NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, I did a thread like this about capitalism, that cold-hearted, yet loving bitch, now to be fair and balanced, which I rarely aspire to be, I will do the same about communism. So, what makes this system so great? Can it work, will it? Why is egalitarianism important? Where can I get a Che' t-shirt?

It's "in."

So, what makes this system so great?it has some nice ideals of equality and care for society
Can it work, will it?alredy tried. the answer is no.
Where can I get a Che' t-shirt?try Ebay. you can get there anything.

What makes it so great is that it lacks the concepts of nationalism and money which, between them cause a lot more strife than religion.

It also eliminates oligarchies in the mold of the US where only the obscenely rich reach high office.

That and the whole harmony thing.

It has worked in many areas (mostly 'primitive') but tends to be superceded by the aggressive and destructive forces of capitalism.

Lack of nationalism? Pah. Check out North Korea.

The good thing about communism is that the state is pretty likely to kill you, so you won't have to live through the brutal torment which is about to descend on the rest of your country.

Lack of nationalism? Pah. Check out North Korea.

The good thing about communism is that the state is pretty likely to kill you, so you won't have to live through the brutal torment which is about to descend on the rest of your country. There has never been a communist country. China was never communist, as neither was Russia. It appears you don't understand true, theoretical "communism".

Lack of nationalism? Pah. Check out North Korea.

The good thing about communism is that the state is pretty likely to kill you, so you won't have to live through the brutal torment which is about to descend on the rest of your country.

Now actually read Das kapital or the Communist manifesto rather than McCarthy.

North korea is surrounded by hostile neighbors and led by a nutter. Get rid of them and Communism might develop. Unfortunately once the local equivalent of the Bolsheviks get in they tend to be overenthusiastic in their use of force and destroy what communism gets started.

No nation in history has practiced full communism. There have been Communist nations in the same way OBL is Muslim. Contradiction in terms but we have to use the label unfortunately.

"Theoretical" communism is equally flawed. Also, we can't debate something theoretical because there is no policy evidence in relation to it.

Communism? It's a good principle, a nice philosophy, and an awful governmental system. Love it or hate it. Personally, I prefer the more practicable socialism, but I'm a libertarian at heart.

In fact, in true communism there is no state, explaining why there has never been a communist country.

It has worked in many areas (mostly 'primitive') but tends to be superceded by the aggressive and destructive forces of capitalism.

Communism has only been around as a concept or as a practical political ideology during the last 200 or so years. The "primitive" settings you're talking about were probably tribal or anarchic political situations, not communist ones. You can't nationalise industry if there isn't any, nor can you strive to create an industrial worker's paradise.

There has never been a communist country. China was never communist, as neither was Russia. It appears you don't understand true, theoretical "communism".

That's because it can never work. It has fundamental flaws that inevitably result in the rise of a bureaucratic oligarchy that is infinitely more repressive than the bougeoisie it replaced, with the end result being collapse.

There has never been a communist country. China was never communist, as neither was Russia. It appears you don't understand true, theoretical "communism".


Call it academic communism. Semantics, but they can be important :)

The thing with communism is that a country is meant to go through a stage of socialism, the transition stage if you will, where people 'forget' their capitalist, competitive urges. Russia, China, NK, none have got out of this transition dictatorial-style method of ruling. Reason? People are scum.

Need I point out that communism has indeed existed? Many indigenous people were communistic...but then again, we were deemed ignorant savages and 'subjugated'. So no point in exploring that, is there?

Communism? It's a good principle, a nice philosophy, and an awful governmental system. Love it or hate it. Personally, I prefer the more practicable socialism, but I'm a libertarian at heart.

In fact, in true communism there is no state, explaining why there has never been a communist country.
I've been a Socialists, hell I even supported the Worker's World Party at one point. I've also been capitalist, yadda, yadda, yadda and now I'm a quasi-pseudo liberalarian.

There has never been a communist country. China was never communist, as neither was Russia. It appears you don't understand true, theoretical "communism".

I understand theoretical communism perfectly well. I'm referring to practical communism because it's the only derivative of communism which has ever occurred, despite many attempts at achieving the desirable end result.

