Capitalism vs. Communism

[4years]

Oh my god. Benjamin Franklin said it, you guys. It must be true.

V for Vendetta, a rather socialist movie, had the same message.

So now we are using movies to form political theory?

[Kvatchdom]

V for Vendetta, a rather socialist movie, had the same message.

So now we are using movies to from political theory?

I mean that the fact that a capitalist is using something used by communists to attack communism, is ironic.

[Zottistan]

V for Vendetta, a rather socialist movie, had the same message.

So now we are using movies to from political theory?

My entire economic stance is based on The Lord of the Rings.

[The Transvaal]

South Africa (my country) was the first country in the world who by Law banned communism,
I.o.w it was ilegal to be communists just saying, and i agree

[Divair]

South Africa (my country) was the first country in the world who by Law banned communism,
I.o.w it was ilegal to be communists just saying, and i agree

Nothing like banning political ideologies you disagree with.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

South Africa (my country) was the first country in the world who by Law banned communism,
I.o.w it was ilegal to be communists just saying, and i agree

South Africa also kept its black population as second-class citizens for nearly half a century after WWII taught people that racism was bad.

[Conscentia]

South Africa (my country) was the first country in the world who by Law banned communism,
I.o.w it was ilegal to be communists just saying, and i agree

South Africa also kept its black population as second-class citizens for nearly half a century after WWII taught people that racism was bad.

There were non-racists before WW2.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

South Africa also kept its black population as second-class citizens for nearly half a century after WWII taught people that racism was bad.

There were non-racists before WW2.

I'm aware of that. However, WWII was the ultimate example of where racism gets you, and yet SA's white minority chose not to listen.

WWII and its aftermath also showed that you shouldn't trust Stalinist "communists" or Nazis.

[Inyourfaceistan]

South Africa (my country) was the first country in the world who by Law banned communism,
I.o.w it was ilegal to be communists just saying, and i agree

I despise communists, I despise communism. However, suppression of rival ideologies is tyrranical and outright unjustified.

[4years]

So now we are using movies to from political theory?

I mean that the fact that a capitalist is using something used by communists to attack communism, is ironic.

I use Adam Smith to attack capitalism on occasion.

[4years]

South Africa (my country) was the first country in the world who by Law banned communism,
I.o.w it was ilegal to be communists just saying, and i agree

Because political repression is effecitve and justified. Oh wait...

[Wind in the Willows]

Deleted.

[Conscentia]

I despise communists, I despise communism.

I don't understand why. They (communists) also wish to abolish the state.

[4years]

Definitely Capitalism.

Why?

[Socialdemokraterne]

You essentially have to wage war on all the private firms in the world and anyone else who wants to hold on to his right to buy and sell... and that's not just the big ''evil'' corporations, it's also the common entrepreneur, and just your basic family types who want to hold on to what they worked for all of their lives. There is no conceivable situation where everyone is just going to say... ''Alright let's put our faith in communism and let's just hand everything over.''' NOT going to happen when so many people wield so much power and influence with the status quo.

So to get to communism, where you want no classes and no state, you are going to have to do a lot of expropriating. Hence why communism is a violent ideology.

Yes, control of the means of production is to be transferred from private owners to either workers or the general public. No, this need not necessarily occur violently. It need not necessarily even occur through coercion, so expropriation is the wrong word. It's entirely possible that the transfer of control over the means of production be a voluntary exchange. I can think of three ways this might happen right off the top of my head:

Imagine this: suppose automobile workers desire to take control of all the factories that their firm controls. They gather together into an organized unit and surrender a part of their after-tax paychecks every week. Over time, a fund large enough to purchase the firm at a fair price is accumulated. The workers' representative then comes before the executive board of the firm and makes known the desire to purchase the firm. The executive board considers the proposal, consults with the investors and the firm's partners, and all agree to the workers' terms. The workers now collectively own the automobile firm they work for, giving birth to a worker's cooperative.

Now imagine this: suppose the same automobile manufacturing firm, only the executives refused the workers' offer. Eventually the firm goes through a very rough period, and investors are jumping ship. The company is doomed, and its assets go up for sale. The workers take the money they collected, buy up the assets, and transform the firm into a cooperative.

