Capitalism vs. Communism

[CTALNH]

*The Stalinist Standing in the Sidelines*
*Wave*
*Says*:Stalin was a communist for me!

[Eastern Kvatchdom]

*The Stalinist Standing in the Sidelines*
*Wave*
*Says*:Stalin was a communist for me!

Stalin was as communist as Thatcher was a socialist.

[CTALNH]

*The Stalinist Standing in the Sidelines*
*Wave*
*Says*:Stalin was a communist for me!

Stalin was as communist as Thatcher was a socialist.

* *

[Sociobiology]

prove it show me an economy that functioned better, that was not mixed.
beware the nirvana fallacy.

The Paris Commune and the Free Territory had perfectly fine economies.

fine compared to what? to nothing? to communism? to capitalism?, compared to a an industrialized state with a mixed economy they were crap. Not to mention the Free territory was an attempt at capitalist and had a government, so I would like to see evidence It was NOT a mixed economy in practice.
both were reliant on pre-existing economic products and infrastructure, captured private property for government funding, and most importanltly both existed for less than a year.

So far you have not shown anything that works even equal to, much less better than a mixed economy.

Oh, you might want to read this on economic crisis in capitalism: http://www.marxist.com/underconsumption ... crisis.htm

wow pure capitalism is not perfect, nice strawman you are arguing with there.
next time try arguing with what I am actually claiming.
You have nothing showing your proposed system is better than the system currently in place.

[4years]

The Paris Commune and the Free Territory had perfectly fine economies.

fine compared to what? to nothing? to communism? to capitalism?, compared to a an industrialized state with a mixed economy they were crap. Not to mention the Free territory was an attempt at capitalist and had a government, so I would like to see evidence It was NOT a mixed economy in practice. both were reliant on pre-existing economic products and infrastructure, captured private property for government funding, and most importanltly both existed for less than a year.
'Sigh'
1. Compared to what we have now.
2. You commit the fallcay of apply modern technology to the past. Do rember that technology changes with time and to compare past economies with present economies this must be accounted for as must infalition.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Ukraine and the free territory lasted three years not one.
4. If you measure the success of an economy by the amount of time it existed, than economies based on race slavery worked fine. There are much better standards to measure by.
So far you have not shown anything that works even equal to, much less better than a mixed economy.
1. It seems you have a higher esimation of the mixed economyies place now than I do. Can I borrow those rose-tinted glasses?

Oh, you might want to read this on economic crisis in capitalism: http://www.marxist.com/underconsumption ... crisis.htm

wow pure capitalism is not perfect, nice strawman you are arguing with there.
next time try arguing with what I am actually claiming. It was an aside not an arguement. Learn the differnce. It also serves to refute anyone how was going to claim that pure capitalism would be better.
You have nothing showing your proposed system is better than the system currently in place.Well the system currently in place sucks so just about anything is better.

1. Define better in economics. Do you mean GDP? Average wage? Highest standard of Living? Real Wage? The state of the best off? Or the worst off? Most advanced techology? Most resources? Least exploitive? Longest lasting?
2. evidence that the economies in place now are any good.
3. Since it seems you would like an article about mixed economies: http://www.marxist.com/capitalist-crisi ... ormism.htm Now to be perfectly clear the article explains why the mixed economy is failing and and why reforminng the mixed economy will not work. Capitalism is fundementally flawed and no mixed economy can overcome it.

[Camelza]

Exactly he just claimed to be in a transition to communism which doesn't mean he was,in order to be a communist ,or a left-winger in general, you have to adhere to certain values like liberty,equality,fidelity etc apart from the economical,more technical & specific parts of marxism.

No, you don't. See, this is your problem. You think Marxism has a monopoly on communism. It doesn't, nor has it ever had a monopoly on communism. The Bolsheviks created their own communist ideology whose transition was different. Stalin knew that his country needed to industrialize. Usually in Marxism, the revolution would happen after industrialization, but Stalin chose to instead industrialize swiftly through a powerful state.

