Capitalism vs. Communism

[Blakk Metal]

There is now a better alternative to Communism: Participatory Economics.

sounds like a combination of all the stagnation of classical communism without the benefit of encouraging specialization.

Socialism was never about efficiency.

There are ways to eliminate hierarchy without enstating communism.

I fail to see how one can do such a thing when social classes have not been eliminated and private property has not been abolished.

Not all stateless and classless (a.k.a. anarchist) ideologies are moneyless.

[Threlizdun]

Not all stateless and classless (a.k.a. anarchist) ideologies are moneyless.

I am aware of the existence of such ideologies, though seldom find it appropriate to lable them anarchist. The existence of capital presupposes the existence of private property, and therefore indicates theft, extortion, and subjection of the individual, and cannot be compatible with an ideology proposing the abolition of hierarchies.

[Sociobiology]

sounds like a combination of all the stagnation of classical communism without the benefit of encouraging specialization.

Socialism was never about efficiency.

who said anything about efficiency?

[Blakk Metal]

Not all stateless and classless (a.k.a. anarchist) ideologies are moneyless.

I am aware of the existence of such ideologies, though seldom find it appropriate to lable them anarchist. The existence of capital presupposes the existence of private property, and therefore indicates theft, extortion, and subjection of the individual, and cannot be compatible with an ideology proposing the abolition of hierarchies.

Since when was the rest of libertarian socialism capitalist? Money enslaves no one, so long as someone without it can live comfortably.

[Blakk Metal]

I didn't know you had the balls to do such a blatant strawman.

1. You do realize I'm on the defense, right?
2. Your objections are utter bullshit.

Common sense is bullshit.

I haven't given any plan to implement shit. I've only said such a system would be stable and preferable.

And you assume from the get-go that authoritarian social democracy is possible, feasible, and has every advantage over any other human system in existence. That's why you support it.

Some.

Are you saying one problem makes me lose.

1. You are presuming hierarchy is natural, even though I showed clearly before it wasn't.
2. People don't tend to label opposing ideologies as insane. It's rude and, if one is on the wrong side history, only makes you look stupider to the inhabitants of the future.

1700's noble: "As for theocracy, you don't HAVE to believe that the church ALWAYS works better than secularism to be a theocrat.

That simply isn't in the same league of madness as an ideology that wants to have permanant democracy, permanant class 'mobility', and permanant liberalism..."

1800's noble: "Do you think Robespierre could have gotten away with what he did in the name of liberalism... if the ideology of liberalism had never been invented and none of his followers believed in liberalism.

Probably not...

The fact that millions of people supported liberalism is a critical part of why populists (like Robespierre) were able to justify the murder of thousands of innocents."

1800's noble: "Whenever he murdered someone and felt the need to justify it, he would say something related to liberalism.

For example, someone who he wanted gone from the party machine is someone who is not really loyal to the liberal cause.

Someone who wants to hold on to his nobility or just plain someone who smiled at the wrong time is an enemy of the people or else a spy for the nobility.

You know... That's the sort of rhetoric his regime used as they killed millions of people. It's truly frightening how EASY it is to use the ideology of liberalism to murder people."

Not necessarily.

No it doesn't. A revolution is merely a radical change in a short amount of time.

Of course you could. Just like how I could start a feudalist revolution.

1800's slaveowner: "That master provides your house, job, and food, i doubt real capitalism will work for n***ers. I assume you are just another 13 year old psuedo capitalist."

*sigh*

Private property =/= personal property.

I don't think that you're going to an accurate reading on that.

I didn't know you had the balls to do such a blatant strawman.

Not a strawman to point out that your beliefs have no empirical basis and yet you are acting like there's enough evidence to prove that this stateless, moneyless, and classless gig is sure to outperform the present mixed capitalist model

Modern society is pretty much diluted U'SS'R. The same problems, but smaller. Any form of non totalitarian socialism would do better.

in pretty much every important way.