Now imagine this: suppose the same automobile manufacturing firm with the same problems as in the second case, only now the workers didn't gather funds to buy up the assets. The assets are put up for sale, and the government buys up a substantial portion of them. The government then restructures these assets into a workers' cooperative.

Since I just gave you three entirely conceivable voluntary exchanges resulting in a transfer of control of the means of production in an automobile manufacturing firm to the workers, I believe the problem of "expropriation" has been resolved. There are voluntary ways to transfer that control, both in the presence and absence of economic strife on the part of the firm over which control is disputed.

From there it's a matter of moving away from a money system and abolishing the state, neither of which I think are particularly good ideas. But let's try anyway:

Abolition of the state without violence is a subject covered by reformists and gradualists. Essentially from what I gather the idea is to institute popular reforms which result in a slow transformation of the economy into a socialist one (perhaps through a process not altogether unlike the scenarios above?), and once the process has been completed initiate reforms to eliminate government agencies' force monopolies one by one (probably first in the form of decentralization of power so it is held as close to the local level as possible).

A system which doesn't use money still has to have some sort of mode of exchange. I'm not altogether certain I understand how such a thing would work, maybe a gift economy or bartering.

And ONCE you get to a classless and statesless form, you'll need further violence to keep things there. Because how else are you going to stop people from wanting to take risks again and start up businesses to amass profits again? How else are you going to stop people who will try to amass power using private armies/massed resources/supporters to try and form a dominant class?

Presumably by the time you get to a system which may be appropriately called a socialist one the process described above has been entirely completed. That would mean that all of the means of production are worker controlled and all available resources are already being put to use, so there's nothing around for the private interests to seize control of anymore. There's just a big, flashing "No Vacancy" sign.

As for violent expropriation of worker-controlled or collectively owned property and resources by means of private armies, sure that could happen. You could pay your men in food, company, shelter, and status, money isn't needed to gather an army with which to seize factories and fields and there will always be people willing to fight for such armies. But keep this in mind: if the capitalist resorts to such tactics he has in so doing climbed off of the moral high horse from which he once shouted that all economic exchanges should be voluntary and himself become an expropriator.

And from what I gather, you don't seem all that miffed by the notion of bringing down expropriation through the use of force, whether violent or not. So why does it bother you when the community that the capitalist is attacking turns its guns on him and kills him? It's entirely conceivable that all the property they hold and have chosen to use collectively was obtained entirely through voluntary exchanges with the previous holders. The capitalist holds no inherent moral high ground and thus no inherent victim status.

THAT is my objection to communism. You'll need to kill a lot of people and expropriate a lot of people to even get there. The objection is not towards the use of force in general, but towards the additional use of force.

I certainly hope I've demonstrated that additional force need not be employed and that what force would be present in the later system would not necessarily be without merit. I also hope I've illustrated that people don't just have to throw their hands in the air and say "YAY! Let's all be Communists!!!" in order to transfer control of the means of production over to workers or the general public.

Finally, I hope I've made it abundantly clear that I'm just trying to give socialism and communism their fair shake at an analysis. I'm not endorsing socialism or communism (note I said that a moneyless, stateless system in general might not necessarily be such a good idea). I'm a social democrat and a social capitalist. You'll find various forms of my preferred political and economic arrangements in Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, not in the tomes of Marx and Trotsky.

[Blakk Metal]

Nerdrage.

Good argument, bro

Yours is epic.

[quote=Francois Tremblay]14. Possession is no different from property.

Property is the absolute right to enjoy and dispose of a given object, the "ultimate decision-making power" over that object, as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's absolute and ultimate power over their own objects. When we say, "this is my property," we imply that we are empowered to do absolutely anything we want with it. Possession, on the other hand, does not recognize such absolutism. Any conception of ownership which is not ultimate or absolute is necessarily not property. For instance, without the right to usury, there can be no property. Without the right to destroy or sell, there can be no property. Any form of ownership which can be nullified without the owner's will or death is not property. Conceptions of possession exclude one or many of these rights or rules, sometimes all.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Good argument, bro

Yours is epic. Yah, because "nerd rage" was clearly a well informed comeback

[/spoiler]

Except it's not empowerment over someone, it's empowerment over something. I'm not hurting anybody by finding a rock, and doing whatever I want with said rock.

