Capitalism vs. Communism

[The Huskar Social Union]

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.

Fair enough, but i abandoned that point and this one is about the defense against a hostile state, which wouldn't work out.

[Sociobiology]

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.

Fair enough, but i abandoned that point and this one is about the defense against a hostile state, which wouldn't work out.

for the record I am a proponent of representative democratic republics with mixed economies.
they seem to be what works bests.

If I had to copy a country it would be Norway.

[Threlizdun]

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.

No, belief that a tyrannical state can successfully transition to a stateless society is not a good plan in the slightest.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Fair enough, but i abandoned that point and this one is about the defense against a hostile state, which wouldn't work out.

for the record I am a proponent of representative democratic republics with mixed economies.
they seem to be what works bests.

If I had to copy a country it would be Norway.

Yeah ill admit Norway has a decent system i guess, last time i checked it had the best healthcare in the world and a fine education system to boot,

[Sociobiology]

for the record I am a proponent of representative democratic republics with mixed economies.
they seem to be what works bests.

If I had to copy a country it would be Norway.

Yeah ill admit Norway has a decent system i guess, last time i checked it had the best healthcare in the world and a fine education system to boot,

there is very little Norway is not in the top ten of, which is still a fun argument for the Norse gods existing.

[4years]

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.

No, belief that a tyrannical state can successfully transition to a stateless society is not a good plan in the slightest.

seconded.

[Clonetopia]

Ah, NationStates, you never change. For ten God-Damn years, this has reappeared every month? week? day?

It's kind of comforting, knowing that, even in the future, when most of the world has changed beyond our recognition, into a form beyond our pathetic human comprehension, there will still be a post on NationStates asking "Capitalism vs. Communism?"

[Socialdemokraterne]

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.

History also seems to indicate that dictators aren't remarkably interested in seriously pursuing implementation of socialism. They seem to find greater comfort in maintaining state capitalism, and express little interest in taking the next step and dissolving the profit motive or weakening the bureaucracy's hold over planning.

Now, one might say "Aw, c'mon. The USSR just fell before it finished its work. They were gonna transition eventually, it was the last stage of capitalism."

And it would be at that point that I would tilt my head and wonder just what led someone to believe that the USSR was even moving toward a position where it could attempt a transition.

[Bojikami]

Communism.

[4years]

Communism.

trotskyist? left communist? other?

[Priory Academy USSR]

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.

History also seems to indicate that dictators aren't remarkably interested in seriously pursuing implementation of socialism. They seem to find greater comfort in maintaining state capitalism, and express little interest in taking the next step and dissolving the profit motive or weakening the bureaucracy's hold over planning.

Now, one might say "Aw, c'mon. The USSR just fell before it finished its work. They were gonna transition eventually, it was the last stage of capitalism."

And it would be at that point that I would tilt my head and wonder just what led someone to believe that the USSR was even moving toward a position where it could attempt a transition.

But of course, no plan ever turns out perfectly-that's communism's one fatal flaw, in my opinion. At least with capitalism you don't end up with an evil dictator running everything (well, you could, but it happens less often).

[Bojikami]

Communism.

trotskyist? left communist? other?

Definetly not Stalin's communism. He ruined it and made all communists look bad. So either Marxist or far leftist.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

trotskyist? left communist? other?

Definetly not Stalin's communism quasi-fascist totalitarian leftism. He ruined it, but it was always going to end that way due to Lenin's authoritarian actions, as there was no concept of an alternative or "socialism with a human face" within Stalinism. However, Western capitalist media saw the advantages in labelling the USSR as "communist" and demonising them and therefore the ideology as a whole, consequently making all communists look bad. So either Marxist or far leftist.

Fix'd.

[4years]

Definetly not Stalin's communism quasi-fascist totalitarian leftism. He ruined it, but it was always going to end that way due to Lenin's authoritarian actions, as there was no concept of an alternative or "socialism with a human face" within Stalinism. However, Western capitalist media saw the advantages in labelling the USSR as "communist" and demonising them and therefore the ideology as a whole, consequently making all communists look bad. So either Marxist or far leftist.

Fix'd.

beat me to it.

