Capitalism vs. Communism

[Arumdaum]

All state controlled and all market controlled are HORRIBLE ideas. There needs to be a free market, with sensible regulations that protect consumers and ensures fair, competitive societies.

respecting civil rights/liberties should be the priority of any society.

Actually, no.

The lack of a state is essential in communism.

[Arumdaum]

again.
i'll explain this to you before the pro communist people get on here. communism has no state.

haha, thanks for the heads up. I've debated pro communist people, and they can't point to ONE example of a communist non-state. Then, by default, communism is only a theory that cannot be applied to modern ways of life.

Many Paleolithic and Neolithic societies were communist.

The Bushmen still actually find it an abomination that people would try to put themselves above others.

There was also Anarchist Catalonia, and the Free Territory of Ukraine.

My mom was born in USSR She knows about communisim.

I was born in the USSR. I know about communism.

The USSR wasn't communist :p

I doubt living there for a few years as a kid can really make you know everything about it.

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.

And the Bushmen, Anarchist Catalonia, and the Free Territory.

It's also arguable whether places such as the Soviet Union and North Korea were actually trying to reach communism eventually.

Sir, you are confused on what socialism is.

You mean the state taking the profits of companies and giving them how they please is not socialism? Oh please enlighten me.

Yes, it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership, control of the means of production through cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2]

Socialism isn't about taking profits and giving them away as they please.

"communism" in theory is utopian (a very shity fucked up utopia, but utopian nonetheless)

Anarchy is similarly utopian, however most of us anarchists at heart realize a powerless region of people with no governing body, free to their own devices DOSENT WORK, CAN'T WORK, AND WILL NEVER WORK!!!

Now I don't know why utopian "communists" refuse to admit the same...

How exactly is it a very shitty fucked up utopia?

Did you know that communists are also anarchists? There were actually many, working, anarchic societies in the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras. It actually used to be the norm for there to be no state. So it can work.

[Socialdemokraterne]

[color=#008040]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.

*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?

Then you end up with a system bearing both individual and worker control of part of the total means of production simultaneously, just like what we have now. I'd be surprised if that sort of an equilibrium would be able to hold itself so neatly. 50% plus one firm would swing one way or the other eventually. But then, even if it swings in the direction of cooperatives you've not really established a socialist system until the whole thing is workers' cooperatives, have you? Worker control of the entirety of the total means of production is needed, not just majority control.

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

Actually, establishing a monopoly over a newly-discovered resource would be pretty unlikely to be as easy as all that. As I understand it even in the sort of system we have today simply finding a resource sink doesn't mean it's yours. You'd have to find it on your little plot, and once you found it other people would know where and how to look for more. Barring the assumption that the newly-discovered resource just happens to be exclusively under your little area, I doubt you'd be able to secure an effective monopoly over it.

As for inventing a new product, I'm not quite certain how you'd manage to effectively enforce intellectual property rights in a stateless society.

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?

Does it have to be a Capitalist building up the army? Eh, not really. It could be someone with no particular ideological standpoint at all, just someone who likes shiny things and wants them all for themselves. It could be someone who feels the presence of a monopoly over the use of force is a more effective construction of human society.

As for what happens to stop them from seizing control over the means of production and establishing a totalitarian regime? To get more directly to the heart of the matter, I think your question is this: "What prevents an anarchy from simply devolving back into a state of some sort, whether by virtue of external or internal aggression?" And the answer to that one I don't rightly know. If I knew the answer to something like that, Anarchy would appear a lot less like an impractical exercise to me.

[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.

Found some for you: Manifest Destiny, Colonialism, Imperialism

[4years]

[color=#008040]



Does it have to be a Capitalist building up the army? Eh, not really. It could be someone with no particular ideological standpoint at all, just someone who likes shiny things and wants them all for themselves. It could be someone who feels the presence of a monopoly over the use of force is a more effective construction of human society.

As for what happens to stop them from seizing control over the means of production and establishing a totalitarian regime? To get more directly to the heart of the matter, I think your question is this: "What prevents an anarchy from simply devolving back into a state of some sort, whether by virtue of external or internal aggression?" And the answer to that one I don't rightly know. If I knew the answer to something like that, Anarchy would appear a lot less like an impractical exercise to me.

