again, is the state the same thing as the people?

In a representative democracy yes

No, as an entity that holds vastly more power than we do, are more less able to justify any of there actions, and only have to answer to the populace on the few times when we get to choose between those that we actually elect rather than getting appointed and a handful of other tyrants who compete with them.

and in a strict definition sense yes in all other states as well.

Please do explain how autocracies are the same thing as rule of the people.