Theoretical communism is a pipe dream. In some ways, theoretical communism would be absolutely fantastic yes, but what's the point if it never actually is achieved?

Call it academic communism. Semantics, but they can be important :)

The thing with communism is that a country is meant to go through a stage of socialism, the transition stage if you will, where people 'forget' their capitalist, competitive urges. Russia, China, NK, none have got out of this transition dictatorial-style method of ruling. Reason? People are scum.

People are scum, or the dictators are scum? For some reason, I can't believe the people of Russia during Communism were worse than Stalin.

That's because it can never work. It has fundamental flaws that inevitably result in the rise of a bureaucratic oligarchy that is infinitely more repressive than the bougeoisie it replaced, with the end result being collapse.

Explain these flaws then. I have never seen you do that.

Since no change into Communism can be instant (screw Marx, the 'proleteriat' cannot do it all in 5 minutes) the flaws of leadership which would show up can be dealt with in a measured manner.

Marx was an optimist regarding human nature, he believed that people could run factories consensually as they are. I am not. I believe that humanity must strive towards that goal which is why, although I call myself Communist I actually advocate harsh socialism in the here-and-now.

Need I point out that communism has indeed existed? Many indigenous people were communistic...but then again, we were deemed ignorant savages and 'subjugated'. So no point in exploring that, is there?

Indigenous people were not communists. Many individuals voluntarily shared their resources for mutual benefit, but that particular idea isn't particularly communist. Modern day capitalists can share stuff with eachother too, the thing is, they aren't made to by the government (and nor, generally, were the indigenous people to whom you refer).

Communism would be pretty good if it works, but it doesn't, plain and simple. The theory of equality is nice but it makes people lazy. People don't work as hard knowing they can still get the same amount of money and not many people feel compelled to climb the ladder to the top. Why would you want to be the boss when you get paid the same as your employees? That results in crappy products and countries don't want to trade with them. It will survive for a little but eventually it all piles up and their economy crashes. Also, since the government controls everything they tend to put limits on buisnesses and trade.

Indigenous people were not communists. Many individuals voluntarily shared their resources for mutual benefit, but that particular idea isn't particularly communist. Modern day capitalists can share stuff with eachother too, the thing is, they aren't made to by the government (and nor, generally, were the indigenous people to whom you refer).
We absolutely were 'made' to. And we most certainly DID have government. The band coucil. Now, the rules were more in terms of traditions, but you could be expelled if you refused to share resources. Is that entirely voluntary? Not really. Just because we, most of us also WANTED to share doesn't negate the communistic makeup of our way of life. Just because we didn't have a communist analysis of our way of life doesn't negate it either.

Communism would be pretty good if it works, but it doesn't, plain and simple. The theory of equality is nice but it makes people lazy.
This sounds exactly like the lectures we got in high school social class. I'm glad to see the indoctrination is still being continued.

Indigenous people were not communists. Many individuals voluntarily shared their resources for mutual benefit, but that particular idea isn't particularly communist. Modern day capitalists can share stuff with eachother too, the thing is, they aren't made to by the government (and nor, generally, were the indigenous people to whom you refer).

Capitalists might indeed share, I might buy you a drink, effectively a share of money. primitive peoples shared out of necessity. A hunter wll share his kill with the tribe and other members of the tribe will supply food, drink, clothes, entertainments, as long as they are of value they are accepted.

Communism doesn't need to be called communism to be communism. There was a commune 'run' by some of the Apostles (gimme a few minutes, I'll give you chapter and verse if I can find the reference)

People don't work as hard knowing they can still get the same amount of money and not many people feel compelled to climb the ladder to the top.

If paid an hourly, monthly or yearly wage that is the case. If paid by performance however? Or in this case (communist) you work and you get food, entertainment and other benefits of society. No having to make ends meet restricting your expenditure because there is no money to expend you simply provide and are provided for.

I don't know if it matter, but on the local level israel had communist villages (kibbutz) that succsed many years. at the end, the capitalistic banks skyrocketed the interest (at the fight with the inflation) and most of them crushed, but it still was at best for half centaury.

Explain these flaws then. I have never seen you do that.
Since no change into Communism can be instant (screw Marx, the 'proleteriat' cannot do it all in 5 minutes) the flaws of leadership which would show up can be dealt with in a measured manner.

