Capitalism or Communism? (1 Viewer)

[ccc123]

No, Communism's principles are egalitarianism, democracy and emancipation and, just like capitalism, it is only in its implementation that these principles become corrupted.
John Howard's capitalism is meant to promote at least the principles of egalitarianism and democracy aswell but something gives me the impression that this is not always the case.

As for Hitler, if you actually bothered to read a bit about the man you would know that he did, in fact, have some good ideas.

Exactly. Besides, you can't really analogise the communist ideology with Hitler..

 

[dieburndie]

It doesn't have any good principles. Its principles are theft and slavery to the state. People should stop saying "communism is good in theory" or "communism has some good ideas". It's no less evil than conceding that Hitler had some good ideas.

Evil or wrong?
Saying Hitler had some good ideas isn't wrong, just because you think it's evil for some reason.
It's not in any way evil to suggest that communism has some good ideas either, but if you can prove that isn't right, what you said might actually mean something.
To use this term to try and debate a point is ridiculous.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Clearly I have read about Hitler, to whoever said I hadn't. I was actually acknowledging that he had some ideas that were useful at the time. But that's the whole problem. If Hitler or any communist of your choice had stood up and said "I have an ideology that will kill unprecedented millions of people through warfare, genocide and starvation" no one (well...) would have supported them.

It's the 'good ideas' that make the ideology seem harmless or beneficial, like saying "communism will make everyone equal" that deceive people into believing that some good can actually come of it. Except unlike the people in those times, we don't have any excuses to believe that any good can come from implementing Communism because we have its history to learn from.

If you say "do you think people should be equal", well no one is going to say that's a bad idea, then you can say "communism says everyone will be equal, unlike a free market where some people end up wealthier than others" so you have what sounds like a "good idea". The fact that it essentially involves theft and slavery to the state doesn't change though.

 

[banco55]

Clearly I have read about Hitler, to whoever said I hadn't. I was actually acknowledging that he had some ideas that were useful at the time. But that's the whole problem. If Hitler or any communist of your choice had stood up and said "I have an ideology that will kill unprecedented millions of people through warfare, genocide and starvation" no one (well...) would have supported them.

It's the 'good ideas' that make the ideology seem harmless or beneficial, like saying "communism will make everyone equal" that deceive people into believing that some good can actually come of it. Except unlike the people in those times, we don't have any excuses to believe that any good can come from implementing Communism because we have its history to learn from.

If you say "do you think people should be equal", well no one is going to say that's a bad idea, then you can say "communism says everyone will be equal, unlike a free market where some people end up wealthier than others" so you have what sounds like a "good idea". The fact that it essentially involves theft and slavery to the state doesn't change though.

Well said.

 

[ccc123]

Clearly I have read about Hitler, to whoever said I hadn't. I was actually acknowledging that he had some ideas that were useful at the time. But that's the whole problem. If Hitler or any communist of your choice had stood up and said "I have an ideology that will kill unprecedented millions of people through warfare, genocide and starvation" no one (well...) would have supported them.

It's the 'good ideas' that make the ideology seem harmless or beneficial, like saying "communism will make everyone equal" that deceive people into believing that some good can actually come of it. Except unlike the people in those times, we don't have any excuses to believe that any good can come from implementing Communism because we have its history to learn from.

If you say "do you think people should be equal", well no one is going to say that's a bad idea, then you can say "communism says everyone will be equal, unlike a free market where some people end up wealthier than others" so you have what sounds like a "good idea". The fact that it essentially involves theft and slavery to the state doesn't change though.

Agreed. But i still don't think you can really draw an analogy between communism and Hitler, as Hitler was not much more then a psychologically disturbed Anti-Semetic, who's 'good ideas' were misled. Furthermore, Hitler was ironically a veherment Anti-communist.

 

[banco55]

Agreed. But i still don't think you can really draw an analogy between communism and Hitler, as Hitler was not much more then a psychologically disturbed Anti-Semetic, who's 'good ideas' were misled. Furthermore, Hitler was ironically a veherment Anti-communist.

Hitler doesn't equal fascism though. Fascism was communism's main ideological competitor in Europe for quite some time. Lots of people found fascist ideas quite attractive.

 

[ccc123]

Hmm. I’m intolerably bored, so I’m just going to explore this topic further.

Okay. If you really believe communism can work, you are ignorant. It can not. There is evidence to support this throughout the course of history. All Communist/ Quasi-Communist governments have failed or are failing. All ‘Communist’ countries will eventually become paradoxes of the ideals they allegedly stand for, and falter.