You are when you use that rock and social conditions to force people to work for you.

You, however, are advocating some other human force tell me what I can and cannot do with an inanimate object, and yet I'm the one in the hot seat for authoritarianism?

Property is a positive right, not a negative one.

http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/the-voluntaryist-delusion/

1) Don't sign said contract

If you don't sign a contract, you will most likely die. Since when?

2) If it is an serious violation of human rights, or previous standing law, then yes, the government should intervene. (yes, you did just witness IYFistan advocate govt. intervention)

And slaves ruled whole provinces in the Ottoman Empire. So? 'Slavery' is 'slavery'. Yes, because getting paid for work you do, that no one ever forced you to do is "slavery". I'm pretty sure those conquered peoples under Rome and the African-Americans living in the pre-Civil War South would definitley sympathize with the unjust oppression you suffer!

So only terrorists are real Muslims...

That racist implication has absolutley nothing to do with the stated point. Because, also drawing from other people previous posts, the real capitalists are simply the burgouise class, tyrranicly paying more in taxes and investing in upcoming entrepreneurs. I simply retaliated to such claims by pointing out, that just as I am clearly not a true capitalist, you all are not true communists, waging your war for equality from the raging frontlines of your computer, out to change to world, one post on NS at a time.

Of course you aren't a capitalist. A capitalist is one who uses private property to exploit others.

Then by that logic a communist is one who uses the lie of "classless, moneyless society of equals" to lure the masses into establishing a totalitarian regime for him through use of violence.

Your complaints could be lobbed at any Westphalian state, which is by definition an institution which bears a monopoly on the use of force within a set boundary. They require force to be established, they require force to be maintained. As an advocate of the continuation of Westphalian states I don't see a monopoly over the use of force as something to be inherently opposed. I simply provide the prerequisites that the entity in charge of deciding what force is to be applied and how be publicly controlled and that all members of the public have an exactly equal amount of control. These prerequisites are met by a large number of Westphalian states and in a variety of ways, such as the systems present in the United States, the UK, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Austria, France, Canada, and countless others.

Are you an Anarchist?



...have you ever actually played a Super Mario Bros. game? You take on the role of a plumber who is seeking to win the favor of an aristocrat and gathering golden coins along the way. The fact that there is an aristocracy and gold coins scattered about means that the Mushroom Kingdom is not a communist society.



Are you an Anarchist? You seem to really, really hate force.

WOW you totally are missing his point. Communism Capitalism is Serfdom forced labor because you are using force to maintain populations of worker classes for the "state's" exploitation 'job creators'. Where is the self determination in communism capitalism?
Most communist capitalist writings refer directly to using force to change maintain the status quo. I don't know of any capitalist writings that validate the use of force to maintain the status quo. A free market can have evil actors but it doesn't actively support evil acts. Communist supports evil acts to validate establish and maintain its existence, it says you do these bad things, make convince people do these other things and good stuff will happen.
Capitalism says don't do these bad things and hopefully everyone will act responsible and good things will happen.

You know what really gets me? Communists who say their atheists, cause god knows they either have boundless amounts of faith. Or the don't realize for them communism is "god."

(I really don't care if someone is a communist atheist as long as you don't want me to be one too, does amuse me tho. I guess i should preemptively apologize for writing a trolly statement there but i do feel it.)

Corrected. More like trolled.

Your complaints could be lobbed at any Westphalian state, which is by definition an institution which bears a monopoly on the use of force within a set boundary. They require force to be established, they require force to be maintained. As an advocate of the continuation of Westphalian states I don't see a monopoly over the use of force as something to be inherently opposed. I simply provide the prerequisites that the entity in charge of deciding what force is to be applied and how be publicly controlled and that all members of the public have an exactly equal amount of control. These prerequisites are met by a large number of Westphalian states and in a variety of ways, such as the systems present in the United States, the UK, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Austria, France, Canada, and countless others.

Are you an Anarchist?



...have you ever actually played a Super Mario Bros. game? You take on the role of a plumber who is seeking to win the favor of an aristocrat and gathering golden coins along the way. The fact that there is an aristocracy and gold coins scattered about means that the Mushroom Kingdom is not a communist society.