Marx was an optimist regarding human nature, he believed that people could run factories consensually as they are. I am not. I believe that humanity must strive towards that goal which is why, although I call myself Communist I actually advocate harsh socialism in the here-and-now.

That's the point. The only Communism put in to practice has been Marxism (Mao Tse-Tung's ideas are a whole other story), which contains the flaws you describe, including his rosy view of human nature. He wanted immediate overthrow of the exisiting system to replace it with one no one had ever tried in practice, which will inevitably fail because the people will gravitate towards stability rather than ideology, and the dictators gladly provided it. When people starve, they throw ideology out the window.

Marxism required ideological enthusiasm to succeed, and the people he encouraged were inherently pragmatic and so could not keep it up during hard times.

Gradualism would be the only way that communism could succeed, although it would have to be very carefully done.

You can't nationalise industry if there isn't any, nor can you strive to create an industrial worker's paradise.

but you can have collective 'ownership' of the land, dramatic social egalitarianism, and gift economies/generalized reciprocity. the term 'primitive communism' fits as well as anything.

ATTENTION PEOPLE:

When some of you are saying that Russia, China or North-Korea never were communist countries, you are using the "No true Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman_fallacy)" fallacy.

I've seen this many times on these forums, please stop.

The "No true Scotsman" fallacy, is not about semantics, so when a facist country calls themselves "Democratic republic of X" it is not the same, as it is when saying Russia etc. were not communistic.

Acts 2:43-47

The bible reference I was after.

It seems though that I have reached agreement with Vetalia on this (must check if my brother dropped something in my drink).

So the Democratic Republic of Congo is not Fascist but the Peoples Republic of Russia is Communist.

Nice.

So the Democratic Republic of Congo is not Fascist but the Peoples Republic of Russia is Communist.

Nice.
I was just adding that because some people do not understand the fallacy correctly. They think it's about the country's name, which it is not.

This sounds exactly like the lectures we got in high school social class. I'm glad to see the indoctrination is still being continued.

Because hey, it's not like pretty much all the communist countries in recent history have indoctrinated their people, is it?

I believe Anarcho-Communism was, for a little while, quite succesfull during the Spanish Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution). Of course the (Marxist) Communists put an end to that even before the fascists under Franco's lead conquered the whole country.

Because hey, it's not like pretty much all the communist countries in recent history have indoctrinated their people, is it?
And hey, if they do it, we should too! :rolleyes:

There has never been a communist country. China was never communist, as neither was Russia. It appears you don't understand true, theoretical "communism".


Oh, what? Communist Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea and so on aren't "real" communist countries because they have huge flaws which highlight the bad points of communism?

Perhaps the USA, Britain, Australia, Japan and so on aren't "real" capitalist countries. After all, they have bad points which reveal some of the shortcomings of modern capitalism. I'd better deny that they're the result of my philosophy.

And hey, if they do it, we should too! :rolleyes:

The difference between western "indoctrination" which you're referring to and communist indoctrination is that in America or Britain, you're not actually forced at gunpoint to accept that communism sucks.

Oh, what? Communist Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea and so on aren't "real" communist countries because they have huge flaws which highlight the bad points of communism?

Perhaps the USA, Britain, Australia, Japan and so on aren't "real" capitalist countries. After all, they have bad points which reveal some of the shortcomings of modern capitalism. I'd better deny that they're the result of my philosophy.
As I mentioned, the argument you just quoted are examples of the abundant use of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, you'll encounter it a lot. I know I do.

ATTENTION PEOPLE:

When some of you are saying that Russia, China or North-Korea never were communist countries, you are using the "No true Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman_fallacy)" fallacy.

no they aren't. they are consistently applying the definition of the word 'communism' (a stateless, classless society, with communal ownership of property) and finding that those state-ruled class societies with elite ownership of damn near everything fail the test on all counts.

Oh, what? Communist Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea and so on aren't "real" communist countries because they have huge flaws which highlight the bad points of communism?