Those that have failed:
-Brook Farm and other Utopian Communities
-Soviet Union
-Eastern Bloc
-Yugoslavia
-Sandinista's Nicaragua
-Cambodia

Those that are failing-Cuba: all but abandoned socialism due to poverty, has become a dictatorship
-China: seeking capitalist-like reform with an expanded free trade ever since Mao's failures
-North Korea: on the brink of starvation due to disastrous failure

While the communist ideology seeks out an egalitarian, stateless utopia, it can never be achieved, because the primary principles that constitute the ideology go against the grain of human nature. Egalitarianism, for example, can never be implemented successfully because as human beings, we have a natural proclivity, or predisposition toward class stratification. Thus, it is human nature to maintain and/or re-establish some sort of social hierarchy, even in allegedly egalitarian societies.

And let’s face it, we need some sort structure in our society. Not everyone can have equal access to money are resources; it doesn’t work. And why should everyone have equal access, when some people know how to better utilise them?
And as for everyone receiving the same wage? How ridiculous. Are we insinuating that a Neurosurgeon ought to be paid the same as someone who bags groceries?? Does anyone else sense a problem here?

What’s more, as income approaches complete equality, productivity disappears. People work so they can make money to support themselves. They work driven by the incentive of making more money and succeeding. In capitalist systems, he who chooses not to work suffers the consequences while he who works receives the incentives, money, which he is working for. Human nature includes a desire to "do better" and, therefore, make more money or advance in a job.

In an attempt to make more money, people are driven naturally work harder and longer, seek further education for themselves, and develop skills which distinguish them as rare talents among that labor which is available as supply. Under true communism, income is completely equal. When there is nothing to achieve by working harder or longer, people begin to become idle. People begin to work less or not work at all because there is no longer the incentive of making more money or advancing in job. When there are no workers, production drops to nothing. It will then be true that all incomes are equal but this equal income will be zero.
Another major flaw in the communist ideology is that it undermines democracy and individual rights. If you worked for something, don't you deserve it? It's great to work together and pool resources and act with compassion, but it seems that the communist ideal takes away the importance of the individual.

Communism is also economically inefficient, as one of communism's main ideals is complete control over industries. In order to efficiently plan industries, communism must simultaneously account for all industries and their relationship with each other at the same time. Within each specific industry certain goods are internally consumed to produce more of a certain product. An example of this occurrence, which is true in any economic system, is the market for oil. For instance, to drill more oil requires the use of gasoline for transportation, generators, machinery operation, refinery operation, etc etc. Therefore to get more gasoline and drill more oil wells, some existing gasoline must be used up in the process, or internally consumed.

But I could go on forever about how economically inefficient communism is, and thats just one of the ideologies many shortcomings.

Ultimately, the Communist Ideology is incontrovertibly flawed; it strives to achieve the illogical, the impossible, and can never work when implemented. A communist government with inevitably falter, because those who are entrusted to pursue the true ideals of communism will betray them, and thus, the people will end up living in a country will a system that is just as repressive as the one it replaced.

Hence, anyone who really believes that communism can somehow work, and we can all live together in a utopian world: You are ignorant.

..I rest my case (for now lol)

 

[Ennaybur]

someone said that there were no capitalist countries today, is this true?

if there isn't then why not? and if there is, then what are the flaws in the system?

 

[Comrade nathan]

Hmm. I’m intolerably bored, so I’m just going to explore this topic further.

Okay. If you really believe communism can work, you are ignorant. It can not. There is evidence to support this throughout the course of history. All Communist/ Quasi-Communist governments have failed or are failing. All ‘Communist’ countries will eventually become paradoxes of the ideals they allegedly stand for, and falter.

Those that have failed:
-Brook Farm and other Utopian Communities
-Soviet Union
-Eastern Bloc
-Yugoslavia
-Sandinista's Nicaragua
-Cambodia

Those that are failing-Cuba: all but abandoned socialism due to poverty, has become a dictatorship
-China: seeking capitalist-like reform with an expanded free trade ever since Mao's failures
-North Korea: on the brink of starvation due to disastrous failure

While the communist ideology seeks out an egalitarian, stateless utopia, it can never be achieved, because the primary principles that constitute the ideology go against the grain of human nature. Egalitarianism, for example, can never be implemented successfully because as human beings, we have a natural proclivity, or predisposition toward class stratification. Thus, it is human nature to maintain and/or re-establish some sort of social hierarchy, even in allegedly egalitarian societies.