Firstly,I don't think marxism has the monopoly in communism as I prefer Kropotkin's version better. The bolsheviks created no communist ideology,they just created a socialist governmental system based in marxism with some important changes ,that doesn't make it communist(from any accepted philosophical view of the definition at least).As for Stalin,you can't ignore one part of an ideology and follow another ,and as I said before his economical policies had nothing worker-beneficial in them,they were purely there to benefit the state which could be of any structure ...and for the record,if you built a house but instead call it a boat that doesn't make it a boat.

Go ahead and give these works and quotes please. Prove he never tried to implement it in any way. Again, you're thinking from a purely Marxist perspective. From a Marxist perspective, he was doing it wrong. From his own Stalinist perspective, he was doing it right.

I'll give you one,although most of his policies can verify this without words:
"Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts."
-Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin

...which pretty much means that he didn't believe in changing the system at all while also supporting an eternal class struggle,therefore not believing he could ever reach an utopic society,therefore Stalin was not a communist,not even in theory.

1) Revolution begins with the Vanguard Party leading them.
2) The Party becomes the head of the state.
3) The Party weeds out capitalism by banning private property.
4) The Party uses command economics to industrialize rapidly and then the true transition to communism would begin, with lower communism taking hold.

What happened? The true transition through lower communism forming didn't happen because of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

No,it didn't happen because Stalin,his pals & successors really liked stage 2 and because stage 4 was just there for the proletariat to keep hoping.

[Arcturus Novus]

haha, thanks for the heads up. I've debated pro communist people, and they can't point to ONE example of a communist non-state. Then, by default, communism is only a theory that cannot be applied to modern ways of life.

ONE EXAMPLE: Paris Commune
Oh, and communism definitely.

This guy deserves a freaking medal. And honestly, I'm somewhere in between. II like the idea of community-controlled businesses that provide for the people, not for profit. Like some kind of peaceful socialism-type economy.

[Samantha Smith]

1) Revolution begins with the Vanguard Party leading them.

The revolution by a vanguard party is unique for Leninism, therefore Marxism doesn't have the theory of a vanguard state and point no.1 does not count as an argument.

[Sociobiology]

fine compared to what? to nothing? to communism? to capitalism?, compared to a an industrialized state with a mixed economy they were crap. Not to mention the Free territory was an attempt at capitalist and had a government, so I would like to see evidence It was NOT a mixed economy in practice. both were reliant on pre-existing economic products and infrastructure, captured private property for government funding, and most importanltly both existed for less than a year.
'Sigh'
1. Compared to what we have now.
2. You commit the fallcay of apply modern technology to the past.

I didn't you did, it was your example.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Ukraine and the free territory lasted three years not one.

From November 1918 to June 1919 after that it was a military dictatorship.

4. If you measure the success of an economy by the amount of time it existed,

I don't but if it cant last a year it is worthless for any comparison.

So far you have not shown anything that works even equal to, much less better than a mixed economy.

1. It seems you have a higher esimation of the mixed economyin place now than I do. Can I borrow those rose-tinted glasses?

So you admit you have no evidence. but your unhappy about that and need to lash out.

Oh, you might want to read this on economic crisis in capitalism: http://www.marxist.com/underconsumption ... crisis.htm

wow pure capitalism is not perfect, nice strawman you are arguing with there.
next time try arguing with what I am actually claiming. It was an aside not an arguement. Learn the differnce. It also serves to refute anyone how was going to claim that pure capitalism would be better.

we since that does not include me why include it in a reply to me? You certainly did not format it as a tangent.

You have nothing showing your proposed system is better than the system currently in place.Well the system currently in place sucks so just about anything is better.

according to what criteria?

1. Define better in economics. Do you mean GDP? Average wage? Highest standard of Living? Real Wage? The state of the best off? Or the worst off? Most advanced techology? Most resources? Least exploitive? Longest lasting?