The idea is that one peson or a group of people trying to re-establish the state/take power would also be outnumbered by the people who did not want to and without an already established monoploy of force (see an army) a minority of people will lose in a power struggle with the majority. Thise merely requires that say 90% of the people prefer communism/anarchy to a totalitarian regime and that people have enough self-interest to not want someone seizing power ovee them. Restistance to a force trying to overthrow the system could also come from altruism because reverting to capitalism, facisim, ect. from a communist system would be bad for the people as a whole. The result of an attempt to seize power would be the majority vs. a minority , communism says the majority wins, thus preserving the system.

[Armenia Reborn]

Has anyone thought of the difference and concept of communism on a local scale vs national scale and the possible outcomes? I would also suggest a similar comparison for any system.

[Sociobiology]

The idea is that one peson or a group of people trying to re-establish the state/take power would also be outnumbered by the people who did not want to and without an already established monoploy of force (see an army) a minority of people will lose in a power struggle with the majority. Thise merely requires that say 90% of the people prefer communism/anarchy to a totalitarian regime and that people have enough self-interest to not want someone seizing power ovee them. Restistance to a force trying to overthrow the system could also come from altruism because reverting to capitalism, facisim, ect. from a communist system would be bad for the people as a whole. The result of an attempt to seize power would be the majority vs. a minority , communism says the majority wins, thus preserving the system.

you do know states did not always exist. so the already did what you claim they could not do.
centralization has huge benefits allowing a state to gather power quickly and exploit the disorganized nature of non-states. it does not take much of an army to conquer people with no army whatsoever.
10 people working in an organized fashion can take out a hundred disorganized people.

not to mention a system with laws AKA a state will always be able to field a greater force than one without because of the population diffrence.

[Nordengrund]

I have no love for Communism, but I see it as inevitably spreading throughout the world and causing the creation of a one- world government.

[Sociobiology]

I have no love for Communism, but I see it as inevitably spreading throughout the world and causing the creation of a one- world government.

doubt it, mixed economy is the only one that works in practice.

[4years]

The idea is that one peson or a group of people trying to re-establish the state/take power would also be outnumbered by the people who did not want to and without an already established monoploy of force (see an army) a minority of people will lose in a power struggle with the majority. Thise merely requires that say 90% of the people prefer communism/anarchy to a totalitarian regime and that people have enough self-interest to not want someone seizing power ovee them. Restistance to a force trying to overthrow the system could also come from altruism because reverting to capitalism, facisim, ect. from a communist system would be bad for the people as a whole. The result of an attempt to seize power would be the majority vs. a minority , communism says the majority wins, thus preserving the system.

you do know states did not always exist. so the already did what you claim they could not do.
centralization has huge benefits allowing a state to gather power quickly and exploit the disorganized nature of non-states. it does not take much of an army to conquer people with no army whatsoever.

1. The formation of states had a lot to do with changing circumstances in primitive soceities and very little to do with power grabs.
2. You missed the part where I said that neither side would start off with an army.

[4years]

I have no love for Communism, but I see it as inevitably spreading throughout the world and causing the creation of a one- world government.

There is no state and, therfore, no goverment in communism.

[Sociobiology]

you do know states did not always exist. so the already did what you claim they could not do.
centralization has huge benefits allowing a state to gather power quickly and exploit the disorganized nature of non-states. it does not take much of an army to conquer people with no army whatsoever.

1. The formation of states had a lot to do with changing circumstances in primitive soceities and very little to do with power grabs.
2. You missed the part where I said that neither side would start off with an army.

and as I said a state can form an army much faster, and field it for much longer.

1. the change was the change from stateless to state, states let you have huge populations, which makes even an entire stateless society easy to dispose of.

[Inyourfaceistan]

The idea is that one peson or a group of people trying to re-establish the state/take power would also be outnumbered by the people who did not want to and without an already established monoploy of force (see an army) a minority of people will lose in a power struggle with the majority. Thise merely requires that say 90% of the people prefer communism/anarchy to a totalitarian regime and that people have enough self-interest to not want someone seizing power ovee them. Restistance to a force trying to overthrow the system could also come from altruism because reverting to capitalism, facisim, ect. from a communist system would be bad for the people as a whole. The result of an attempt to seize power would be the majority vs. a minority , communism says the majority wins, thus preserving the system.

But would they? Would it even be a minority if said rouge entity just promised everybody free shit and power and yadadada, and the populace were dumb enough to believe it?

And if your in a communist "society marked by territorial boundaries, with a recognized government (that direct democracy crap), and regional identity" (which definitely isn't a state), then to get there wouldn't someone already have placed themselves in power over everyone to dissolve the capitalist state? (theoretically they would have given back power, but that's a separate argument...)

