Capitalism vs. Communism

[Threlizdun]

There is a big difference between having a job/contributing and slavery(which is forced work in often inhumane conditions, you have no rights, and you work but get nothing or inadequate pay/supplies)

Slaves were given food so they wouldn't die. Likewise we are given capital to purchase food only if we work.

Capitalism is not "working for the greater good" it's "make as much money as possible any way possible and don't worry about the less fortunate". It also means "if you're rich, do want you want, you run the country."

Precisely, the poor are allowed to suffer because they don't serve "the greater good". You are only provided capital if you are doing something of percieved value to the greater society. The rich, who control more capital, are considered of greater value in comparison to others in society.

If people received resources for doing nothing, how many would simply do nothing? The idea of "contribute or get nothing" is to avoid freeloaders/lazy people profiting from those who actually work while they do nothing.

There are two factors that can prevent this. The first being the natural progression of technology eliminating the need for physical labor, which I see as all but inevitable. The second one and one that I still being present even with the first is the "work vs play" attitude to labor. Many individuals will still follow their passions even if they don't necessarily need to. Likewise, a fair amount may simply seek occasional work simply to provide them something to do. We can observe today high levels of "play" labor present in hunter-gatherer societies, which have individuals who still go out and provide for the community even though they often operate on a gift economic system.

This still does come down to an ultimate question however. Do you believe slavery should be allowed under any circumstance? Even if you believe it is necessary, the fact that it is slavery still remains.

[WestDeutcsheland]

My mom was born in USSR She knows about communisim.

So she knows about the mess it turned out to be.

[Disserbia]

Capitalism.

[WestDeutcsheland]

No. I'm wondering why Sibirsky said it's proven that capitalist societies are more free, and then turn around admitting no communist society on a national scale has been implemented.

Because every attempt at communism has resulted in clusterfucks like North Korea, the Soviet Union, Cuba, Cambodia and other shit. None of them good.

These are facts.

[Blakk Metal]

I honestly don't think it would create all that equal a society. The central bureaucracy is at a huge advantage in a centrally planned system, especially the members of its upper management.



You don't know what you're missing.

The major problem Communism has always had is finding leaders that won't become greedy and take more power/resources.

1. Communism, as a extreme form of libertarian socialism, has no leaders.
2. Unless your system chooses your leaders randomly and give them no reasonable chance of saying 'no', I can guarantee the leaders will be corrupt before they even get the job.

My mom was born in USSR She knows about communisim.

So she knows about the mess it turned out to be.

The U'SS'R wasn't communist at all.

Because every attempt at communism has resulted in clusterfucks like North Korea, the Soviet Union, Cuba, Cambodia and other shit. None of them good.

These are facts.

One attempt fails and spreads like a disease after doing so. Gimme real proof.

[Canis Rex]

There is a big difference between having a job/contributing and slavery(which is forced work in often inhumane conditions, you have no rights, and you work but get nothing or inadequate pay/supplies)

Slaves were given food so they wouldn't die. Likewise we are given capital to purchase food only if we work.

Capitalism is not "working for the greater good" it's "make as much money as possible any way possible and don't worry about the less fortunate". It also means "if you're rich, do want you want, you run the country."

Precisely, the poor are allowed to suffer because they don't serve "the greater good". You are only provided capital if you are doing something of percieved value to the greater society. The rich, who control more capital, are considered of greater value in comparison to others in society.

If people received resources for doing nothing, how many would simply do nothing? The idea of "contribute or get nothing" is to avoid freeloaders/lazy people profiting from those who actually work while they do nothing.

There are two factors that can prevent this. The first being the natural progression of technology eliminating the need for physical labor, which I see as all but inevitable. The second one and one that I still being present even with the first is the "work vs play" attitude to labor. Many individuals will still follow their passions even if they don't necessarily need to. Likewise, a fair amount may simply seek occasional work simply to provide them something to do. We can observe today high levels of "play" labor present in hunter-gatherer societies, which have individuals who still go out and provide for the community even though they often operate on a gift economic system.