Are you an Anarchist? You seem to really, really hate force.

I am not an anarchist either.

Some force from the government is always a necessary evil (ie why we have police and military forces for example).

However, what I was emphasizing here is that while communism may claim to be non-violent (at least the version you guys are so fond of), it has to require violence to implement and it has to require violence to maintain.

Why? Because right now we live in a world with classes and with a state. You want to abolish both. How are you going do this without violence?

You essentially have to wage war on all the private firms in the world and anyone else who wants to hold on to his right to buy and sell... and that's not just the big ''evil'' corporations, it's also the common entrepreneur, and just your basic family types who want to hold on to what they worked for all of their lives. There is no conceivable situation where everyone is just going to say... ''Alright let's put our faith in communism and let's just hand everything over.''' NOT going to happen when so many people wield so much power and influence with the status quo.

So to get to communism, where you want no classes and no state, you are going to have to do a lot of expropriating. Hence why communism is a violent ideology.

And ONCE you get to a classless and statesless form, you'll need further violence to keep things there. Because how else are you going to stop people from wanting to take risks again and start up businesses to amass profits again? How else are you going to stop people who will try to amass power using private armies/massed resources/supporters to try and form a dominant class?

Violence will get us to communism, and you'll need violence to keep it there (lest you accept businesses run for profit springing up again and a few people getting more power over others).

THAT is my objection to communism. You'll need to kill a lot of people and expropriate a lot of people to even get there. The objection is not towards the use of force in general, but towards the additional use of force.

Yes with the status quo the state uses some violence (with the police and the military for example). However, to get to communism you'll need MORE violence. Unless you think you can somehow convince all the corporations to just hand over everything they have for the public good...

Hence why I think when people are talking about a non-violent form of communism and establishing communism through completely non-violent means, they really don't understand how things work on the ground right now. Millions of people are not just going to say... ''OK let's hand everything we've worked for over to the community and trust communism.'' They will fight if you are serious about implementing this stuff... and a LOT of people will be killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_strike[/quote]

Your link dosent work, and your arguments are little more than unsupported trolling blurbs.

[Blakk Metal]

Yours is epic. Yah, because "nerd rage" was clearly a well informed comeback

You are when you use that rock and social conditions to force people to work for you.

Property is a positive right, not a negative one.

If you don't sign a contract, you will most likely die. Since when?

Since you had to work to eat.

And slaves ruled whole provinces in the Ottoman Empire. So? 'Slavery' is 'slavery'. Yes, because getting paid for work you do, that no one ever forced you to do is "slavery". I'm pretty sure those conquered peoples under Rome and the African-Americans living in the pre-Civil War South would definitley sympathize with the unjust oppression you suffer!

'Slavery' was in quotes.

That racist implication has absolutley nothing to do with the stated point. Because, also drawing from other people previous posts, the real capitalists are simply the burgouise class, tyrranicly paying more in taxes and investing in upcoming entrepreneurs. I simply retaliated to such claims by pointing out, that just as I am clearly not a true capitalist, you all are not true communists, waging your war for equality from the raging frontlines of your computer, out to change to world, one post on NS at a time.

Of course you aren't a capitalist. A capitalist is one who uses private property to exploit others.

Then by that logic a communist is one who uses the lie of "classless, moneyless society of equals" to lure the masses into establishing a totalitarian regime for him through use of violence.

Supporter of capitalism =/= capitalist
Supporter of communism = communist

WOW you totally are missing his point. Communism Capitalism is Serfdom forced labor because you are using force to maintain populations of worker classes for the "state's" exploitation 'job creators'. Where is the self determination in communism capitalism?
Most communist capitalist writings refer directly to using force to change maintain the status quo. I don't know of any capitalist writings that validate the use of force to maintain the status quo. A free market can have evil actors but it doesn't actively support evil acts. Communist supports evil acts to validate establish and maintain its existence, it says you do these bad things, make convince people do these other things and good stuff will happen.
Capitalism says don't do these bad things and hopefully everyone will act responsible and good things will happen.

You know what really gets me? Communists who say their atheists, cause god knows they either have boundless amounts of faith. Or the don't realize for them communism is "god."