Perhaps the USA, Britain, Australia, Japan and so on aren't "real" capitalist countries. After all, they have bad points which reveal some of the shortcomings of modern capitalism. I'd better deny that they're the result of my philosophy.
Now you're starting to get it! None of these countries you've mentioned are completely capitalistic. They are blended economies. To what extent varies.

The difference between western "indoctrination" which you're referring to and communist indoctrination is that in America or Britain, you're not actually forced at gunpoint to accept that communism sucks.
Ah yes...gunmen ringed the classrooms in the Soviet Union and still do so in Cuba. Wow.

Teaching that 'communism can't work no matter what' as the TRUTH is indoctrination. Period. No need for you to start looking for people who indoctrinate in worse ways. It doesn't make it better.

And by the way.

My people WERE forced at gunpoint to accept that our communistic way of life 'sucked'.

Ah yes...gunmen ringed the classrooms in the Soviet Union and still do so in Cuba. Wow.

Teaching that 'communism can't work no matter what' as the TRUTH is indoctrination. Period. No need for you to start looking for people who indoctrinate in worse ways. It doesn't make it better.

And by the way.

My people WERE forced at gunpoint to accept that our communistic way of life 'sucked'.
I missed that lesson where the teacher said Communism would never work. How are we being indoc-ified, again?

Now you're starting to get it! None of these countries you've mentioned are completely capitalistic. They are blended economies. To what extent varies.

All real-life economies are blended to some degree. My point is that the countries I have mentioned tend more towards capitalism than they do towards communism.

I could write them all off as evil communist slave-states because they don't completely fit to the absolute definition of capitalism, but instead I'm willing to accept criticism about whatever problems capitalism has brought to those countries.

Defenders of communism who maintain that since no country has ever been completely communist, communism is immune to all forms of criticism are arguing in an asinine way.

no they aren't. they are consistently applying the definition of the word 'communism' (a stateless, classless society, with communal ownership of property) and finding that those state-ruled class societies with elite ownership of damn near everything fail the test on all counts.

True. NTS fallacy is saying "Lenin wasn't a Communist, because no true Communist supports (of course, temporary) private ownership"

As I mentioned, the argument you just quoted are examples of the abundant use of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, you'll encounter it a lot. I know I do.

question:

if you say "no vegan eats hamburgers"
and i say, "i'm a vegan" and proceed to chow down on a burger
and you say "no true vegan eats hamburgers"

have you committed the scotsman? why or why not?

I missed that lesson where the teacher said Communism would never work. How are we being indoc-ified, again?
Hmm...are you sure about that?

You seem to have it pretty firmly in your head...did you come up with that idea all on your own then?

Defenders of communism who maintain that since no country has ever been completely communist, communism is immune to all forms of criticism are arguing in an asinine way.
To a point I'll concede that I agree with you.

However, those people who say that communism can never work because some fascist bastards f*cked it up are also being assinine. In places where it WAS working, intervention quickly shut it down. Spain, Chile, among indigenous people, etc.

if you say "no vegan eats hamburgers"
and i say, "i'm a vegan" and proceed to chow down on a burger
and you say "no true vegan eats hamburgers"
have you committed the scotsman? why or why not?

They probably won't answer, but I will.

No, because being a Vegan is clearly defined, and if one veers from the definition, you are not a "true" Vegan.

There's no clear definition of what a Scotsman is (other than being native to Scotland), so one cannot be "true" because there is not universally accepted standard.

Teaching that 'communism can't work no matter what' as the TRUTH is indoctrination. Period. No need for you to start looking for people who indoctrinate in worse ways. It doesn't make it better.


Well I dunno about Canada or the states, but here in the UK, I don't recall any educator having specifically asserted "communism is inherently flawed and can never work", or implied it in any way. As far as I remember, I was taught about communism in a fairly impartial way, with actual fact tending to remain to my knowledge non-partisan and unbiased.

Of course, they never told me "There has never been a communist country! Stalin, Mao and Castro were vehement evil capitalist free-marketers!" so obviously my teachers were all total lying capitalist indoctrinators.


My people WERE forced at gunpoint to accept that our communistic way of life 'sucked'.