I was leaving that to you since you are the one making the claim.
but I would except GDP, GDP per capita,HDI, and various measures of wage, among others

2. evidence that the econmies in place now are any good.

lasting peace, highest rate of technological growth, highest HDI, least economic inequality, lower social inequality, high average income, lower infant mortality...
take your pick
http://www.bit.ly/UqtHZQ

you are safer, healthier, more educated, more equal, and less likely to be the victim of violence in a mixed economy on average.

of course none of that matters because you as the claimant must show your system is BETTER than the current system, not that the current system is not perfect.

3. Since it seems you would like an article about mixed economies: http://www.marxist.com/capitalist-crisi ... ormism.htm Now to be perfectly clear the article explains why the mixed economy is failing and and why reforminng the mixed economy will not work. Capitalism is fundementally flawed and no mixed economy can overcome it.

wow you have no evidence so you are going to quote a journalist who also has no evidence? Just vague claims that if there is any downturn it must be because the system is failing in its entirety, and again no evidence that any other system would be better.
then he goes on to claim that international treaties cannot be capitalist (no shit) forgetting that a treaty by definition is not capitalist.
lots and lots of talk (talk not evidence) of the current system being bad but never any evidence that the proposed alternative would be better.

the entire article can be summed up as the current system sucks because it is not perfect, and Marxism will be better because ... just take his word for it.

I warned you about the nirvana fallacy right in the beginning.

[Sociobiology]

ONE EXAMPLE: Paris Commune
Oh, and communism definitely.

This guy deserves a freaking medal. And honestly, I'm somewhere in between. II like the idea of community-controlled businesses that provide for the people, not for profit.

we could call it a 'government'

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

This guy deserves a freaking medal. And honestly, I'm somewhere in between. II like the idea of community-controlled businesses that provide for the people, not for profit.

we could call it a 'government'

Government is only community-controlled for 1 day every few years.

[Sociobiology]

we could call it a 'government'

Government is only community-controlled for 1 day every few years.

just like businesses, or do you think you will have statewide votes 12 times a day for every decision the business makes??

[Williamson]

So wait i minute basically every place that has been communist hasn't even lasted 5 years is stil somehow a good system. That doesn't really make since to me.

[Socialdemokraterne]

And distort things however you like, but a market where you can't buy and sell and make profits just isn't a free one (that's common sense). There is no such thing as a communist free market

...a "free market" isn't defined by the capacity to make profits, buy, and sell. The characteristic which distinguishes a free market from a regulated or controlled market is the presence or absence of government intervention in said market to influence supply, demand, or prices in some combination. Whether that be by means of regulations, direct competition in the form of publicly-funded firms, or other similar actions, a "free" market is a market where such interventions are absent.

You'll notice that profits, buying, and selling can all exist within a regulated market structure. Orthodox economists have noticed this as well, and so a great many do not see government intervention as an endeavor doomed to result in a government failure. That's why your little quip that all but capitalist free markets have been disavowed by mainstream (read: orthodox) economic schools is woefully incorrect.

As for a communist free market not existing and being impossible, I recommend you take it up with the various sorts of Market Socialists.

[Sociobiology]

And distort things however you like, but a market where you can't buy and sell and make profits just isn't a free one (that's common sense). There is no such thing as a communist free market

...a "free market" isn't defined by the capacity to make profits, buy, and sell. The characteristic which distinguishes a free market from a regulated or controlled market is the presence or absence of government intervention in said market to influence supply, demand, or prices in some combination. Whether that be by means of regulations, direct competition in the form of publicly-funded firms, or other similar actions, a "free" market is a market where such interventions are absent.

You'll notice that profits, buying, and selling can all exist within a regulated market structure. Orthodox economists have noticed this as well, and so a great many do not see government intervention as an endeavor doomed to result in a government failure. That's why your little quip that all but capitalist free markets have been disavowed by mainstream (read: orthodox) economic schools is woefully incorrect.