I however draw a seperate Lenin and Stalin mostly because I like to read Lenin's books and I think that the Soviet Union would not have been so bad with Trotsky in charge.

[Giroad]

Communism. without a doubt.

Stalin and mao may have screwed it up, but the original idea is a lot better than capitalism, so long as there is free elections.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Fix'd.

beat me to it.

I however draw a seperate Lenin and Stalin mostly because I like to read Lenin's books and I think that the Soviet Union would not have been so bad with Trotsky in charge.

I have no doubt that it would have been less worse under Trotsky, but Kronstadt? Why, Lenin and Trotsky, why?

[Korintar]

beat me to it.

I however draw a seperate Lenin and Stalin mostly because I like to read Lenin's books and I think that the Soviet Union would not have been so bad with Trotsky in charge.

I have no doubt that it would have been less worse under Trotsky, but Kronstadt? Why, Lenin and Trotsky, why?

I guess they feared the rebellion would have a destabilizing effect and undo everything they accomplished with the Revolution and Lenin was more an authoritarian than Trotsky. The Revolution was still fresh in their minds and they were still in the process of consolidating things and viewed the sailors of Kronstadt as a distraction from their efforts, which they considered dangerous and subversive. That is not to say that Lenin and Trotsky's response was an appropriate one that is in line with communist ideology as explained by Marx.

[4years]

beat me to it.

I however draw a seperate Lenin and Stalin mostly because I like to read Lenin's books and I think that the Soviet Union would not have been so bad with Trotsky in charge.

I have no doubt that it would have been less worse under Trotsky, but Kronstadt? Why, Lenin and Trotsky, why?

I don't defend their rule. Lenin was far too ruthless and Trotsky was not much better. I simply like to read what they wrote. Lenin makes some intersting points about the politics of the time and the practical bussiness of conducing a revolution. (Even if he didn't always follow his own advice) and Trotsky's writng after he fled Russia are some of the best criticisms of the USSR. I also like modern Leninist/Trotskyist parties that are influenced by their writings not their actions. Besides, it lets me claim that that USSR wasn't a total loss. Still wish the Free Territory had somehow held out.

[Williamson]

Communism. without a doubt.

Stalin and mao may have screwed it up, but the original idea is a lot better than capitalism, so long as there is free elections.

the idea is better yes but if has never true been a communist country how do you it would work.

[Korintar]

Communism. without a doubt.

Stalin and mao may have screwed it up, but the original idea is a lot better than capitalism, so long as there is free elections.

the idea is better yes but if has never true been a communist country how do you it would work.

Here is one way to get it going

[Jassysworth 1]

Communism. without a doubt.

Stalin and mao may have screwed it up, but the original idea is a lot better than capitalism, so long as there is free elections.

LOL... ''without a doubt (even though there isn't a shred of evidence it could work and plenty to suggest it can't; every single state that's tried it on a large scale has ended up on the scrap metal pile of history).''

You know, it wasn't just Stalin and Mao. The same thing also happened in Cuba, all of Eastern Europe, Vietnam, North Korea and in parts of Africa. You know, instead of it just being a mere COINCIDENCE... MAYBE mass revolutions that happen in the name of communism just have a very very high probability of getting hijacked by populist dictators. MAYBE it's not such a good idea to give communism another shot since the idea has actually killed millions and millions of people already... MAYBE it's time to recognize that communism doesn't work because not a single communist state remains functional today?

I like how many communists don't realize how religious in nature their political views are in their dogma...

[Silent Majority]

I like how many communists don't realize how religious in nature their political views are in their dogma...

And capitalism isn't like this?

[Threlizdun]

communist state

Observe those two words and the answer should become clear. If not, then how about we consult a dictionary?

[Jassysworth 1]

I like how many communists don't realize how religious in nature their political views are in their dogma...

And capitalism isn't like this?

No because plenty of capitalist countries have existed and have functioned and are still functioning. =)

Capitalism is also backed by an entire scientific discipline (economics).

Can't say the same about communism...

[Jassysworth 1]

communist state

Observe those two words and the answer should become clear. If not, then how about we consult a dictionary?

Sure...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism?s=t

com·mu·nism   [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.
( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4.
communalism.





Seems fine to me...