Capitalism vs. Communism

[Sociobiology]

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.

And didn't exist long enough to prove they could actually maintain a society, heck none of them existed long enough for the wheat in their silos to go bad.
All of them did however become states before they fell They had police, courts, and lawmakers.

[Canis Rex]

Capitalism simply isn't fair. It turns money to power and allows the greedy and "connected" to thrive and stomp on the less fortunate/poor. If you stand up to them, you are mercilessly beaten and thrown in jail, even possibly labeled as a "threat" to national security or some other bullcrap and executed.

Communism ensures the class divide never happens and thus prevents this treatment.

[Sociobiology]

Capitalism simply isn't fair. It turns money to power and allows the greedy and "connected" to thrive and stomp on the less fortunate/poor. If you stand up to them, you are mercilessly beaten and thrown in jail, even possibly labeled as a "threat" to national security or some other bullcrap and executed.

Communism ensures the class divide never happens and thus prevents this treatment.

how does it ensure this? by preventing the large populations necessary for advancement in technology. It is easy for everyone to be equal when nobody has anything. However, many modern states are managing equality WITH large populations.

[CTALNH]

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

And didn't exist long enough to prove they could actually maintain a society, heck none of them existed long enough for the wheat in their silos to go bad.
All of them did however become states before they fell They had police, courts, and lawmakers.

They had armed forces.

[Sociobiology]

And didn't exist long enough to prove they could actually maintain a society, heck none of them existed long enough for the wheat in their silos to go bad.
All of them did however become states before they fell They had police, courts, and lawmakers.

They had armed forces.

And courts, and lawmakers
A court run by the military that still tries civilians, is a court in every sense of the word, just not a very desirable one.

[CTALNH]

They had armed forces.

And courts, and lawmakers
A court run by the military that still tries civilians, is a court in every sense of the word, just not a very desirable one.

Whatever the Free Ukrainian territories were run by the Manhoviks and Catalonia was run by the Anarchist party lastly the Paris Commune was run by the Military council at first then everything went bonkers.

[Inertialism]

Some elements of Communism are good and some elements of Capitalism are good.
Look at the capitalism + communism combination of China.
Then look at their GDP Growth.
'boo hoo we are only at 10 PERCENT GROWTH this month.'

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Some elements of Communism are good and some elements of Capitalism are good.
Look at the capitalism + communism combination of China.
Then look at their GDP Growth.
'boo hoo we are only at 10 PERCENT GROWTH this month.'

There is no communism in China and there never has been.

[Blakk Metal]

Capitalism simply isn't fair. It turns money to power and allows the greedy and "connected" to thrive and stomp on the less fortunate/poor. If you stand up to them, you are mercilessly beaten and thrown in jail, even possibly labeled as a "threat" to national security or some other bullcrap and executed.

Communism ensures the class divide never happens and thus prevents this treatment.

how does it ensure this? by preventing the large populations necessary for advancement in technology. It is easy for everyone to be equal when nobody has anything.

So, basically, we need a state because we can't be friends with every man on Earth? Explain further.

However, many modern states are managing equality WITH large populations.

Virtually everyplace on Earth is unequal.

[Death Metal]

Enforcing true equality (IE, everyone has the same wages/property/everything else) is also unfair.

The issue shouldn't be putting everyone on the exact same level, but allowing everyone to be able to afford to survive and live in reasonable comfort as the bare minimum while at the same time allowing people to strive for more.

Neither pure Capitalism nor pure Communism, save in the smallest of smallest scales, can truly provide either. Just like crops cannot grow in soil with a pH of 0 nor a pH of 10.

[Zyx]

Social Democracy

[Canis Rex]

quote]
how does it ensure this? by preventing the large populations necessary for advancement in technology. It is easy for everyone to be equal when nobody has anything. However, many modern states are managing equality WITH large populations.[/quote]

In what state/country is everyone equal?(meaning no rich/poor divide, no class struggle, etc.)
Also, Communism ensures it by not allowing the greedy, evil, and corrupt to prosper and wield money as power. In capitalism money=power, which is not fair to the non-rich. By the way, how does Communism mean no one has anything?

[Sociobiology]

how does it ensure this? by preventing the large populations necessary for advancement in technology. It is easy for everyone to be equal when nobody has anything. However, many modern states are managing equality WITH large populations.

In what state/country is everyone equal?(meaning no rich/poor divide, no class struggle, etc.)
Also, Communism ensures it by not allowing the greedy, evil, and corrupt to prosper and wield money as power. In capitalism money=power, which is not fair to the non-rich. By the way, how does Communism mean no one has anything?

fixed and answered in red, it helps if you read the statement you are quoting.

Sweden and Denmark come as close to perfectly equal as any state we know of.
and if you consider being dead as inequality, which I do, better than any society we know of.