I'm sorry to hear that. Where was it?

question:

if you say "no vegan eats hamburgers"
and i say, "i'm a vegan" and proceed to chow down on a burger
and you say "no true vegan eats hamburgers"

have you committed the scotsman? why or why not?
No you haven't, because a vegan isn't supposed to eat zee hamburgers in the first place :( (oh god think of the animals) If you changed vegan with "animal lover" you would have committed it.

My point is that, in the start atleast, Russia was based on communistic principles. Ofcourse, speaking stricly by the Communistic principles, we can't say they were, but we must allow some slack or else we can't really call a country communistic, capitalistic or anything.

Maybe we should call Soviet Russia quasi-Communistic or call Sweden capitalist-esque? Whenever someone says "USA is capitalistic, and people die of poverty" I don't go "But USA isn't a REAL capitalist country, and in Capital-topia, nobody dies because people are true blahblahblah.." see where I'm going?

My point is that, in the start atleast, Russia was based on communistic principles. Ofcourse, speaking stricly by the Communistic principles, we can't say they were, but we must allow some slack or else we can't really call a country communistic, capitalistic or anything.

the most you can say about the marxist-leninist etc-ist countries is that they aim to one day become communist (or claim to aim...)

which is why they call/called themselves socialist rather than communist.

the most you can say about the marxist-leninist etc-ist countries is that they aim to one day become communist (or claim to aim...)

which is why they call/called themselves socialist rather than communist.
That might very well be true, I'm just saying the "But they weren't REAL communists" argument is a tad silly.

There aren't really that many countries (are there any at all?) which have one single social/economical theory which is followed by the book, so we must allow some slack for the sake of the discussion or invent new words. I'm all for slack ;)

Can communism work? Maybe, in controlled conditons. The examples given of early society all fail to mention that while there was no established currency, a must for a capitalistic society, people were not all equal or treated equal.

Shamans, proven warriors, chiefs and other leaders, healers, and other classes that proved to have ablities greater than the average were given more than an equal share of what was to offer. Many early cultures thought that this was only right as it was the gods who blessed thes people to begin with.

In very early society, I'm talking ice age era, those who couldn't contribute to the group where left to die or killed outright, especially in times of famine. This was conculed by the amount of infant bones that were found in with what would be considered the refuse of the time.

I think that communism could work, given a small group of extremely like minded individuals and a complete indoctination of all who are raised from children in this group.

The most inherent flaw of communism is that people do not all have the same abilities. Those few who are gifted and dedicated will always rise to the top, creating an imbalance of equality. No matter what system, there will always be some who are more equal than others.

The questions becomes is achievement in society rewarded, or punished?

Well I dunno about Canada or the states, but here in the UK, I don't recall any educator having specifically asserted "communism is inherently flawed and can never work", or implied it in any way. As far as I remember, I was taught about communism in a fairly impartial way, with actual fact tending to remain to my knowledge non-partisan and unbiased.
That would be nice...

Of course, they never told me "There has never been a communist country! Stalin, Mao and Castro were vehement evil capitalist free-marketers!" so obviously my teachers were all total lying capitalist indoctrinators. ROFLMAO :D

I'm sorry to hear that. Where was it?
Canada. In what is now know as Alberta. My people (the Cree) were loaded onto Treaty 8 lands and forced to assimilate (I sound like the Borg...) which in large part meant entering the capitalist economy and abandoning our communistic lifestyle.

That might very well be true, I'm just saying the "But they weren't REAL communists" argument is a tad silly.

except that while the ruling parties certainly count as communists (at least at the beginning), the countries that they ruled were in no way at all communist, unless the meaning of 'communist' when applied to countries is expanded to include both places operating under communism and those that aren't but claim they may one day. which would be like calling franco's spain a parlimentary monarchy.

Shamans, proven warriors, chiefs and other leaders, healers, and other classes that proved to have ablities greater than the average were given more than an equal share of what was to offer. Many early cultures thought that this was only right as it was the gods who blessed thes people to begin with.
This was not always the case, and anyway, from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs...my people gave the larger share to the hunters, and then to the elders. The elders weren't necessarily the most productive, but they were the receptacles of our knowledge, and valued for that reason.