And let’s face it, we need some sort structure in our society. Not everyone can have equal access to money are resources; it doesn’t work. And why should everyone have equal access, when some people know how to better utilise them?
And as for everyone receiving the same wage? How ridiculous. Are we insinuating that a Neurosurgeon ought to be paid the same as someone who bags groceries?? Does anyone else sense a problem here?

What’s more, as income approaches complete equality, productivity disappears. People work so they can make money to support themselves. They work driven by the incentive of making more money and succeeding. In capitalist systems, he who chooses not to work suffers the consequences while he who works receives the incentives, money, which he is working for. Human nature includes a desire to "do better" and, therefore, make more money or advance in a job.

In an attempt to make more money, people are driven naturally work harder and longer, seek further education for themselves, and develop skills which distinguish them as rare talents among that labor which is available as supply. Under true communism, income is completely equal. When there is nothing to achieve by working harder or longer, people begin to become idle. People begin to work less or not work at all because there is no longer the incentive of making more money or advancing in job. When there are no workers, production drops to nothing. It will then be true that all incomes are equal but this equal income will be zero.
Another major flaw in the communist ideology is that it undermines democracy and individual rights. If you worked for something, don't you deserve it? It's great to work together and pool resources and act with compassion, but it seems that the communist ideal takes away the importance of the individual.

Communism is also economically inefficient, as one of communism's main ideals is complete control over industries. In order to efficiently plan industries, communism must simultaneously account for all industries and their relationship with each other at the same time. Within each specific industry certain goods are internally consumed to produce more of a certain product. An example of this occurrence, which is true in any economic system, is the market for oil. For instance, to drill more oil requires the use of gasoline for transportation, generators, machinery operation, refinery operation, etc etc. Therefore to get more gasoline and drill more oil wells, some existing gasoline must be used up in the process, or internally consumed.

But I could go on forever about how economically inefficient communism is, and thats just one of the ideologies many shortcomings.

Ultimately, the Communist Ideology is incontrovertibly flawed; it strives to achieve the illogical, the impossible, and can never work when implemented. A communist government with inevitably falter, because those who are entrusted to pursue the true ideals of communism will betray them, and thus, the people will end up living in a country will a system that is just as repressive as the one it replaced.

Hence, anyone who really believes that communism can somehow work, and we can all live together in a utopian world: You are ignorant.

..I rest my case (for now lol)

Can you show me any respectful communist who thought they were going to create class society? Which country ever equalized wages? In which country did workers stop working because they lacked incentive? (this has probally occurs more in capitalist welfare countries, rather then socialist countries). Can you show me any proof that you have read something more then The Manifesto of the Communist Pary? (actually I assume you have read the Wikipedia summary).

Your post shows alot of the ignorance you arguing against. I don't know what is more retarded, liberals who make comments such as "communism is good in theory" or people who argue against class society as if it was relevant to the past century.

What I assume you have done is read a summary of what Marx theorised would be the last society of humanity, and ignored other works and the later works of Lenin, Stalin and Mao (and the various other communist theorists). Including your ignorance on past socialist societies and their real shortcomings, plus their actually success. Such things as "China: seeking capitalist-like reform with an expanded free trade ever since Mao's failures", when Mao died China had defeated feudalism, created a modern nation with a modern army, destroyed years of cultural backwardness, was able to feed it's population and gave a economic platform that made it possible to adobt free trade. In another example you claim the DPRK is on brink of starvation, when infact it is the opposite. They are greatly improving from the 1990 weather disasters.

Your criticism isn't real criticism at all, it shows alot of ignorance of Communist theory and the more credible arguements against the socialist countries of the last century.

 

[ccc123]

Can you show me any respectful communist who thought they were going to create class society? Which country ever equalized wages? In which country did workers stop working because they lacked incentive? (this has probally occurs more in capitalist welfare countries, rather then socialist countries). Can you show me any proof that you have read something more then The Manifesto of the Communist Pary? (actually I assume you have read the Wikipedia summary).

Your post shows alot of the ignorance you arguing against. I don't know what is more retarded, liberals who make comments such as "communism is good in theory" or people who argue against class society as if it was relevant to the past century.

What I assume you have done is read a summary of what Marx theorised would be the last society of humanity, and ignored other works and the later works of Lenin, Stalin and Mao (and the various other communist theorists). Including your ignorance on past socialist societies and their real shortcomings, plus their actually success. Such things as "China: seeking capitalist-like reform with an expanded free trade ever since Mao's failures", when Mao died China had defeated feudalism, created a modern nation with a modern army, destroyed years of cultural backwardness, was able to feed it's population and gave a economic platform that made it possible to adobt free trade. In another example you claim the DPRK is on brink of starvation, when infact it is the opposite. They are greatly improving from the 1990 weather disasters.