As for a communist free market not existing and being impossible, I recommend you take it up with the various sorts of Market Socialists.

so what makes communist free market distinct? how is it different than market socialism? How is it better than a mixed economy?

[Socialdemokraterne]

So wait i minute basically every place that has been communist hasn't even lasted 5 years is stil somehow a good system. That doesn't really make since to me.

Let's try the old candy factory metaphor I made up, see if it helps. The candy, just so we're clear, is Communism.

You are a candy factory's top quality inspector, the person that the executive board goes directly to in order to inquire as to how their product quality is coming along. The firm has tried a total of three similar line assemblies (let's call them the Marxist-Leninist, Juche, and Maoist designs), and you're frustrated that you have to report that none of these assemblies are able to construct anything but misshapen, unmarketable garbage which in no way resembles the advertised product. Not in appearance, not in flavor, not in price. It's garbage.

You, as the officer in charge of making a recommendation to the board about the future direction of the company based on quality outputs, decide that these lines should be discontinued immediately. You have also come to the conclusion that investment in future line designs of entirely different natures which have never been tried by your firm or any other (let's call one the Democratic Socialist design) would not be worth the additional risk to the investors' already plummeting share values. You recommend simply breaking up the firm and letting the investors cut their losses while they still have something left to lose.

So far, so good. You made a rational choice given the circumstances, no one can fault you for it. But then you're sitting in a local pub and enjoying a nice brew while trying to explain the situation to some of your colleagues. You proceed to tell your colleagues that since those three line designs that had been tried were all failures, the rest of the line designs would have failed as well. Your colleagues agree with your reasoning and begin to lambast the entire candy-making business and its investors for having ever been foolish enough to believe that a dream like marketable candy could ever exist in the first place, and those colleagues who have heard your reasoning but not rejected the candy industry are lambasted as twice as foolish.

Now things are not so good, because now you're making matter-of-fact statements about those other lines' potential to make candy without any evidence to inform the claims. You never tried those other line designs, you cut and ran. You can't simply conclude that candy is impossible to make or that those other line designs couldn't have made it, you never tried.

That's a different sort of claim than "You should have tried the other line designs". That's not what the moral of the story is. The moral of the story is that you don't know that Democratic Socialism will go bust until it has been tried. You can still come to the conclusion that the risk isn't worth the reward, but you can't conclude that the endeavor was doomed from the start anyway.

[Socialdemokraterne]

so what makes communist free market distinct? how is it different than market socialism? How is it better than a mixed economy?

The distinction between market communism and market socialism isn't something I'm 100% sure on. As for market communism's alleged superiority to a mixed system, I think it goes back to the method in which equality is attained. In a social capitalist system such as the Nordic states that I so admire equality is attained through costly welfare initiatives, subsidies, and taxation. In a market socialist system equality is attained by altering managerial and ownership structures with regard to firms, with the end goal apparently being to transition the entirety of control of the means of production into worker hands while retaining markets and profits as the guiding principles of production and distribution. Apparently the advantage of the latter is that it's cheaper and more direct?

I may just be thoroughly confused about how market socialism is supposed to work. That's why I recommended taking it up with the Market Socialists. That wasn't sarcasm, I was literally saying "The ideas are out there, but I don't fully understand them. You'd be well-served to ask an expert or an advocate."

[Silent Majority]

To be honest, I think market communism is a contradiction. It seems to me markets would require a state, and money.

[Sociobiology]

so what makes communist free market distinct? how is it different than market socialism? How is it better than a mixed economy?