Since when?

Common sense is bullshit.

This right here is why you are a communist and I am not. Your lack of respect for common sense (as evidenced by this quote) will always be your greatest weakness...

No one serious about knowledge respects common sense.

Some.

Care to elaborate? Let's see... what kind of potential dangers and disadvantages might a stateless, classless, and moneyless society have?

Well let's see... it probably doesn't stay stateless for long as multiple gangs will fight for power to form the New State!

1700's noble: "Care to elaborate? Let's see... what kind of potential dangers and disadvantages might a liberal democratic society have?

Well let's see... it probably doesn't stay nobleless for long as multiple canidates will fight for power to form the New Nobility!"

Oh... that and the fact that you can't enforce permant classlessness without a state amongst other common sense problems..

You, once again, presume hierarchy is natural.

Are you saying one problem makes me lose.

No, but a thousand problems with your ideology makes you lose.

None of the problems you pointed out exist.

1. You are presuming hierarchy is natural, even though I showed clearly before it wasn't.
2. People don't tend to label opposing ideologies as insane. It's rude and, if one is on the wrong side history, only makes you look stupider to the inhabitants of the future.

1. Strawman. I don't give a damn if hierarchy is natural or not... it's just that right now it's 100% necessary for the functioning of large-scale society and you are proposing we get rid of all hierarchy (which is sheer madness since we've never seen large-scale statelessness work indefinitely).

1700's noble: "Strawman. I don't give a damn if nobility is natural or not... it's just that right now it's 100% necessary for the functioning of large-scale society and you are proposing we get rid of all nobility (which is sheer madness since we've never seen large-scale democracy work indefinitely)."

2. Hiding behind political correctness now are we? We can see where this debate is headed (towards your inevitable defeat).

Labeling their opponents insane was a common tactic of the Soviet Union. I thought you hated those guys.

---

Being a smug asshole doesn't make you a winner.

---

Dave Mustaine looked at your comment and said "Dude, you need to become more humble."

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoF_a0-7xVQ

---

Even in the era of "My opponent shall replace our churches with hoes.", people didn't have half the balls you possess, sir. Your bullshit apparatus has won.

1700's noble: "As for theocracy, you don't HAVE to believe that the church ALWAYS works better than secularism to be a theocrat.

That simply isn't in the same league of madness as an ideology that wants to have permanant democracy, permanant class 'mobility', and permanant liberalism..."

Objection! Comparison flaw.

We HAVE working examples of permanent liberal democracies in history... we have no examples of lasting large-scale stateless, moneyless, and classless societies.

So while the quote you cited was definitely incorrect, the one I have is LIKELY (as supported by the empirical record) to be correct.

A certain piece of shit and potential failure vs. a potential nonshit I see. Let me put it in mathemetical terms: A negative is less than zero.

1800's noble: "Do you think Robespierre could have gotten away with what he did in the name of liberalism... if the ideology of liberalism had never been invented and none of his followers believed in liberalism.

Probably not...

The fact that millions of people supported liberalism is a critical part of why populists (like Robespierre) were able to justify the murder of thousands of innocents."

Except... WE HAVE WORKING MODELS OF LIBERALISM TODAY!

1. THEY DIDN'T EXIST IN THE 1800'S! WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THEY WON'T EXIST TWO HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW IF WE TRY IT!
2. Your 'working' models are about to fail.

1800's noble: "Whenever he murdered someone and felt the need to justify it, he would say something related to liberalism.

For example, someone who he wanted gone from the party machine is someone who is not really loyal to the liberal cause.

Someone who wants to hold on to his nobility or just plain someone who smiled at the wrong time is an enemy of the people or else a spy for the nobility.

You know... That's the sort of rhetoric his regime used as they killed millions of people. It's truly frightening how EASY it is to use the ideology of liberalism to murder people."