This still does come down to an ultimate question however. Do you believe slavery should be allowed under any circumstance? Even if you believe it is necessary, the fact that it is slavery still remains.

Slaves were not always fed and even when they were, it was often crap or inadequate amounts. There is still the difference of conditions, and are you saying that those who do nothing should receive resources the same as those who actually work?
The poor often have a job(though inadequate in pay/conditions) or cannot find a job because the greedy capitalists refuse to hire them. The fact that money=power in capitalism is one of(if not the) biggest reasons I despise capitalism as it unfair and ignores all but the rich.
The progression of technology erasing labor has not happened and will need dealt with if it does, but as of now work is still needed.
I am aware of the "play" labor. When I say "those who do not contribute" I mean people who do literally nothing at all to help anyone or anything.
I do not believe in using slavery except against the worst criminals(murderers,rapists,etc.)

[Canis Rex]

The major problem Communism has always had is finding leaders that won't become greedy and take more power/resources.

1. Communism, as a extreme form of libertarian socialism, has no leaders.
2. Unless your system chooses your leaders randomly and give them no reasonable chance of saying 'no', I can guarantee the leaders will be corrupt before they even get the job.

So she knows about the mess it turned out to be.

The U'SS'R wasn't communist at all.

These are facts.

One attempt fails and spreads like a disease after doing so. Gimme real proof.

There will be people needed to overwatch the system of distribution, the police, infrastructure,etc. These would be the leaders.
Again, the problem for Communism being finding good leaders.

[Blakk Metal]

Slaves were given food so they wouldn't die. Likewise we are given capital to purchase food only if we work.
Precisely, the poor are allowed to suffer because they don't serve "the greater good". You are only provided capital if you are doing something of percieved value to the greater society. The rich, who control more capital, are considered of greater value in comparison to others in society.

There are two factors that can prevent this. The first being the natural progression of technology eliminating the need for physical labor, which I see as all but inevitable. The second one and one that I still being present even with the first is the "work vs play" attitude to labor. Many individuals will still follow their passions even if they don't necessarily need to. Likewise, a fair amount may simply seek occasional work simply to provide them something to do. We can observe today high levels of "play" labor present in hunter-gatherer societies, which have individuals who still go out and provide for the community even though they often operate on a gift economic system.

This still does come down to an ultimate question however. Do you believe slavery should be allowed under any circumstance? Even if you believe it is necessary, the fact that it is slavery still remains.

Slaves were not always fed and even when they were, it was often crap or inadequate amounts. There is still the difference of conditions, and are you saying that those who do nothing should receive resources the same as those who actually work?

In the Ottoman Empire, slaves ruled over whole cities and had significant power over the empire.

I am aware of the "play" labor. When I say "those who do not contribute" I mean people who do literally nothing at all to help anyone or anything.

1. You have no right to the work of others. They have the right to life.
2. The lazy tend to die faster anyways.

I do not believe in using slavery except against the worst criminals(murderers,rapists,etc.)

Rights can't be revoked.

[Threlizdun]

Slaves were not always fed and even when they were, it was often crap or inadequate amounts.

Certainly, though most would generally wish to provide their slaves with enough to survive, as a dead slave was useless to them.

There is still the difference of conditions

Of course, though they are still slaves nonetheless

and are you saying that those who do nothing should receive resources the same as those who actually work?

Absolutely

The poor often have a job(though inadequate in pay/conditions) or cannot find a job because the greedy capitalists refuse to hire them. The fact that money=power in capitalism is one of(if not the) biggest reasons I despise capitalism as it unfair and ignores all but the rich.

Capitalism is still founded in collectivist principles, though it certainly does favor those who control the most capital. I'll certainly agree with you that this is one of the many problems of capitalism.

The progression of technology erasing labor has not happened and will need dealt with if it does, but as of now work is still needed.