(I really don't care if someone is a communist atheist as long as you don't want me to be one too, does amuse me tho. I guess i should preemptively apologize for writing a trolly statement there but i do feel it.)

Corrected. More like trolled.

It's not trolling. The mods said so.

Your link dosent work,

Here's the correct link.

and your arguments are little more than unsupported trolling blurbs.

Please don't flame sans arguments.

[Inyourfaceistan]

You essentially have to wage war on all the private firms in the world and anyone else who wants to hold on to his right to buy and sell... and that's not just the big ''evil'' corporations, it's also the common entrepreneur, and just your basic family types who want to hold on to what they worked for all of their lives. There is no conceivable situation where everyone is just going to say... ''Alright let's put our faith in communism and let's just hand everything over.''' NOT going to happen when so many people wield so much power and influence with the status quo.

So to get to communism, where you want no classes and no state, you are going to have to do a lot of expropriating. Hence why communism is a violent ideology.

Yes, control of the means of production is to be transferred from private owners to either workers or the general public. No, this need not necessarily occur violently. It need not necessarily even occur through coercion, so expropriation is the wrong word. It's entirely possible that the transfer of control over the means of production be a voluntary exchange. I can think of three ways this might happen right off the top of my head:

Imagine this: suppose automobile workers desire to take control of all the factories that their firm controls. They gather together into an organized unit and surrender a part of their after-tax paychecks every week. Over time, a fund large enough to purchase the firm at a fair price is accumulated. The workers' representative then comes before the executive board of the firm and makes known the desire to purchase the firm. The executive board considers the proposal, consults with the investors and the firm's partners, and all agree to the workers' terms. The workers now collectively own the automobile firm they work for, giving birth to a worker's cooperative.

Now imagine this: suppose the same automobile manufacturing firm, only the executives refused the workers' offer. Eventually the firm goes through a very rough period, and investors are jumping ship. The company is doomed, and its assets go up for sale. The workers take the money they collected, buy up the assets, and transform the firm into a cooperative.

Now imagine this: suppose the same automobile manufacturing firm with the same problems as in the second case, only now the workers didn't gather funds to buy up the assets. The assets are put up for sale, and the government buys up a substantial portion of them. The government then restructures these assets into a workers' cooperative.

The first of those are valid possibilities, and there is nothing wrong with that happening, as it could just as likely happen in a Capitalist system.

Since I just gave you three entirely conceivable voluntary exchanges resulting in a transfer of control of the means of production in an automobile manufacturing firm to the workers, I believe the problem of "expropriation" has been resolved. There are voluntary ways to transfer that control, both in the presence and absence of economic strife on the part of the firm over which control is disputed.

*potentialy. In theory that's a respectable plausibility, however what happens when 50% (I'm really giving you benefit of estimation there) of industry dosent hand over control?

From there it's a matter of moving away from a money system and abolishing the state, neither of which I think are particularly good ideas. But let's try anyway:

Abolition of the state without violence is a subject covered by reformists and gradualists. Essentially from what I gather the idea is to institute popular reforms which result in a slow transformation of the economy into a socialist one (perhaps through a process not altogether unlike the scenarios above?), and once the process has been completed initiate reforms to eliminate government agencies' force monopolies one by one (probably first in the form of decentralization of power so it is held as close to the local level as possible).

A system which doesn't use money still has to have some sort of mode of exchange. I'm not altogether certain I understand how such a thing would work, maybe a gift economy or bartering.

And ONCE you get to a classless and statesless form, you'll need further violence to keep things there. Because how else are you going to stop people from wanting to take risks again and start up businesses to amass profits again? How else are you going to stop people who will try to amass power using private armies/massed resources/supporters to try and form a dominant class?

Presumably by the time you get to a system which may be appropriately called a socialist one the process described above has been entirely completed. That would mean that all of the means of production are worker controlled and all available resources are already being put to use, so there's nothing around for the private interests to seize control of anymore. There's just a big, flashing "No Vacancy" sign.

But what if person X discovers a new resource, or invents a new product? You now have a monopoly...

