Socialism vs. Capitalism

[Revoltaire]

But the question still remains; Would they exist? No. They would never have been created without businesses. Even the internet would still be under government if it weren't for companies like IBM and Apple.

Proof or get out. Whose to say that these things would never have been invented without Big Business? If there was a market for them, they would have been invented, regardless of who controls the means of production.

[Soviet Commu-Facism]

Why would the communists have needed video games? They wanted their workers to work not play! And who can provide proof for that? But please, you know I am right. USSR would have NEVER made anything like the NES, in fact, it surprises me that even the US made game systems considering they had no background in that. But if the whole world had been Communist it never would have been invented becuase no one would have looked into it, and that is the truth.

[Revoltaire]

Why would the communists have needed video games? They wanted their workers to work not play! And who can provide proof for that? But please, you know I am right. USSR would have NEVER made anything like the NES, in fact, it surprises me that even the US made game systems considering they had no background in that. But if the whole world had been Communist it never would have been invented becuase no one would have looked into it, and that is the truth.

The USSR is NOT a good example of communism. In fact it is the WORST example of communism. If it was really communism at all. Most true socialists see the fall of Soviet communism as a victory for socialism rather than a victory for capitalism

And the idea of communism is that eventually the economy becomes so productive that people work less and less and have more time for leisure and things like video games. And technological advances like computers and such are ESSENTIAL to making that happen. Communism necessitates these kinds of technological advances, it doesn't hinder them

[Idealistic Realist]

http://politicalcompass.org/test


MY political compass
Economic Left/Right: 2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26

[Ordo Mallus]

socialism doesnt work
capitalism does work

hmmmm wonder who will win

[Soviet Commu-Facism]

In it's purest form maybe, but pure Communism is immpossible becuase politicians are greedy. And I have heard that same thing about USSR before. It's an excuse to defend Communism and it doesn't work becuase EVERY communist or "socialist" country in existence has had human rights abuse. Besides which, who wants to work for nothing? Communism provides no incentive to work and there really is no point to it. I don't think a human can only play and not work without getting bored. Eventually they will want to work, or the technology that they rely so much on will crash and they will have to re-learn how to do the most simple forms of labour. However, with capitalism there is incentive and such technological faliures will be less terrible.

[Soviet Commu-Facism]

socialism doesnt work
capitalism does work

hmmmm wonder who will win

He's right. There hasn't been a single capitalist and actually democratic government that has been over thrown unless you count Nazi Germany.

[Idealistic Realist]

The truth is democracy bleeds off the pressure for revolution by having a small peaceful revolution every election...

[Revoltaire]

In it's purest form maybe, but pure Communism is immpossible becuase politicians are greedy. And I have heard that same thing about USSR before. It's an excuse to defend Communism and it doesn't work becuase EVERY communist or "socialist" country in existence has had human rights abuse. Besides which, who wants to work for nothing? Communism provides no incentive to work and there really is no point to it. I don't think a human can only play and not work without getting bored. Eventually they will want to work, or the technology that they rely so much on will crash and they will have to re-learn how to do the most simple forms of labour. However, with capitalism there is incentive and such technological faliures will be less terrible.

Pure communism has no politicians. Its a stateless, completely democratic society. No state that has claimed to be communist has achieved that, so its pointless to use them as examples of the failure of communism. They didn't achieve Communism's basic goals; they were basically just state imposed slavery, which is not what communism is. These failures were not a direct result of communism in itself, but rather a failure in the way it was implemented.

And the concept of communism is to transcend this corrupt material need for compensation for your work. You don't work because you want something out of it, you work because you enjoy it, or because it needs to be done. If you get bored of your work, you learn how to do something else.

Contrary to what you capitalists say, greed is not a part of human nature, at least not the the degree that you like to believe. That materialistic greed is caused and amplified by the capitalist system.

[Idealistic Realist]

NO living thing has ever "achieved pure Communism".
Not Bees,
not ants,
not naked mole rats,
NOT US

It is a pipe dream, beautiful in the art of word and idea; but,
without the necessary foundation structure ( human nature) to stand.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

NO living thing has ever "achieved pure Communism".
Not Bees,
not ants,
not naked mole rats,
NOT US

It is a pipe dream, beautiful in the art of word and idea; but,
without the necessary foundation structure ( human nature) to stand.

That's not a very good argument for not being able to achieve something.
A thousand years ago, no living animal had been able to build a computer, that doesn't mean it cant happen.

[Idealistic Realist]

The prerequisite for it is a change in us.
Until we are no longer human, I see little hope of a large scale society of this type functioning for long.