Perhaps, though I personally find that a society that requires slave labor to exist is a society that does not deserve to exist in the first place.

I am aware of the "play" labor. When I say "those who do not contribute" I mean people who do literally nothing at all to help anyone or anything.

My arguement of "play" labor was simply that refusal to work wouldn't be as widespread as believed.

I do not believe in using slavery except against the worst criminals(murderers,rapists,etc.)

As with any form of slavery, I still find this completely repulsive, though it also still illustrates your denial that you advocate slavery as a basis of society.

There will be people needed to overwatch the system of distribution, the police, infrastructure,etc. These would be the leaders.
Again, the problem for Communism being finding good leaders.

Ah, there's your problem. You are confusing communism with authoritarian state capitalism.

[Socialdemokraterne]

The major problem Communism has always had is finding leaders that won't become greedy and take more power/resources. I believe this is the main reason for pure Communism never being sucessfully implemented.(That and outside attacks)

See, here's the thing: it's not really just corrupt leaders like Stalin that made the CCCP a terrible place to live. Like I said before, the command economy itself was part of the problem. The planning apparatus of a pure command economy dictates supply with quotas and dictates demand with physical rationing. What to invest in, how to set wages, what to research, how to allocate labour and resources, all of these are determined by the planning apparatus instead of by the individual firm's management. This makes the system incredibly insensitive to actual levels of demand, makes adjusting supply levels a bureaucratic nightmare, and stifles creativity which might otherwise lend itself to making the economy run more efficiently. And the bigger and more complex the economy, the worse this becomes. The current PRC is an interesting case, but if you look at the period predating Xiaoping's reforms you'll see that my argument still holds quite nicely.

Mainstream economics absolutely acknowledges the value of government intervention in the economy, from the Neoclassical Synthesists to the New Keynesians. But the mainstream schools also warn that too strong a government intervention or an intervention under inappropriate conditions will inflict more harm than it will help. The key is to try to find a happy medium between market and command tactics, a medium which resolves the market and government failures relevant to the issue of interest.

I've been hearing good things about Denmark, seems like a nice place.

Denmark is among a great many wonderful places, but it has a special place in my heart.

[Canis Rex]

Slaves were not always fed and even when they were, it was often crap or inadequate amounts. There is still the difference of conditions, and are you saying that those who do nothing should receive resources the same as those who actually work?

In the Ottoman Empire, slaves ruled over whole cities and had significant power over the empire.

I am aware of the "play" labor. When I say "those who do not contribute" I mean people who do literally nothing at all to help anyone or anything.

1. You have no right to the work of others. They have the right to life.
2. The lazy tend to die faster anyways.

I do not believe in using slavery except against the worst criminals(murderers,rapists,etc.)

Rights can't be revoked.

The Ottoman Empire would be an incredible exception then, as this is the first time I've heard of slaves having power and how could they be slaves if they had power?
Are you trying to say having a job means you have no life? The lazy will need to work or they may very well die.
After what those criminals(murderers,rapists,etc.) have done, the only right they deserve is to be kept alive to work and contribute as much to society as they can.

[New Rogernomics]

Because I am feeling sick and tired. Capitalism is paying for sex so you can obtain it, Communism is having to share sex with your neighbours; both suck i.e. if you can't afford to woe a significant other and don't have money, or if your neighbours are ugly hunchbacks.

[Canis Rex]

Slaves were not always fed and even when they were, it was often crap or inadequate amounts.

Certainly, though most would generally wish to provide their slaves with enough to survive, as a dead slave was useless to them.

There is still the difference of conditions

Of course, though they are still slaves nonetheless

and are you saying that those who do nothing should receive resources the same as those who actually work?

Absolutely

The poor often have a job(though inadequate in pay/conditions) or cannot find a job because the greedy capitalists refuse to hire them. The fact that money=power in capitalism is one of(if not the) biggest reasons I despise capitalism as it unfair and ignores all but the rich.