The distinction between market communism and market socialism isn't something I'm 100% sure on. As for market communism's alleged superiority to a mixed system, I think it goes back to the method in which equality is attained. In a social capitalist system such as the Nordic states that I so admire equality is attained through costly welfare initiatives, subsidies, and taxation. In a market socialist system equality is attained by altering managerial and ownership structures with regard to firms,

with the end goal apparently being to transition the entirety of control of the means of production into worker hands while retaining markets and profits as the guiding principles of production and distribution. Apparently the advantage of the latter is that it's cheaper and more direct?
I may just be thoroughly confused about how market socialism is supposed to work. That's why I recommended taking it up with the Market Socialists. That wasn't sarcasm, I was literally saying "The ideas are out there, but I don't fully understand them. You'd be well-served to ask an expert or an advocate."

actually Japan would be the mixed economy you should look at. It achieves most of its equality prior to taxation unlike the Nordic states.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/richard_wilkinson.html

[Nova Imperius]

i like the monies id say i prefer capitalism but with a rebellious hint of communism

[Ilstoria]

This discussion inevitably comes dow to one simple question: can it work anywhere? Communism is awesome when in a small community of like minded people. A neighborhood, town or city could certainly pull off a successful communist economy. HOWEVER, once people who dissagree with the economic policies become involved we inevitably begin to see massive corruption. The only way to make sure that everyone donates to the economy as a whole and equally shares the proceeds is either to get everyone to agree or impliment strict restrictions on persons trying to keep more than their fair share. There are no economic freedoms at all, and eventually civil and political freedoms become limited as the growing population becomes harder to oversee.

In a capitalist society there is less need for restrictions. People do what they want with their money and some succeed and some fail. Civil and political freedoms may be affected by the economic station of a person, but the laws are still even among people because these freedoms don't affect the economy like they would in a communist economy. I also prefer capitalism because it is possible to have small communist communities within the larger capitalistic economy. Again, people can do what they want with their money, if they wand to share it, fine, they can.

I'm not saying capitalism is perfect, but communism has a long history of massive restrictions of political and civil freedoms in order to maintain the "fair" economy. Contrariwise, capitalism has a long history diversity, being both oppressive and free. I think that the more flexible economy is capable of providing more freedoms. If laws provide people with the maximum civil and political freedoms then the people will be better off, rich or poor. Countries with strong capitalist economies have "poor" who have significantly better standards of living than counties with poor economies, regardless of the type.

[4years]

ONE EXAMPLE: Paris Commune
Oh, and communism definitely.

This guy deserves a freaking medal. And honestly, I'm somewhere in between. II like the idea of community-controlled businesses that provide for the people, not for profit. Like some kind of peaceful socialism-type economy.

I get a medal? Yay!

[4years]

I didn't you did, it was your example. This makes no sense. I said the past systems were better, therefore, I did not use advances in technology to excuse choosing the present (failed) system.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Ukraine and the free territory lasted three years not one.[/color]

From November 1918 to June 1919 after that it was a military dictatorship.

4. If you measure the success of an economy by the amount of time it existed,

I don't but if it cant last a year it is worthless for any comparison. You realize that outside intervation to end an existing system is in no way a failure of that system right?

So far you have not shown anything that works even equal to, much less better than a mixed economy.

So you admit you have no evidence. but your unhappy about that and need to lash out.
No, I have plenty of evidence. I live in the modern era rember? I can see what is happening around me. I am merely accusing you of being overly optimistic in your evalution.

wow pure capitalism is not perfect, nice strawman you are arguing with there.
next time try arguing with what I am actually claiming. It was an aside not an arguement. Learn the differnce. It also serves to refute anyone how was going to claim that pure capitalism would be better.

we since that does not include me why include it in a reply to me? You certainly did not format it as a tangent.
I formatted it as an aside see Oh, you might vs. here this proves you wrong. I included it because you challenged both capitalists and communist to prove that their systems are better than mixed economies.

You have nothing showing your proposed system is better than the system currently in place.Well the system currently in place sucks so just about anything is better.

according to what criteria?
No lasting peace, threat of nuclear war, curable diseases killing many people, people starving when more than enough food is produced, needless wars, eviromental damge, repeated downturns, high unemployment, excessive waste, ect.

1. Define better in economics. Do you mean GDP? Average wage? Highest standard of Living? Real Wage? The state of the best off? Or the worst off? Most advanced techology? Most resources? Least exploitive? Longest lasting?