[Trotskylvania]

Communal societies are a wonderful dream; but, given the human element they fail in practice.
Throughout history communities aimed at social welfare through common ownership of varying degrees have been attempted. Some of these have had wonderful beginnings; but, NONE have survived in competition with dynamic outside market based groups. Most require outside patronage to maintain existence and collapse from internal corruption without that support.

No, they don't. You're arguing based on anachronisms; the modern market is a relatively new historical invention. Communal societies around the world were destroyed not by dynamic market societies, but by slave societies. Similarly, your claim that they require external patronage is blatantly false. Human beings lived in communal societies for seventy thousand years without the help of any external largesse, hindered by a lack of technological development and brutal natural scarcity.

Humans are not programed by evolution to be that altruistic.

Yes, actually we are. This is a well understood fact in anthropology, sociology and psychology. Human beings have a natural tendency towards altruistic behavior; all things being equal humans will cooperate before they compete.

We cheat, we abuse power, we easily become hardened to the needs of others.

This is a manifestation of societal norms, not inherent human nature. An individualist culture with a sociopathic set of values will produce people who are sociopaths. Yet you simply can't reduce human nature to merely individualistic or collectivist; human beings have the potential for both altruism and incredibly base behavior. To say that people are inherently going to be bastards is stupid and false, because for every case of a person being a bastard, you can find 10 cases of silent, altruistic cooperation.

THE ONLY WAY TO INSURE A TRUE SOCIALIST IDEALIST SOCIETY IS TO REMOVE FREE WILL

Would you kindly tell that to the Kibbutzniks in Israel, who've been living in socialist communes for longer than the State of Israel has been in existence, yet seem to have no loss of free will.

Free capital and free will are messy but the two of them keep things stirring up sufficiently to stimulate growth and innovation to a degree unmatched by any other system we have created.

Hon, freedom does not consist in setting capital "free" anymore than it does in setting the state "free". The measure of a despotism is how "free" a center of power is to enforce it's will upon others, whether that despotism is public or private. The company mining towns, the pinnacle of "free" capital, were routinely hiring thugs to brutalize and murder their workers, who bore more resemblance to serfs than anything. Freedom consists in transforming capital (and the state) from an institution superimposed upon society into one wholly subordinated to it.

Just because the richest have so much don't be fooled in to despair; the average citizen in the industrialized world is richer than any Roman Emperor.

That's frank and utter bullshit. I don't have gigantic palaces, huge coffers of expensive jewelry, hundreds of slaves tending to my every whim.

The use of capital provides the differential in concentration of assets/labor/energy to stimulate its movement . This is the energy of economics, this is the force we harness to keep moving on to a chance of a brighter tomorrow.
No guarantees of utopia other than to keep moving till we may find a solution.
Heck, If we find utopia, unless we are no longer what we are now, we will screw it up ...
Only the then living can say...

What hogwash. Really, if all you're going to do is spout pseudo-scientific tripe, then I'm leaving.

[Revoltaire]

No, they don't. You're arguing based on anachronisms; the modern market is a relatively new historical invention. Communal societies around the world were destroyed not by dynamic market societies, but by slave societies. Similarly, your claim that they require external patronage is blatantly false. Human beings lived in communal societies for seventy thousand years without the help of any external largesse, hindered by a lack of technological development and brutal natural scarcity.

Humans are not programed by evolution to be that altruistic.

Yes, actually we are. This is a well understood fact in anthropology, sociology and psychology. Human beings have a natural tendency towards altruistic behavior; all things being equal humans will cooperate before they compete.

We cheat, we abuse power, we easily become hardened to the needs of others.

This is a manifestation of societal norms, not inherent human nature. An individualist culture with a sociopathic set of values will produce people who are sociopaths. Yet you simply can't reduce human nature to merely individualistic or collectivist; human beings have the potential for both altruism and incredibly base behavior. To say that people are inherently going to be bastards is stupid and false, because for every case of a person being a bastard, you can find 10 cases of silent, altruistic cooperation.

Exactly. There is no objective human nature, only what societal norms dictate. Individualist, capitalist societies CREATE selfish, greedy people. Not the other way around. It does create a (manageable) flaw in trying to create a socialist society directly out of a capitalist one, but thats not a flaw in socialism OR human nature in and of themselves. If you took a group of newborn children that had no knowledge of the capitalist system and fostered them the right way, it would be completely possible to have a communist society. The capitalists system creates the greed you are so afraid of, not human nature.

[Galsen]

Sure the rich may live like princes, but they deserve too! They worked for their money, and if people want to live like them, they should get a job, go back to college, learn economics, and try and run their own business. I live about $2000 above the poverty line, so don't even try and talk about the "sufferings" of the poor. I know what it's like, and to be honest, my family lives like we are millionares in some ways. I am very content except for the fact that we are living off the money of my jerk of a father and my mom can't get a job, but I understand the importance of earning your way in life.