Capitalism is still founded in collectivist principles, though it certainly does favor those who control the most capital. I'll certainly agree with you that this is one of the many problems of capitalism.

The progression of technology erasing labor has not happened and will need dealt with if it does, but as of now work is still needed.

Perhaps, though I personally find that a society that requires slave labor to exist is a society that does not deserve to exist in the first place.

I am aware of the "play" labor. When I say "those who do not contribute" I mean people who do literally nothing at all to help anyone or anything.

My arguement of "play" labor was simply that refusal to work wouldn't be as widespread as believed.

I do not believe in using slavery except against the worst criminals(murderers,rapists,etc.)

As with any form of slavery, I still find this completely repulsive, though it also still illustrates your denial that you advocate slavery as a basis of society.

There will be people needed to overwatch the system of distribution, the police, infrastructure,etc. These would be the leaders.
Again, the problem for Communism being finding good leaders.

Ah, there's your problem. You are confusing communism with authoritarian state capitalism.

If there was a steady supply of slaves, I doubt many slave owners would care if some died, and there is still the fact of terrible food if given enough.
I believe you and me have different definitions of slavery.
The lazy profiting from the working for doing nothing is plain unfair and I see no reason it should be done.
The fact of money=power in capitalism is unfair and is why I wish for the fall of capitalism.
The only slaves would be the worst criminals who deserve no better.
There would still be some lazy who refuse to work.
The criminals I advocate for slavery deserve no better.(murderers,rapists,etc.)
Define what Communism and then authoritarian state capitalism mean to you.

[Canis Rex]

The major problem Communism has always had is finding leaders that won't become greedy and take more power/resources. I believe this is the main reason for pure Communism never being sucessfully implemented.(That and outside attacks)

See, here's the thing: it's not really just corrupt leaders like Stalin that made the CCCP a terrible place to live. Like I said before, the command economy itself was part of the problem. The planning apparatus of a pure command economy dictates supply with quotas and dictates demand with physical rationing. What to invest in, how to set wages, what to research, how to allocate labour and resources, all of these are determined by the planning apparatus instead of by the individual firm's management. This makes the system incredibly insensitive to actual levels of demand, makes adjusting supply levels a bureaucratic nightmare, and stifles creativity which might otherwise lend itself to making the economy run more efficiently. And the bigger and more complex the economy, the worse this becomes. The current PRC is an interesting case, but if you look at the period predating Xiaoping's reforms you'll see that my argument still holds quite nicely.

Mainstream economics absolutely acknowledges the value of government intervention in the economy, from the Neoclassical Synthesists to the New Keynesians. But the mainstream schools also warn that too strong a government intervention or an intervention under inappropriate conditions will inflict more harm than it will help. The key is to try to find a happy medium between market and command tactics, a medium which resolves the market and government failures relevant to the issue of interest.

I've been hearing good things about Denmark, seems like a nice place.

Denmark is among a great many wonderful places, but it has a special place in my heart.

I don't wish to see quotas and rationing applied. By "distribution of resources" I mean money, a job,etc.not essentials such as food and water.(Ex: you can pursue whatever job you want, but say you can't find one, you would only need to talk to a "monitor/observer" and you would be given one. You could then use the money as you please, not to get rations. I don't want people being told what job to do if they can find one they want, nor do I wish for people to be told how much food,water,etc. they can have.)

[Socialdemokraterne]

Rights can't be revoked.

Rights do not exist naturally, they must be acknowledged (whether voluntarily or by force) in order to have any meaning whatsoever. Loss of that acknowledgement (not mere incidental violation) means loss of that right, its effective revocation. If a group prevents voters from submitting their ballot with impunity and these voters cannot overcome this somehow, their right of suffrage has been revoked. It must be reestablished somehow in order to have any further meaning.

No rights are natural, but there are many rights which ought to be treated as though they were.