In very early society, I'm talking ice age era, those who couldn't contribute to the group where left to die or killed outright, especially in times of famine. This was conculed by the amount of infant bones that were found in with what would be considered the refuse of the time.
This is not just ige-age era. In fact, there were cases of Inuit peoples doing this until the 1950s (rarely with children, more often with the very old), and my own people did this in the 19th century, and there were probably cases of it in the 20th as well.

I think that communism could work, given a small group of extremely like minded individuals and a complete indoctination of all who are raised from children in this group.

The most inherent flaw of communism is that people do not all have the same abilities. Those few who are gifted and dedicated will always rise to the top, creating an imbalance of equality. No matter what system, there will always be some who are more equal than others.

The questions becomes is achievement in society rewarded, or punished?
The biggest flaw in the analysis of communism is this idea of equality, as in sameness. People can not all be equal in abilities and needs, and communism has never said they would be. Of course some will excell in certain areas, or be more needy in others. There is not movement to make people have exactly the same abilities or needs. People contribute to the extent they are able, and receive to the extent that is necessary. Equity, not equality.

My people were strictly divided according to specialisations...yet we were not unequal. There was leadership, yes, but these people were never our rulers. They could be removed, replaced if they did not do their duties well. All people were involved in decisions. Some were listened to more than others because of their expertise in certain areas. Communism does not make that impossible.

The most inherent flaw of communism is that people do not all have the same abilities. Those few who are gifted and dedicated will always rise to the top, creating an imbalance of equality. No matter what system, there will always be some who are more equal than others.

what do the slight differences in natural ability have to do with egalitarian distribution of power, prestige, and access to resources? it doesn't seem to have proven much of an issue among, for example, the ju/'hoansi, hadza, mbuti, or the countless other such groups who have existed around the world.

The biggest flaw in the analysis of communism is this idea of equality, as in sameness. People can not all be equal in abilities and needs, and communism has never said they would be. Of course some will excell in certain areas, or be more needy in others. There is not movement to make people have exactly the same abilities or needs. People contribute to the extent they are able, and receive to the extent that is necessary. Equity, not equality.

My people were strictly divided according to specialisations...yet we were not unequal. There was leadership, yes, but these people were never our rulers. They could be removed, replaced if they did not do their duties well. All people were involved in decisions. Some were listened to more than others because of their expertise in certain areas. Communism does not make that impossible.

precisely. i often wonder why the idea of egalitarianism is so hard for some people to grasp - it seems so uncomplicated and intuitive to me.

There has never been a communist country. China was never communist, as neither was Russia. It appears you don't understand true, theoretical "communism".

if the "theoretical communism" you speak of is Marxist capitalism, there is good reason why no country has ever practiced it.. because Marxist capitalism superceeds nationalism, and the idea of the nation-state... and thus, cannot exist in a world which maintains them. In Marx's world society was to emplod upon itself once the greed of capitalists consumed the everday worker forcing revolution.

Of course capitalism is far more adaptive then Marx ever invision, and thus, was never needed and never fesiable.

precisely. i often wonder why the idea of egalitarianism is so hard for some people to grasp - it seems so uncomplicated and intuitive to me.

Indeed.

Asking what is so great about (anarcho)-communism is like asking what is so great about a good book or happiness.

I don't like the whole 'give what you can and take what you need' thing. I want society to reward the skillful.

I don't like the whole 'give what you can and take what you need' thing. I want society to reward the skillful.

It rewards you by giving you the chance to use those skills to the benefit of all. The best doctors today will tend to work for the rich. The best doctors under Communism would work for anyone who needs it.

You need to separate reward from material gain. I'm Christian so maybe that makes it easier.

Judging socialism based on the USSR is like judging capitalism based on Nazi Germany. No one would argue that Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and Spain, Pinochet's Chile and the various other US-backed capitalist military dictators in South America, etc. are proof that capitalism sucks.

It rewards you by giving you the chance to use those skills to the benefit of all. The best doctors today will tend to work for the rich. The best doctors under Communism would work for anyone who needs it.

You need to separate reward from material gain. I'm Christian so maybe that makes it easier.

So the only reward these doctors need is the satisfaction of a job well done?