Except in thousands of years of human history, despite a few failed attempts at liberalism we HAVE seen functioning liberal societies.

Where are your stateless, classless, and moneyless successes? In thousands of year of history, NOT A SINGLE example of a lasting success while the sea is littered with communist fails...

Yeah I am so convinced (NOT).

Stop comparing liberalism to communism. Liberalism has generated successes while communism, throughout history, has generated nothing but wishful thinking and failed social experiments (some of which cost millions of lives)...

That was supposed to be in the POV of somebody in the early 1800s in order to show you that someone abusing a cause for his own selfish ends does not discredit the cause. Your response has nothing to do with mine.

[Inyourfaceistan]

No one serious about knowledge respects common sense

Ahh. That explains so much. In that case I'm now an advocate of Kickassism. It's where everyone gets infinite money and their own islands and private jets and hot latino women. I don't care about what obvious facts you have to present, in theory my ideology is better than yours, and anyone who try's to tell me "common sense says" isnt serious about knowledge.

1. THEY DIDN'T EXIST IN THE 1800'S! WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THEY WON'T EXIST TWO HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW IF WE TRY IT!
2. Your 'working' models are about to fail.

1.) Because liberalism doesn't defy the natural primate instinct to be the alpha.

2.) It's not likely they will fail. It's mostly your bs strawman. And even if they do fail, they still would have lasted longer than your hippy communes that all got taken over in less than a decade...

[Trotskylvania]

1.) Because liberalism doesn't defy the natural primate instinct to be the alpha.

2.) It's not likely they will fail. It's mostly your bs strawman. And even if they do fail, they still would have lasted longer than your hippy communes that all got taken over in less than a decade...

1. Our closest living primate relative, the Bonobo, live in totally egalitarian groups. For that matter, the archeological record on our own past as a species is similarly clear. There is no primate instinct to be the alpha, and there certainly isn't a human instinct to be the alpha.
2) Socialism is not fucking off into the boonies to live in some cult with a bunch of like minded people. Your attempt to equate the democratic, industrial communist movement with hippies is ridiculous.

[Inyourfaceistan]

1.) Because liberalism doesn't defy the natural primate instinct to be the alpha.

2.) It's not likely they will fail. It's mostly your bs strawman. And even if they do fail, they still would have lasted longer than your hippy communes that all got taken over in less than a decade...

1. Our closest living primate relative, the Bonobo, live in totally egalitarian groups. For that matter, the archeological record on our own past as a species is similarly clear. There is no primate instinct to be the alpha, and there certainly isn't a human instinct to be the alpha.

http://library.sandiegozoo.org/factsheets/bonobo/bonobo.htm
-Female Dominated
-Males compete for rank amongst themselves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
-Male derives social status from the status of his mother
-While social hierarchies do exist, rank plays a less prominent role than other primate societies

2) Socialism is not fucking off into the boonies to live in some cult with a bunch of like minded people. Your attempt to equate the democratic, industrial communist movement with hippies is ridiculous.

I was referring to Makhnovia (Free Ukrainian Territory), Anarchist Catalonia, and the Paris Commune. All of which were crushed by outside forces.

[North Calaveras]

This whole battle has already been fought, Capitalism won

Communism was not even able to be achieved, an epic failure.

[Inyourfaceistan]

This whole battle has already been fought, Capitalism won

Communism was not even able to be achieved, an epic failure.

They did achieve it. Then they were shortly taken over by fascists. Don't you want to be taken over by fascists?

[North Calaveras]

This whole battle has already been fought, Capitalism won

Communism was not even able to be achieved, an epic failure.

They did achieve it. Then were shortly taken over by fascists. Don't you want to be taken over by fascists?

what?

and it depends on how the fascists rule

[Inyourfaceistan]

They did achieve it. Then were shortly taken over by fascists. Don't you want to be taken over by fascists?

what?

and it depends on how the fascists rule

The best kind! The kind were they shoot everyone who disagrees with them. But hey! It was fun while it lasted!