[The Huskar Social Union]

I have no love for Communism, but I see it as inevitably spreading throughout the world and causing the creation of a one- world government.

There is no state and, therfore, no goverment in communism.

The closest thing to a government in communism are the communes themselves, they decide on what to do as a whole.

[Inyourfaceistan]

I have no love for Communism, but I see it as inevitably spreading throughout the world and causing the creation of a one- world government.

Better dead than commie...

[Divair]

I have no love for Communism, but I see it as inevitably spreading throughout the world and causing the creation of a one- world government.

One-world state via a stateless ideology?

Seems legit.

[Sociobiology]

There is no state and, therfore, no goverment in communism.

The closest thing to a government in communism are the communes themselves, they decide on what to do as a whole, and have elected members who represent the interests to other communes so they can work better together, technically you could class it as a sudo government type thing, but no real central state or offices unless say, a group of communes link together forming one large commune, where all the commune representatives discuss various matters and decide what to do based on what each commune wants and elect members to fill certain roles every couple of years or so.

that is a government no pseudo- about it.
and you just described a centralized government and claimed it was somehow not centralized.

[The Huskar Social Union]

The closest thing to a government in communism are the communes themselves, they decide on what to do as a whole, and have elected members who represent the interests to other communes so they can work better together, technically you could class it as a sudo government type thing, but no real central state or offices unless say, a group of communes link together forming one large commune, where all the commune representatives discuss various matters and decide what to do based on what each commune wants and elect members to fill certain roles every couple of years or so.

that is a government no pseudo- about it.
and you just described a centralized government and claimed it was somehow not centralized.

i facked up there, contradicted my self big time.

[Inyourfaceistan]

that is a government no pseudo- about it.
and you just described a centralized government and claimed it was somehow not centralized.

i facked up there, contradicted my self big time.

Thank you for admitting it

[Sociobiology]

If you want a large society and/or technology you need cities, to have cities you need states, you need that permanent specialized legal system so you can have more than 150 people in one place.

[Svetar]

Capitalism. Mainly because it's the only economic system I've experience and can't really say much about communism except for what I read on it.

[Priory Academy USSR]

I have no love for Communism, but I see it as inevitably spreading throughout the world and causing the creation of a one- world government.

Better dead than commie...

If it was implemented with no other states to challenge it (and so little or no military expenditure), Communism could easily make a lot of people's lives better.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Better dead than commie...

If it was implemented with no other states to challenge it (and so little or no military expenditure), Communism could easily make a lot of people's lives better.

It probably could, with no central government to interfere people could live in their communes and just get on with their lives. But to be able to do that you have to get socialism first, so some capitalist power doesn't come a knocking and destroy it, other wise you would have to form a well linked coordinated military that each commune would contribute to to fight them off, and that would probably lead to a dictator or something.

[Sociobiology]

If it was implemented with no other states to challenge it (and so little or no military expenditure), Communism could easily make a lot of people's lives better.

It probably could, with no central government to interfere people could live in their communes and just get on with their lives. But to be able to do that you have to get socialism first, so some capitalist power doesn't come a knocking and destroy it, other wise you would have to form a well linked coordinated military that each commune would contribute to to fight them off, and that would probably lead to a dictator or something.

not if they want doctors or more than a 150 people for that matter.
lawlessness only works in small populations humans can't keep track of more than 150 people so when the population gets bigger than that you need an artificial form of population control. shunning doesn't work anymore because "who is that guy?".
You need huge surpluses in labor so you can train doctors and engineers, and that means you need hundreds of thousands of people in one place.
the Paris commune was a commune in name only it ran prisons, enforced laws fielded a domestic force, it was a state.
It was better than monarchy but hardly stateless.
there is a reason every attempt at a commune either stays below that number or collapses.
you can have communes OR large societies not both.

[Priory Academy USSR]

If it was implemented with no other states to challenge it (and so little or no military expenditure), Communism could easily make a lot of people's lives better.

It probably could, with no central government to interfere people could live in their communes and just get on with their lives. But to be able to do that you have to get socialism first, so some capitalist power doesn't come a knocking and destroy it, other wise you would have to form a well linked coordinated military that each commune would contribute to to fight them off, and that would probably lead to a dictator or something.

It would, but the perfect communist plan is for a dictator to come in, set everything up for communism, and then give up all of his power to allow that classless, stateless society. However, history has proven that those dictators quite like their power.