To paraphrase my 8th grade social studies teacher when we were learning about communism, "It's the best system in the world, except that it doesn't work" His example basically said that people who don't give to the community are benifitted the same as those who do, which would make those who do give work harder for the lazy ones. This is only a valid point because humans would tend to exploit this loophole.

To paraphrase my 8th grade social studies teacher when we were learning about communism, "It's the best system in the world, except that it doesn't work" His example basically said that people who don't give to the community are benifitted the same as those who do, which would make those who do give work harder for the lazy ones. This is only a valid point because humans would tend to exploit this loophole.

But then Capitalism fails because ultimately money becomes king and all else can get screwed so we get Bush's policies on Global Warming for example. If everyone does that then capitalism will collapse with the environment.

Also, the point is that you teach people not to be lazy. Capitalism encourages laziness with timed wages. In Communism people need to work according to their ability to get the reward out. If you are lazy you might get the ultimate in crap food or you might get thrown out.

"Where can I get a Che' t-shirt? "

Che was not a communist... He's was a militant reactionary. I'm a capitalist and I am waering the che shirt right now... Hasta La Victoria Sempre!
-Chris

It rewards you by giving you the chance to use those skills to the benefit of all. The best doctors today will tend to work for the rich. The best doctors under Communism would work for anyone who needs it.But the worst doctors would also, it doesn't change anything it only takes away your choice: to pay for better service and vica verca.

You need to separate reward from material gain. I'm Christian so maybe that makes it easier.
The feeling of reward from helping hobos will not feed your cat.

I didn't know the awesome power of christ gave some special seperation powers.

I don't like the whole 'give what you can and take what you need' thing. I want society to reward the skillful.

how are the two mutually exclusive?

But then Capitalism fails because ultimately money becomes king and all else can get screwed so we get Bush's policies on Global Warming for example. If everyone does that then capitalism will collapse with the environment. Yeah because capitalism kills the environment. Causation =! correlation. Captialism could just as easy save the environment, capitalism makes you able to not buy rainforest furniture and buy ecological fruit. Fucking up the environment =! more profit.

Did you know that the communist/non-democratic countries are the ones who have burdened the environment the most?

Also, the point is that you teach people not to be lazy. Capitalism encourages laziness with timed wages. In Communism people need to work according to their ability to get the reward out. If you are lazy you might get the ultimate in crap food or you might get thrown out.
Haha, you're kidding right? I love how you've got it backwards.

To paraphrase my 8th grade social studies teacher when we were learning about communism, "It's the best system in the world, except that it doesn't work" His example basically said that people who don't give to the community are benifitted the same as those who do, which would make those who do give work harder for the lazy ones. This is only a valid point because humans would tend to exploit this loophole.

except that there were/are actual societies with economic systems based on generalized reciprocity, and they appear to have various ways of dealing with the free-rider problem, so i see no particular reason why it makes for a knock out of an argument.

how are the two mutually exclusive?
Why don't you tell me? Because I never said they were.

Please tell me how the Soviets eliminated the lazy workers from their Communist society? They didn't, that's one of the reasons they failed.

Please tell me how the Soviets eliminated the lazy workers from their Communist society?

differential payscales, material rewards, perks and privileges, and shooting people.

but what does that have to do with the issue at hand?

Haha, you're kidding right? I love how you've got it backwards.

I've worked for an hourly wage. I was lazy as all hell. So were all my co-workers. Since this seems to be the general way I am forced to believe that humans will work the very minimum whatever. Hourly wages are simply one means of incentive.

And yeah, whoever said Christ helped me seperate material value from reward, you are right. He did. And I appreciate work for more than merely the cash it gives me now. And that is good. If people appreciated that maybe they'd work harder.

Unfortunately I am unemployed due to the shop I worked at going under and that revalation only happened after the fact.

Why don't you tell me? Because I never said they were.

?

what message was i supposed to decode from your text of,

"I don't like the whole 'give what you can and take what you need' thing. I want society to reward the skillful."

other than the idea that those two things are mutually exclusive?

Che was not a communist... He's was a militant reactionary. I'm a capitalist and I am waering the che shirt right now... Hasta La Victoria Sempre!
-Chris
Tell Chris he is a Moron.