[North Calaveras]

what?

and it depends on how the fascists rule

The best kind! The kind were they shoot everyone who disagrees with them. But hey! It was fun while it lasted!

I kind of find the excuse of " The movement was just hijacked by fascists" to be weak, but that's just me.

[Kalarin]

I'll say capitalism because communism all too often falls into a dictatorship.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

The best kind! The kind were they shoot everyone who disagrees with them. But hey! It was fun while it lasted!

I kind of find the excuse of " The movement was just hijacked by fascists" to be weak, but that's just me.

If you're talking about the USSR, "hijacking" presupposes that there was anything inherently communist to begin with.

I'll say capitalism because communism all too often falls into a dictatorship.

No, communism doesn't, "Communism" does.

[Unita Teccon Olympia Enclave]

Capitalism is just a lesser evil than Communism in the end, their is no perfect government; just the ones that tend to survive are the ones that go against Communism.

[Inyourfaceistan]

The best kind! The kind were they shoot everyone who disagrees with them. But hey! It was fun while it lasted!

I kind of find the excuse of " The movement was just hijacked by fascists" to be weak, but that's just me.

Well yah... I love how communist movements always seemed to get hijacked by _________*ists, but how come no __________*ist movement ever got hijacked by communists?

* insert just about any other ideology here

[Tairoth]

Communism simply cant work. now in a few years, maybe decades communism in China will fall and be replaced with Democracy

it is inevitable

[Divair]

Communism simply cant work. now in a few years, maybe decades communism in China will fall and be replaced with Democracy

it is inevitable

China isn't and wasn't communist.


Democracy has no connection to economic systems.

[Kachilla]

I see little merit in Capitalism - it brings about a great rich-poor divide, and it's ruining the west nowadays (i.e. the 2008 bank crash, the Conservative Party's pathetic rule in Britain ATM, madmen like Romney, etc). I don't much like certain Communist principles either - I'm all for "to each according to his need" but not for "from each acording to his ability." I don't like Stalinism or Leninism or Maoism, etc, because they were made by dictators who used Communism to justify their dictatorships. However, in the right hands, I think (i.e. if someone ressurected Marx and made him the leader of some country), Marxism or something similar could work. Heck, give control to some social-enterprising businessmen, and Capitalism could properly work too.

[Reggae Magmia]

Communism simply cant work. now in a few years, maybe decades communism in China will fall and be replaced with Democracy

it is inevitable

China isn't Communist...nor was it ever...

[New KaitoLand]

i dreamt to this once

[Czechanada]

I see little merit in Capitalism - it brings about a great rich-poor divide, and it's ruining the west nowadays (i.e. the 2008 bank crash, the Conservative Party's pathetic rule in Britain ATM, madmen like Romney, etc). I don't much like certain Communist principles either - I'm all for "to each according to his need" but not for "from each acording to his ability." I don't like Stalinism or Leninism or Maoism, etc, because they were made by dictators who used Communism to justify their dictatorships. However, in the right hands, I think (i.e. if someone ressurected Marx and made him the leader of some country), Marxism or something similar could work. Heck, give control to some social-enterprising businessmen, and Capitalism could properly work too.

Precisely. A social welfare system is necessary to the well-being of a state. So much changes depending on one's living standards.

[Socialdemokraterne]

This whole battle has already been fought, Capitalism won

In a manner of speaking. Third-way economics combining publicly-provided social protections (both in the form of regulations and goods/services) with distribution systems featuring both planned and market elements have won the day. The mixed economy is the real winner.

Communism was not even able to be achieved, an epic failure.

I can say the same of the "free market", so don't get too snippy.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Communism simply cant work. now in a few years, maybe decades communism in China will fall and be replaced with Democracy

it is inevitable

Please, tell me more about this communist China of yours, because on Earth, one has never existed.