[Blakk Metal]

In what state/country is everyone equal?(meaning no rich/poor divide, no class struggle, etc.)
Also, Communism ensures it by not allowing the greedy, evil, and corrupt to prosper and wield money as power. In capitalism money=power, which is not fair to the non-rich. By the way, how does Communism mean no one has anything?

fixed and answered in red, it helps if you read the statement you are quoting.

Sweden and Denmark come as close to perfectly equal as any state we know of.
and if you consider being dead as inequality, which I do, better than any society we know of.

How will the inability to be friends with everyone make the state necessary?

[Canis Rex]

In what state/country is everyone equal?(meaning no rich/poor divide, no class struggle, etc.)
Also, Communism ensures it by not allowing the greedy, evil, and corrupt to prosper and wield money as power. In capitalism money=power, which is not fair to the non-rich. By the way, how does Communism mean no one has anything?

fixed and answered in red, it helps if you read the statement you are quoting.

Sweden and Denmark come as close to perfectly equal as any state we know of.
and if you consider being dead as inequality, which I do, better than any society we know of.

What are you trying to say with "dead as inequality" remark? Communism simply is everyone becoming equal. Any death is the result of the rich/greedy trying to preserve their money and power or someone(like Stalin) using repressive/violent policies, which is NOT Communist doctrine.

Also, if you consider Communism so bad, please explain the merits of capitalism.

[Sociobiology]

how does it ensure this? by preventing the large populations necessary for advancement in technology. It is easy for everyone to be equal when nobody has anything.

So, basically, we need a state because we can't be friends with every man on Earth? Explain further.

The natural method we have for reinforcing social responsibility, maintaining social ties, and creating trust is intensive familiarity between all parties in a society. basically gossip and first person experience, so you know what every person is doing, who owes what to whom, and who is and is not trustworthy for X.
This however is highly limited by Dunbar's number, the upper limit on the number of people one human brain is capable of keeping track of, ~150. We behave very differently with people for whom we do not have this intimate knowledge of, trust breaks down and the brain is forced to rely on stereotyping, which is very prone to negative feedback cycles. Once that number is greatly exceeded societies normally split into smaller unit because they are unable to maintain social cohesion. States (and to a lesser extent cheifdoms) do not split because they have produced a substitute to this intimate knowledge, formal well known codes of conduct (laws), and system of third party specialists used to judge any violations and punish violators, thus allowing for relatively certain reprisal WITHOUT intimate knowledge between the initial parties, thus allowing open trust without easy victim hood.
Courts also have the advantage of being physiologically unacceptable targets for revenge, the normal reaction to this sort of punishment. * Again this is what normal human social practices do in small numbers but cannot do with large populations.
This becomes especially important because cities require populations far in excess of Dunbar's number and cities are essential for high levels of innovation and production. (innovation and production scales super-linearly to population thus adding 10% to the population in a city gains you a 15% increase in innovation and productivity.)

You can have a society with no formal laws or courts (and thus no lawmakers) and you can have a society with huge populations and the technology they produce, however, you cannot have both at the same time.

nothing about the state requires classes, many do without them. inequality is a problem because that same gossip complex is normally used to also make sure no one owns more than anyone else. however states have only more recently began using law to replace this aspect.
Communism (as described) eliminates the state and thus formal laws, and law enforcement, prevent the very same population numbers needed for advanced technology. It is a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

*(perpetrators almost always see themselves as the victim, especially when dealing with strangers) revenge spirals easily when there is no third party willing and able to interrupt the cycle.

[Sociobiology]

fixed and answered in red, it helps if you read the statement you are quoting.

Sweden and Denmark come as close to perfectly equal as any state we know of.
and if you consider being dead as inequality, which I do, better than any society we know of.

What are you trying to say with "dead as inequality" remark? Communism simply is everyone becoming equal. Any death is the result of the rich/greedy trying to preserve their money and power or someone(like Stalin) using repressive/violent policies, which is NOT Communist doctrine.

Also, if you consider Communism so bad, please explain the merits of capitalism.

false dichotomy I am not a proponent of either.

as for the dead comment, stateless societies on average have a violent death rate 5-10 TIMES higher than states have, which I have already posted and sourced. So any comparison of inqeuality produced by states Vs non-states must be take that into consideration.

[Blakk Metal]

What are you trying to say with "dead as inequality" remark? Communism simply is everyone becoming equal. Any death is the result of the rich/greedy trying to preserve their money and power or someone(like Stalin) using repressive/violent policies, which is NOT Communist doctrine.

Also, if you consider Communism so bad, please explain the merits of capitalism.

false dichotomy I am not a proponent of either.

as for the dead comment, stateless societies on average have a violent death rate 5-10 TIMES higher than states have, which I have already posted and sourced. So any comparison of inqeuality produced by states Vs non-states must be take that into consideration.

Correlation does not imply causation.

[Canis Rex]

What are you trying to say with "dead as inequality" remark? Communism simply is everyone becoming equal. Any death is the result of the rich/greedy trying to preserve their money and power or someone(like Stalin) using repressive/violent policies, which is NOT Communist doctrine.

