Capitalism vs. Communism

[Sociobiology]

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.

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.


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.

then define communism, and remember it cannot include a lack of state or government, laws, or lawmakers.
because you would be the first person in this thread to not refer to anarcho-whatever when saying communism. And this is part of the standing definition in the thread so forgive me for assuming it is what you are referring to.

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.

and now of course your definition must differentiate itself from what the "so called communist's". Which are merely states in the source, and most definitions.

[Canis Rex]

I'm talking about Communist, not "stateless", which does not mean Communist.

then define communism, and remember it cannot include a lack of state or government, laws, or lawmakers.
because you would be the first person in this thread to not refer to anarcho-whatever when saying communism. And this is part of the standing definition in the thread so forgive me for assuming it is what you are referring to.

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.

and now of course your definition must differentiate itself from what the "so called communist's". Which are merely states in the source, and most definitions.

I define Communism as the erasing of the social classes and equal distribution of resources among the people. This differs from Anarchy idealogies in that Communism should be a monitored and controlled system, not a lawless state with everyone doing whatever they want with no consequences.
By "so called Communists" I mean countries/leaders that claim to be Communist to justify their actions and retain power but are not true Communist(i.e. Stalin)

[Threlizdun]

I define Communism as the erasing of the social classes and equal distribution of resources among the people.

Equitable distribution of resources is neither an absolute aspect of communism, a likely phenomenon, or even remotely desirable. Why would we have such collectivist nonsense as enforcing how much an individual could obtain?

This differs from Anarchy idealogies in that Communism should be a monitored and controlled system, not a lawless state with everyone doing whatever they want with no consequences.

Anarchy=/=lawless

[Renegade Island]

Capitalism won.

But everyone lost.

[Czechanada]

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.

Actually, correlation can mean causation; As long as you have a large enough sample and a high enough correlation coeffiecient.

[Canis Rex]

I define Communism as the erasing of the social classes and equal distribution of resources among the people.

Equitable distribution of resources is neither an absolute aspect of communism, a likely phenomenon, or even remotely desirable. Why would we have such collectivist nonsense as enforcing how much an individual could obtain?

This differs from Anarchy idealogies in that Communism should be a monitored and controlled system, not a lawless state with everyone doing whatever they want with no consequences.

Anarchy=/=lawless

Why would it not be desireable?(by resources I mean money, guarenteed a job, housing, etc. I don't mean taking one's property/possesions, I believe you have a right to own your own stuff)This would mean no more greedy capitalist scum waving their money, doing what they want while others scavenge on the bottom rung of a capitalist society. It is possible, although difficult to have equal distribution. To me, Communism IS the "everyone is equal" idea, I don't know what it means to you. By the way, what does the "Anarchy=/=lawless" mean?

[Williamson]

Equitable distribution of resources is neither an absolute aspect of communism, a likely phenomenon, or even remotely desirable. Why would we have such collectivist nonsense as enforcing how much an individual could obtain?
Anarchy=/=lawless

Why would it not be desireable?(by resources I mean money, guarenteed a job, housing, etc. I don't mean taking one's property/possesions, I believe you have a right to own your own stuff)This would mean no more greedy capitalist scum waving their money, doing what they want while others scavenge on the bottom rung of a capitalist society. It is possible, although difficult to have equal distribution. To me, Communism IS the "everyone is equal" idea, I don't know what it means to you. By the way, what does the "Anarchy=/=lawless" mean?

you do realize that everyone wouldn't be equal in your system. the Goverment would have complete power. Plus chance are that the goverment is going to give themselves more resources than anyone else so they would be rich and the others would be poor and or low middle class.

[LochNessMontropolis]

You can NEVER eliminate greed.

[Inyourfaceistan]

You can NEVER eliminate greed.

But greed is unnatural! (in my imaginary fantasy world)

[Socialdemokraterne]

Why would it not be desireable?(by resources I mean money, guarenteed a job, housing, etc. I don't mean taking one's property/possesions, I believe you have a right to own your own stuff)

I'll need a more thorough description of what your proposed society would look like. A good place to start would be describing the means through which it would create a perfectly equal distribution of all available resources, equal distribution of all money, and ensure that everyone has a job if they want one. What is coming to my mind at the moment is a command economic structure. I don't have a lot of good things to say about such structures, though I do have some good things to say about them.

This would mean no more greedy capitalist scum waving their money, doing what they want while others scavenge on the bottom rung of a capitalist society.