Hi looks like you did miss what was saying , i am also for capitalism , that quote was simply stating that the money put in common only enriched the ruler in a communist nation . So we agree in this , we are basically saying the same thing some people live like princes but its their money and you and I have no right to it .

[Mandanisia]

Socialist.

[Galsen]

NO living thing has ever "achieved pure Communism".
Not Bees,
not ants,
not naked mole rats,
NOT US

It is a pipe dream, beautiful in the art of word and idea; but,
without the necessary foundation structure ( human nature) to stand.

True without structure a nation cannot posibly stand .


And relating to that arguments of games , we have to recongnize than most of the discoveries that led to our present world have been made my capitalists . Communism destroys the pride of achievement though they had remarkable discoveries but it is still putting all man on the same level moralwise .

Humans are not programed by evolution to be that altruistic.

You ve said it all , blind altruism is forced upon man we are not born with it .

[Ashaven]

NO living thing has ever "achieved pure Communism".
Not Bees,
not ants,
not naked mole rats,
NOT US

It is a pipe dream, beautiful in the art of word and idea; but,
without the necessary foundation structure ( human nature) to stand.

True without structure a nation cannot posibly stand .


And relating to that arguments of games , we have to recongnize than most of the discoveries that led to our present world have been made my capitalists . Communism destroys the pride of achievement though they had remarkable discoveries but it is still putting all man on the same level moralwise .

Someone I know would point out that the Soviets made the AK-47, along other things. But I hope I'm not the only one who would agree with said person's idea of great discoveries...

[Revoltaire]

Communism destroys the pride of achievement

How so?

[Ashaven]

Communism destroys the pride of achievement

How so?

"From each according to his ability"...doesn't that roughly translate to "any profits you may gain from inventing something great/useful will be redistributed among those who might not even use it?

[Slovenion]

Socialism is not the answer. As we can see in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that government control destroys the economy. Capitalism is the best way because true people that know what they are doing run a business best.

[Revoltaire]

Communism destroys the pride of achievement

How so?

"From each according to his ability"...doesn't that roughly translate to "any profits you may gain from inventing something great/useful will be redistributed among those who might not even use it?

No. It means that every person contributes to society the most that he is able and receives back from society what he needs to live. Nothing to do with "pride of achievement"

If anything, capitalism destroys the pride of achievement through alienation. The workers don't have any pride in their work because they don't receive anything back from it - all of the profits go to the capitalists, even though they did no work to earn it. Communism seeks to maximize your pride of achievement by allowing people total self-determination and letting them do a job that they are proud of.

[Trotskylvania]

Socialism is not the answer. As we can see in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that government control destroys the economy. Capitalism is the best way because true people that know what they are doing run a business best.

Socialism != government control of the economy.

Even so, your argument is flatly ridiculous. It was a state planned economy that brought Russia from an impoverished nation of feudal serfdom, ravaged by war, with a per capita GDP less than Brazil's, to being a pre-eminent industrial, military, scientific and economic power, all within a single generation.

[Ashaven]

Socialism is not the answer. As we can see in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that government control destroys the economy. Capitalism is the best way because true people that know what they are doing run a business best.

Socialism != government control of the economy.

Even so, your argument is flatly ridiculous. It was a state planned economy that brought Russia from an impoverished nation of feudal serfdom, ravaged by war, with a per capita GDP less than Brazil's, to being a pre-eminent industrial, military, scientific and economic power, all within a single generation.

Which had those large shortages of consumer goods, long lines to get them, and a low standard of living for the most part.

[Galsen]

Exactly. There is no objective human nature, only what societal norms dictate. Individualist, capitalist societies CREATE selfish, greedy people. Not the other way around. It does create a (manageable) flaw in trying to create a socialist society directly out of a capitalist one, but thats not a flaw in socialism OR human nature in and of themselves. If you took a group of newborn children that had no knowledge of the capitalist system and fostered them the right way, it would be completely possible to have a communist society. The capitalists system creates the greed you are so afraid of, not human nature.

In my opinion communism destroys the pride of achievement ( i thought you read my previous posts that's why i saw no need to give the reason again ) :
-By putting everyone on the same plane and stripping the one with ability to give the needy who just has wait for others to produce his means of survival . Such as an idea belongs only to the one who created it . He should be able to trade on his own terms instead of being looted by the state . As with greed whats is so wrong about it ? Human like competition and should be able to exercise it as long as they are not violating others right . Why should it be wrong to aspire to better conditions than my fellow men ? Why should I be guilty of the need of success ? What is so immoral about me desiring to give to my son things that yours doesnt have ?