Your criticism isn't real criticism at all, it shows alot of ignorance of Communist theory and the more credible arguements against the socialist countries of the last century.

Okey dokey. Just a few eluciadations.

a) You assumed I had read the Wikepedia Summary, and insinuated that i had merely copied and pasted drom that, you assume wrong. I have read various texts, watched various documentaries, but ironically, have not actually read the Wikepedia Summary..

b) You demanded: "which country ever equlaized wages?" and "In which country did workers stop working due to lack of incentive?"

Er, what were you looking for..? Elaborate A-Z lists titled "Coutries with eqaulized wages" and "Countries where workers have stop working due to lack of incentive"? I was merely pointing out a) the theoretical flaws of the principle, and b) the economic issues that would inevitably arise if we were to adher to this particular illogical principle that the Communist Ideology asserts.

c) You stated that i had "ignored the works of Lenin, Stalin and Mao"

Yes, you are correct, i have not read them. However, why is it you seem to think they are great examples of Communist theorists? The Soviet Union, for example, was more corrupt then ever under the Stalinist dictatorship, and the Russian Communist government collapsed in 1990 due to lack of funds.

d) "Such things as "China: seeking capitalist-like reform with an expanded free trade ever since Mao's failures"

Here you appear to be implying that by stating the above i am contradicting my case or something....
What i was pointing out is that communism failed in China, and hence, they are now seeking out a capitalist-like reform..

e) Finally, you stated "your criticism isn't real criticism at all and shows 'alot' of ignorance on the Communist Ideology"

How so? The Communist ideology is illogical and goes against the grain of human nature. It can never be implemented successfully. Give me one example where a communist regime has succeeded.

f) Wow, its Christmas morning and i'm debating about Communism. How sad.

 

[Ennaybur]

answer me bitches!

 

[volition]

someone said that there were no capitalist countries today, is this true?

if there isn't then why not? and if there is, then what are the flaws in the system?

I think they are referring to how there aren't any anarcho-capitalistic countries or areas. If everything was completely market driven, there would be no government.

 

[Crestwood's_G]

imma have to go for national-socialism (nazi party)....did anyone ever think that nationalism and socialism is the opposite when creating the nazi party?

 

[Silver Persian]

I think they are referring to how there aren't any anarcho-capitalistic countries or areas. If everything was completely market driven, there would be no government.

Well, I think in the libertarian good society there would still have to be a government to enforce contracts/laws and to provide public goods - but government intervention would be limited to that.

 

[volition]

Well, I think in the libertarian good society there would still have to be a government to enforce contracts/laws and to provide public goods - but government intervention would be limited to that.

Yeah I think atm I support the idea of minarchism.

However, some people believe that minarchism is only a partial solution and that even stuff like the police force should be privatised. I can't see that working out too well :S In an ideological sense though, as long as a state exists, we would most likely be forced to pay tax(which some consider to be theft), so while it is more consistent to say that everything should be privatised (therefore eliminating this 'theft'), I just can't imagine it working out.

While we're on the topic of libertarianism and capitalism, I'm curious to see to what extent other people on BOS think we should extend this libertarianism. What do our capitalists think should remain in government hands, and why? (If you think anything should remain in govt hands)

 

[KFunk]

-Cuba: all but abandoned socialism due to poverty, has become a dictatorship

And despite cuba's relative poverty they have fairly impressive health statistics. If you look at the linked report you'll notice that cuba puts the USA to shame - they're only 2 places behind for overall performance, and miles ahead for level of health and fairness of financial contribution. It's worth remembering that there's more to the development of a country than economic growth.

 

[withoutaface]

someone said that there were no capitalist countries today, is this true?

if there isn't then why not? and if there is, then what are the flaws in the system?

Every country in the world today is to some degree protectionist, to some extent provides subsidies, bans entire sectors of the market (eg drugs), etc. It essentially means that while, say, America is primarily capitalist, there are still a large number of socialist practices employed by the government there, and so to say it was truly capitalist is a strawman.

Crestwood's G: Since when have they been opposites? Doesn't socialism work upon the basis that the nation as a whole (i.e. the collective) is greater than the individual and that they should pursue joint outcomes for the benefit of all?

Volition: I generally follow the idea that if a government service enhances liberty on the whole, it's legitimate. Courts, police, prisons and carbon taxes (because it's not feasible for every land owner to bring a civil case against every factory for pollution particles that end up on their property) are all legitimate, as are services for children and the mentally handicapped (supposing these are not sufficiently covered by private charity). Any government activity should be funded by sales taxes, rather than income taxes.