Providing for peoples' basic needs with supplementary income, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, food provisions, housing provisions, freely accessible education/training, freely accessible medical care, and so forth seems to work pretty well at diminishing poverty and improving standards of living for the impoverished. Why jump to the next step and try to induce a perfectly equal distribution of all resources? The concept of diminishing returns comes to mind...

By the way, what does the "Anarchy=/=lawless" mean?

Simply put: Anarchism isn't defined as the absence of order. I'll let an Anarchist explain it since I'll probably muck it up somewhere in the middle.

[Blakk Metal]

You can NEVER eliminate greed.

So why does average happiness flatline once all needs are fulfilled?

[Kleomentia]

You can NEVER eliminate greed.

However greed is often mistaken with ambition. Which is sad.

[Sociobiology]

You can NEVER eliminate greed.

So why does average happiness flatline once all needs are fulfilled?

source?
I have never heard this before so I really would like a source.

[Sociobiology]

Capitalism won.

But everyone lost.

Mixed economies won
so everyone won.

[Canis Rex]

Why would it not be desireable?(by resources I mean money, guarenteed a job, housing, etc. I don't mean taking one's property/possesions, I believe you have a right to own your own stuff)This would mean no more greedy capitalist scum waving their money, doing what they want while others scavenge on the bottom rung of a capitalist society. It is possible, although difficult to have equal distribution. To me, Communism IS the "everyone is equal" idea, I don't know what it means to you. By the way, what does the "Anarchy=/=lawless" mean?

you do realize that everyone wouldn't be equal in your system. the Goverment would have complete power. Plus chance are that the goverment is going to give themselves more resources than anyone else so they would be rich and the others would be poor and or low middle class.

If the leader(s)/government attempt to give themselves more resources/power, then they are in violation of Communist doctrine and thus are no longer Communist. They will have become the greedy elite that Communism seeks to eradicate.

[Williamson]

you do realize that everyone wouldn't be equal in your system. the Goverment would have complete power. Plus chance are that the goverment is going to give themselves more resources than anyone else so they would be rich and the others would be poor and or low middle class.

If the leader(s)/government attempt to give themselves more resources/power, then they are in violation of Communist doctrine and thus are no longer Communist. They will have become the greedy elite that Communism seeks to eradicate.

well thats what a lot of those "communist" leaders do.

[Canis Rex]

Why would it not be desireable?(by resources I mean money, guarenteed a job, housing, etc. I don't mean taking one's property/possesions, I believe you have a right to own your own stuff)

I'll need a more thorough description of what your proposed society would look like. A good place to start would be describing the means through which it would create a perfectly equal distribution of all available resources, equal distribution of all money, and ensure that everyone has a job if they want one. What is coming to my mind at the moment is a command economic structure. I don't have a lot of good things to say about such structures, though I do have some good things to say about them.

This would mean no more greedy capitalist scum waving their money, doing what they want while others scavenge on the bottom rung of a capitalist society.

Providing for peoples' basic needs with supplementary income, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, food provisions, housing provisions, freely accessible education/training, freely accessible medical care, and so forth seems to work pretty well at diminishing poverty and improving standards of living for the impoverished. Why jump to the next step and try to induce a perfectly equal distribution of all resources? The concept of diminishing returns comes to mind...

By the way, what does the "Anarchy=/=lawless" mean?

Simply put: Anarchism isn't defined as the absence of order. I'll let an Anarchist explain it since I'll probably muck it up somewhere in the middle.

The system of distribution would be difficult, as it would need constant and close monitoring, but not impossible and it is well worth working towards.
We see how well these help programs have done for the poor, don't we? The results: many still poor, the greedy still prospering and uncaring for them.

[Canis Rex]

If the leader(s)/government attempt to give themselves more resources/power, then they are in violation of Communist doctrine and thus are no longer Communist. They will have become the greedy elite that Communism seeks to eradicate.

well thats what a lot of those "communist" leaders do.

They are not true Communist. They are leaders who use the guise of being Communist to retain and justify their power.

[Blakk Metal]

You can NEVER eliminate greed.

But greed is unnatural! (in my imaginary fantasy world)

The argument for greed is basically this: "People don't like living in a pig sty, therefore greed exists."

Capitalism won.

But everyone lost.

Mixed economies won
so everyone won.

Until the economy collapses due to the idiotic handling of debt and multiple bubbles, and we go down a dangerous road that could've been averted if we had adopted a form of socialism in the early 1900's, communist or non.

you do realize that everyone wouldn't be equal in your system. the Goverment would have complete power. Plus chance are that the goverment is going to give themselves more resources than anyone else so they would be rich and the others would be poor and or low middle class.