Also, if you consider Communism so bad, please explain the merits of capitalism.

false dichotomy I am not a proponent of either.

as for the dead comment, stateless societies on average have a violent death rate 5-10 TIMES higher than states have, which I have already posted and sourced. So any comparison of inqeuality produced by states Vs non-states must be take that into consideration.

By "stateless" do you mean anarchist, Communist, or something else? If you don't mean Communist, then the statistics are irrelavent to this discussion. Again, violence is not part of Communist doctrine and deaths are the result of greed or repressive/violent policies, not Communist idealogy.

[Sociobiology]

false dichotomy I am not a proponent of either.

as for the dead comment, stateless societies on average have a violent death rate 5-10 TIMES higher than states have, which I have already posted and sourced. So any comparison of inequality produced by states Vs non-states must be take that into consideration.

Correlation does not imply causation.

It does however prove correlation, not the negative correlation proposed by anarchists.
It also means that if you claim eliminating a state will NOT cause a large rise in the violent death rate YOU must describe the mechanism preventing this, or the mechanism causing it in states and why it will remain.
and consistent correlation does imply causation, it however does not prove it. It more than justifies seeking a direct causal link, although with social anthropology, causation is almost impossible to determine.

[Sociobiology]

false dichotomy I am not a proponent of either.

as for the dead comment, stateless societies on average have a violent death rate 5-10 TIMES higher than states have, which I have already posted and sourced. So any comparison of inqeuality produced by states Vs non-states must be take that into consideration.

By "stateless" do you mean anarchist, Communist, or something else?

by stateless I mean all societies not states.
unless you can show an example of communism, specifically ones not represented in the numbers, communism must be treated as represented by stateless.

Again, violence is not part of Communist doctrine

irrelevant, what it wants to create is meaningless in the face of what it actually creates. the results of an action, especially if predictable, are more important than the intentions, especially when in the propositional stage.

and deaths are the result of greed or repressive/violent policies,

No they are not, they are a manifestation of normal human interactions, instincts, personal bias, and fear. greed is socially depressed in these societies and since they lack formal policies, repressive/violent policies are all but non-existent.

[Canis Rex]

By "stateless" do you mean anarchist, Communist, or something else?

by stateless I mean all societies without a state.
unless you can show an example of communism, specifically ones not represented in the numbers, communism must be treated as represented by stateless.

Again, violence is not part of Communist doctrine

irrelevant, what it wants to create is meaningless in the face of what it actually creates. the results of an action, especially if predictable, are more important than the intentions, especially when in the propositional stage.

and deaths are the result of greed or repressive/violent policies,

No they are not, they are a manifestation of normal human interactions, instincts, personal bias, and fear. greed is socially depressed in these societies and since they lack formal policies, repressive/violent policies are all but non-existent.

I'm talking about Communist, not "stateless", which does not mean Communist. Again, the statistics are irrelavent. Also, the deaths are the result of greed/policies in so-called "Communist" countries.(Example: the formation of the USSR was violent because the rich/elite didn't want to lose their money/power. Stalin used violent policies to retain power.) I only use the USSR as example because it is associated so strongly with Communism, even though it wasn't. I believe it illustrates my point though.

I have to go now. I will discuss this tommorow.

[Imperial--japan]

Capitalism.

[Blakk Metal]

Correlation does not imply causation.

It does however prove correlation, not the negative correlation proposed by anarchists.

Strawman.

It also means that if you claim eliminating a state will NOT cause a large rise in the violent death rate YOU must describe the mechanism preventing this, or the mechanism causing it in states and why it will remain.
and consistent correlation does imply causation, it however does not prove it. It more than justifies seeking a direct causal link, although with social anthropology, causation is almost impossible to determine.

Over time, in states and non-states, violence has decreased for unknown reasons. Since non-states tend to be concentrated in the past, they tend to be more violent. There, I annihilated your supposed causation.

[Sociobiology]

It does however prove correlation, not the negative correlation proposed by anarchists.

Strawman.

no I said by anarchists, if this does not include you then it does not include you.

It also means that if you claim eliminating a state will NOT cause a large rise in the violent death rate YOU must describe the mechanism preventing this, or the mechanism causing it in states and why it will remain.
and consistent correlation does imply causation, it however does not prove it. It more than justifies seeking a direct causal link, although with social anthropology, causation is almost impossible to determine.

Over time, in states and non-states, violence has decreased for unknown reasons.

1.unproven premise the known decrease in violence only occurs in states, and 2. the data I sourced also compares states and non-states that all exist at the same time and shows the same difference. 3 the graph you are thinking of, includes a state predates even the oldest non-states included by several hundred years, and still has a violence rate less than half the non-state average. In fact the data supports no downward trend in non-states over time.

Since non-states tend to be concentrated in the past, they tend to be more violent. There, I annihilated your supposed causation.

no sorry. see above.