As for violent expropriation of worker-controlled or collectively owned property and resources by means of private armies, sure that could happen. You could pay your men in food, company, shelter, and status, money isn't needed to gather an army with which to seize factories and fields and there will always be people willing to fight for such armies. But keep this in mind: if the capitalist resorts to such tactics he has in so doing climbed off of the moral high horse from which he once shouted that all economic exchanges should be voluntary and himself become an expropriator.

Does it even need be the Capitalist who is the one army building? What if one man in the commune wants power for himself and his associates? It could be anybody attempting a power grab, and once they gain control over a number of means of production, what's there to stop them from establishing a totalitarian regime?

And from what I gather, you don't seem all that miffed by the notion of bringing down expropriation through the use of force, whether violent or not. So why does it bother you when the community that the capitalist is attacking turns its guns on him and kills him? It's entirely conceivable that all the property they hold and have chosen to use collectively was obtained entirely through voluntary exchanges with the previous holders. The capitalist holds no inherent moral high ground and thus no inherent victim status.

THAT is my objection to communism. You'll need to kill a lot of people and expropriate a lot of people to even get there. The objection is not towards the use of force in general, but towards the additional use of force.

I certainly hope I've demonstrated that additional force need not be employed and that what force would be present in the later system would not necessarily be without merit. I also hope I've illustrated that people don't just have to throw their hands in the air and say "YAY! Let's all be Communists!!!" in order to transfer control of the means of production over to workers or the general public.

Finally, I hope I've made it abundantly clear that I'm just trying to give socialism and communism their fair shake at an analysis. I'm not endorsing socialism or communism (note I said that a moneyless, stateless system in general might not necessarily be such a good idea). I'm a social democrat and a social capitalist. You'll find various forms of my preferred political and economic arrangements in Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, not in the tomes of Marx and Trotsky.

Understandable. As I said earlier, I'm an Anarchist at heart, but realistically I favor a small democratic-republic with a system of lazzez-faire capitalism.

[Meryuma]

I do want to point out though that communism stands on the moral absolutism that what is good for most people is good for society and that is a horrible concept because it refuses to accept the beauty of variety. Communism doesn't tend to allow variance in culture as it is the worst form the Majority taxing the minority.

There are individualistic communists.

[Eldritch Love]

I do want to point out though that communism stands on the moral absolutism that what is good for most people is good for society and that is a horrible concept because it refuses to accept the beauty of variety. Communism doesn't tend to allow variance in culture as it is the worst form the Majority taxing the minority.

There are individualistic communists.

Ok ill bite what is an individual communist? How does that differ from a group?

[Eldritch Love]

WOW you totally are missing his point. Communism Capitalism is Serfdom forced labor because you are using force to maintain populations of worker classes for the "state's" exploitation 'job creators'. Where is the self determination in communism capitalism?
Most communist capitalist writings refer directly to using force to change maintain the status quo. I don't know of any capitalist writings that validate the use of force to maintain the status quo. A free market can have evil actors but it doesn't actively support evil acts. Communist supports evil acts to validate establish and maintain its existence, it says you do these bad things, make convince people do these other things and good stuff will happen.
Capitalism says don't do these bad things and hopefully everyone will act responsible and good things will happen.

Please site a capitalist manifesto that proposed force as a valid way to maintain the status quo. If you can't it is technically trolling, not that i care.

[Meryuma]

There are individualistic communists.

Ok ill bite what is an individual communist? How does that differ from a group?

Well, I'm using it in the sense of an anarchist communist who prioritizes personal fulfillment and rejects the individual/collective dichotomy, for instance the For Ourselves collective.

[Eldritch Love]

Ok ill bite what is an individual communist? How does that differ from a group?

Well, I'm using it in the sense of an anarchist communist who prioritizes personal fulfillment and rejects the individual/collective dichotomy, for instance the For Ourselves collective.

hmmm, will educate myself before i respond in detail, interesting tho...

Quick question, Does this system use a form of money? Trying to trace it out through the links.

[Meryuma]

Well, I'm using it in the sense of an anarchist communist who prioritizes personal fulfillment and rejects the individual/collective dichotomy, for instance the For Ourselves collective.

hmmm, will educate myself before i respond in detail, interesting tho...

Quick question, Does this system use a form of money? Trying to trace it out through the links.

Of course not, it's communism.