If the leader(s)/government attempt to give themselves more resources/power,

That is pretty much inevitable. Power corrupts people, and people who seek power are generally corrupt.

I'll need a more thorough description of what your proposed society would look like. A good place to start would be describing the means through which it would create a perfectly equal distribution of all available resources, equal distribution of all money, and ensure that everyone has a job if they want one. What is coming to my mind at the moment is a command economic structure. I don't have a lot of good things to say about such structures, though I do have some good things to say about them.



Providing for peoples' basic needs with supplementary income, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, food provisions, housing provisions, freely accessible education/training, freely accessible medical care, and so forth seems to work pretty well at diminishing poverty and improving standards of living for the impoverished. Why jump to the next step and try to induce a perfectly equal distribution of all resources? The concept of diminishing returns comes to mind...



Simply put: Anarchism isn't defined as the absence of order. I'll let an Anarchist explain it since I'll probably muck it up somewhere in the middle.

The system of distribution would be difficult, as it would need constant and close monitoring, but not impossible and it is well worth working towards.

DID YOU JUST PROPOSE CENTRAL PLANNING!?!

well thats what a lot of those "communist" leaders do.

They are not true Communist. They are leaders who use the guise of being Communist to retain and justify their power.

You ain't 'true Communist' either, bud.

[Inyourfaceistan]

But greed is unnatural! (in my imaginary fantasy world)

The argument for greed is basically this: "People don't like living in a pig sty, therefore greed exists.

Nobodies argueing that we SHOULD be greedy. We are argueing that it exists and WILL ALWAYS exisist.
Even if you abolish money, people will find somthing to use as for their own necessity, enjoyment, or simply because they like having more than their neighbors.
You cannot ever eliminate the instinct of possession.

So why does average happiness flatline once all needs are fulfilled?

source?
I have never heard this before so I really would like a source.

I second this request.

[4years]

So why does average happiness flatline once all needs are fulfilled?

source?
I have never heard this before so I really would like a source.

Sources:

http://smu.edu.sg/perspectives/2012/06/ ... -happiness
http://positivepsychologynews.com/news/ ... 0080826990

For further reasearch into happiness:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hed ... z2D60YjsbE
http://www.thehappymovie.com/

[Blakk Metal]

The argument for greed is basically this: "People don't like living in a pig sty, therefore greed exists.

Nobodies argueing that we SHOULD be greedy. We are argueing that it exists and WILL ALWAYS exisist.
Even if you abolish money, people will find somthing to use as for their own necessity,

People don't need things by choice.

enjoyment,

Translation: "People don't like living in a pig sty, therefore greed exists."

or simply because they like having more than their neighbors.

Caused by the association of possession with status.

You cannot ever eliminate the instinct of possession.

Possession =/= mindless greed.

[Blakk Metal]

So why does average happiness flatline once all needs are fulfilled?

source?
I have never heard this before so I really would like a source.

http://www.science20.com/positive_psychology_digest/happiness_and_wealth

[Williamson]

how about this. Lets has this debate after a communist society survives for more than 5 years.

[Socialdemokraterne]

The system of distribution would be difficult, as it would need constant and close monitoring, but not impossible and it is well worth working towards.

You're absolutely right, it's not impossible to establish a command economy. It is, however, generally considered to be a very undesirable economic structure. Command economies are less efficient at allocating labour and resources, and it was this inefficiency which led to shortages and inconsistent work in the former CCCP (see: quota storming). Another problem with command economies is that centrally set wages tend to produce bottlenecks in production (see: wage reform in the USSR). Yet another problem with command economic structures is that money flows cannot be perfectly controlled by the central planning apparatus, and so markets and investment departing from the planned economic structure are essentially impossible to completely destroy.

With all this in mind, I promised that I had some good things to say about command economics. Command economics, when used on a temporary basis, can be remarkably effective at accomplishing very specific national objectives. The most common example is fighting a war.

We see how well these help programs have done for the poor, don't we? The results: many still poor, the greedy still prospering and uncaring for them.

There comes an eventual point where chasing greater levels of income equality stops solving your problems. The fact that there is no paradise on Earth does not invalidate the fact that there are places on Earth with phenomenal income equality, low levels of corruption, and first-class standards of living. My favorite example is Denmark. It's not a paradise, but it's a nice place to live comparatively speaking.