[Socialdemokraterne]

I don't wish to see quotas and rationing applied. By "distribution of resources" I mean money, a job,etc.not essentials such as food and water.(Ex: you can pursue whatever job you want, but say you can't find one, you would only need to talk to a "monitor/observer" and you would be given one. You could then use the money as you please, not to get rations. I don't want people being told what job to do if they can find one they want, nor do I wish for people to be told how much food,water,etc. they can have.)

Are you dividing money perfectly evenly across the entire society? That is, all firms' profits and all workers' wages are tallied up and then divided by the current adult population?

[Blakk Metal]

Rights can't be revoked.

Rights do not exist naturally, they must be acknowledged (whether voluntarily or by force) in order to have any meaning whatsoever. Loss of that acknowledgement (not mere incidental violation) means loss of that right, its effective revocation. If a group prevents voters from submitting their ballot with impunity and these voters cannot overcome this somehow, their right of suffrage has been revoked. It must be reestablished somehow in order to have any further meaning.

No rights are natural, but there are many rights which ought to be treated as though they were.

If you value something enough to call it a right, you don't revoke it for bad behavior.

[Sociobiology]

Rights do not exist naturally, they must be acknowledged (whether voluntarily or by force) in order to have any meaning whatsoever. Loss of that acknowledgement (not mere incidental violation) means loss of that right, its effective revocation. If a group prevents voters from submitting their ballot with impunity and these voters cannot overcome this somehow, their right of suffrage has been revoked. It must be reestablished somehow in order to have any further meaning.

No rights are natural, but there are many rights which ought to be treated as though they were.

If you value something enough to call it a right, you don't revoke it for bad behavior.

it depends on the behavior, I'm fine with suspending your right to self-determination if you commit murder.

[Radorn]

I don't wish to see quotas and rationing applied. By "distribution of resources" I mean money, a job,etc.not essentials such as food and water.(Ex: you can pursue whatever job you want, but say you can't find one, you would only need to talk to a "monitor/observer" and you would be given one. You could then use the money as you please, not to get rations. I don't want people being told what job to do if they can find one they want, nor do I wish for people to be told how much food,water,etc. they can have.)

Are you dividing money perfectly evenly across the entire society? That is, all firms' profits and all workers' wages are tallied up and then divided by the current adult population?

The system would be that all wages are the same, not adding different wages together, as I believe this would be much more difficult. The actual "distribution" of money,jobs,etc. would happen once Communism took power. After everything is distributed, the system would be to monitor and ensure no one starts getting greedy.

[Blakk Metal]

If you value something enough to call it a right, you don't revoke it for bad behavior.

it depends on the behavior, I'm fine with suspending your right to self-determination if you commit murder.

If an organization can kidnap people morally, then freedom of movement never existed to begin with.

[Sociobiology]

it depends on the behavior, I'm fine with suspending your right to self-determination if you commit murder.

If an organization can kidnap people morally, then freedom of movement never existed to begin with.

unless of course they agreed to it by staying in the state when they turned 18.

[Blakk Metal]

If an organization can kidnap people morally, then freedom of movement never existed to begin with.

unless of course they agreed to it by staying in the state when they turned 18.

Like how people in sweatshops chose to work in shitty conditions...

[Sociobiology]

unless of course they agreed to it by staying in the state when they turned 18.

Like how people in sweatshops chose to work in shitty conditions...

which they do because it is better than the alternative. I don't have a problem with the people who work at the sweatshop, don't know about you. I have a problem with the owners offering such low wages, and the owners in my analogy is nature, offering humans a shitty deal from the get go.

[Blakk Metal]

If an organization can kidnap people morally, then freedom of movement never existed to begin with.

unless of course they agreed to it by staying in the state when they turned 18.

And you agree to cut your dick off by being within 12,000 miles from my house.

[Jassysworth 1]

unless of course they agreed to it by staying in the state when they turned 18.

And you agree to cut your dick off by being within 12,000 miles from my house.

You'll probably find that he'd agree to no such thing... What's your point?