I was leaving that to you since you are the one making the claim.
but I would except GDP, GDP per capita,HDI, and various measures of wage, among others
I choose least exploitive, the state of the worst off, and highest standard of living after accounting for the devolpment of new technologies.

2. evidence that the econmies in place now are any good.

lasting peace Iraq twice, Vietnam, Korea, ect., highest rate of technological growth would be higher in a purely communist system becaue the fear of losing money would be removed, highest HDI, least economic inequality, lower social inequality communism would have more equality so your points on lower social/economic inequality are irrelevant also social and ecomonic inequality are pretty high so I would not be claiming that if I were you , high average income Skewed because of how much certian groups make. Most of the wealth is in the hands of a few. , lower infant mortality There are reasons to account for changes in technology when comparing past economies with present economies, this be one of them. Any decrease in infant morality can be attributed to better madical care a result of new discoveries and technology....
take your pick
http://www.bit.ly/UqtHZQ
And you called my aritcles irrelevant ...
you are safer, healthier, more educated, more equal, and less likely to be the victim of violence in a mixed economy on average.
1. See modern era: technology advances over time we have mixed economies now so you seem to associate the technology with the mixed economy. If we had feudalism, then the technology would get associated with feudalism. Both associations are incorrect. technology changes regardless of the economic system. All the economic system can do is slow or increase the rate of change.
of course none of that matters because you as the claimant must show your system is BETTER than the current system, not that the current system is not perfect.
Which I did by establishing that my system would fix problems with the current system. What part of that are you not getting?

3. Since it seems you would like an article about mixed economies: http://www.marxist.com/capitalist-crisi ... ormism.htm Now to be perfectly clear the article explains why the mixed economy is failing and and why reforminng the mixed economy will not work. Capitalism is fundementally flawed and no mixed economy can overcome it.

wow you have no evidence so you are going to quote a journalist who also has no evidence? Just vague claims that if there is any downturn it must be because the system is failing in its entirety, and again no evidence that any other system would be better.
then he goes on to claim that international treaties cannot be capitalist (no shit) forgetting that a treaty by definition is not capitalist.
lots and lots of talk (talk not evidence) of the current system being bad but never any evidence that the proposed alternative would be better.
The article was always about why the current system sucks not why my alternative is better. I chose to establish that the system is a failure and use that to prove that communism would be better.
the entire article can be summed up as the current system sucks because it is not perfect, and Marxism will be better because ... just take his word for it. See above for why the current system sucks.

I warned you about the nirvana fallacy right in the beginning. [color=#FF0000[/color]

It seems that you need help with reading comprehension as you have devolped a habit of twisted what I said to suit yourself and then proceding to refute what I did not say, while disregarding what I did say.

[4years]

So wait i minute basically every place that has been communist hasn't even lasted 5 years is stil somehow a good system. That doesn't really make since to me.

Since how long something lasted is a terrible way to measure its success.
For example: 1619 The first African slaves arrive in Virginia-1865 slavey in the U.S. is effectively ended. American slavery lasted about 246 years. Does that make slavery a good thing? No it does not.

Therefore, how long a system lasts does not determine how good or bad it is. Therefore, the fact that a system lasted less then 5 years in certain conditions does not make that system bad.

[Williamson]

So wait i minute basically every place that has been communist hasn't even lasted 5 years is stil somehow a good system. That doesn't really make since to me.

Since how long something lasted is a terrible way to measure its success.
For example: 1619 The first African slaves arrive in Virginia-1865 slavey in the U.S. is effectively ended. American slavery lasted about 246 years. Does that make slavery a good thing? No it does not.

Therefore, how long a system lasts does not determine how good or bad it is. Therefore, the fact that a system lasted less then 5 years in certain conditions does not make that system bad.

the real point of it was that it failed quicky every time people tried to from a communist country. So i don't know how you can call something a good system that never work. You can say its a good idea but how can you can something that never worked good.