 

[Ennaybur]

how would sales taxes work economically?

I understand the concept, but wouldn't it actually discourage buying, thus reducing the power of our economy- less jobs etc. ?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

But it's still a better option than income tax, which gives us less money to buy things with in the first place. (Which do people need - more incentive to work, or more incentive to buy?)

 

[HotShot]

Okey dokey. Just a few eluciadations.

a) You assumed I had read the Wikepedia Summary, and insinuated that i had merely copied and pasted drom that, you assume wrong. I have read various texts, watched various documentaries, but ironically, have not actually read the Wikepedia Summary..

Noone knows what you read, or what you didnt read - naturally some assumptions have to be made.

b) You demanded: "which country ever equlaized wages?" and "In which country did workers stop working due to lack of incentive?"
Er, what were you looking for..? Elaborate A-Z lists titled "Coutries with eqaulized wages" and "Countries where workers have stop working due to lack of incentive"? I was merely pointing out a) the theoretical flaws of the principle, and b) the economic issues that would inevitably arise if we were to adher to this particular illogical principle that the Communist Ideology asserts.

You havent answered his question- he didnt ask for A-Z list, just a few countries.
You didnt provide any theoretical flaws of communism - you merely provided examples of countries that have had economic failures. You did not take into account other factors - environmental, societal and political factors that might have led to the failure.

c) You stated that i had "ignored the works of Lenin, Stalin and Mao"
Yes, you are correct, i have not read them. However, why is it you seem to think they are great examples of Communist theorists? The Soviet Union, for example, was more corrupt then ever under the Stalinist dictatorship, and the Russian Communist government collapsed in 1990 due to lack of funds.

see even you make assumptions - what makes you think they are 'great' examples. They are simply examples like what you have pointed out. Mao was responsible for the modernisation of China - if not were him most likely China would not be in the position now.

d) "Such things as "China: seeking capitalist-like reform with an expanded free trade ever since Mao's failures"
Here you appear to be implying that by stating the above i am contradicting my case or something....
What i was pointing out is that communism failed in China, and hence, they are now seeking out a capitalist-like reform..

Not necessarily - communism worked, and as a result the economic conditions of the country changed. They were no longer back in the farm age - and had moved on to the industrial age. By witnessing the effects of capitalism in other countries that have also moved on from the industrial age - the chinese realised that a transformation was needed. Mainly because the big countries were capitalists and felt somehow that 'communism' was EVIL and thus did not involve them in trade and political agreements. As such China an expanding choice had little choice than to move away from their communist ideals. had they not - it would have been very difficult for them to expand.

e) Finally, you stated "your criticism isn't real criticism at all and shows 'alot' of ignorance on the Communist Ideology"

Indeed so, you dont seem to understand communist ideology. I dont fully understand myself - but i do have the grasp of it.

How so? The Communist ideology is illogical and goes against the grain of human nature. It can never be implemented successfully. Give me one example where a communist regime has succeeded.

That statement above- is probably the most lame statment of the century. Trust me if it was illogical it would not have been so significant, the americans would not have been so afraid of it, and the russians definetly would have not even considered it. Consider russian achievenment in terms of science and technology - are you saying that all of them were illogical bastards?

It has never been implemented sucessfully - that is the correct statement.

Many of the countries failed for numerous reasons. Firstly the most important reason is that they didnt follow Marx's principles, they chose what they liked and left rest out. At the time it was a fairly a new ideology, and thus it was always going to be difficult to understand. At the time most of the people in which communism was attemtped to be implemented were uneducated - Russian among the poorest of countries at the time - it had huge poverty.

The transformation to communism for Russia was never smooth, it was the in the possible positions. A Monarchy - led by the EMperor - who screwed his country big time and with the ongoing Great War it was the worst possible time for communist revolution. It succeeded only because the Emperor was nut and didnt understand anything that was going on. Then you had Lenin and later Stalin. It was supposed to be Trotsky had it been trotsky russia most definetly would have been different. But Stalin took the power - never followed communist ideology.

On top of that during the cold war - america had led propaganda that communist was Evil? In what sense was communist evil? and was Russia a communist nation?
it had led many countries to go against Russia in political and economical agreements which meant that Russia was worse off. But still they remained in the forefront of technology and science -one of the many worries for the americans.

Communism at present would only work in small countries that are developing. It was meant to be a transition read Marx work.