[QUOTE=Sinuhue]This was not always the case, and anyway, from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs...my people gave the larger share to the hunters, and then to the elders. The elders weren't necessarily the most productive, but they were the receptacles of our knowledge, and valued for that reason.


Exactly my point. The hunters and the elders had a higher value to society. To be blunt, old and devious will beat young and strong any day of the week. I still believe in respecting our elders, unfortunatly a view that is becoming rarer all the time.

Sinuhue, how would your society treat a true prodigy, an Einstien or a Hawking?

Human nature will also be a problem. There are people in almost every society that will almost flatly refuse to contribute to the greater good. This becomes magnified when 2 people doing the same job, expend much different amounts of effort to complete the same task. I don't see how any society can completely eliminate this.

"differential payscales, material rewards, perks and privileges, and shooting people.

but what does that have to do with the issue at hand?"

I'm sure the payscales and material rewards were not that large or in theory that isn't a pure Communist system, because one is higher than the other.

What is so hard about "from each according to their ability"?

A genius would work in their area of genius to the benefit of all, education still happens under Communism people. Artistic genius is the tricky one however since provision is made for leisure time it wouldn't be too hard to work out.

I've worked for an hourly wage. I was lazy as all hell. So were all my co-workers. Since this seems to be the general way I am forced to believe that humans will work the very minimum whatever. Hourly wages are simply one means of incentive.

And yeah, whoever said Christ helped me seperate material value from reward, you are right. He did. And I appreciate work for more than merely the cash it gives me now. And that is good. If people appreciated that maybe they'd work harder.

Unfortunately I am unemployed due to the shop I worked at going under and that revalation only happened after the fact.

I don't belive that people are naturally lazy. Its the idea that "I'm never going to get ahead so why try." Its almost universally preached in the american education system. The other idea that is preached is "the only way to get ahead is to lie, cheat, or steal."

Sounds like you just had some bad luck. I work at a place, for an hourly wage, that still rewards drive and ability. It is unforunate how many companies out there do not.

I don't belive that people are naturally lazy. Its the idea that "I'm never going to get ahead so why try." Its almost universally preached in the american education system.
What school did you got to? It would seem like you had the bad luck?
Edit: Also, survival of the fittest seem to clash with lazy.
The other idea that is preached is "the only way to get ahead is to lie, cheat, or steal."
Again, what teachers did you have? Poor fellar.

What is so hard about "from each according to their ability"?

A genius would work in their area of genius to the benefit of all, education still happens under Communism people. Artistic genius is the tricky one however since provision is made for leisure time it wouldn't be too hard to work out.

Again, no matter what the system, some people will always be more equal than others.

But how does communism deal with the other end of the spectruim. Those who can contribute to the greater good, but refuse to?

Again, no matter what the system, some people will always be more equal than others.

But how does communism deal with the other end of the spectruim. Those who can contribute to the greater good, but refuse to?
Gulag, baby.

I went to public school, and these were ideas that were taught in both middle and high school in social studies classes.

I rejected both ideas, and am doing pretty well for myself because of it.

Instead of forcing people to work by force in a system that you can take advantage of (Communism), why don't you become Capitalist. Sure there will be those who are poor and those who are supper rich, but for the most part it's up to you. It's better than forcing people to work by shooting them and putting them in Gulag concentration camps. Capitalism compells people to work without executing those who don't.

supper rich
Heh :)

Just to throw an idea out: Another reason Communism is looked down upon by the general American population and some Europeans is because it has a negative connotation. During the cold war America and the U.S.S.R were bitter enemies and so calling someone a Communist is like calling them un-patriotic. You are placing them on the enemy's side.

how would your society treat a true prodigy, an Einstien or a Hawking?

heh. einstein = a big fan of socialism

but in any case, an egalitarian society would actually be better with prodigies. who knows how many countless geniuses have been lost to us due soley to their lack of opportunities from being stuck at the shitty end of class society?

Capitalism compells people to work without executing those who don't.

i'll ignore your conflation of communism with stalinism (and leninism for that matter)...

i personally fail to see much of a material difference between "work or i'll shoot you" and "work or i'll withhold access to food and shelter from you"

I'm sure the payscales and material rewards were not that large or in theory that isn't a pure Communist system, because one is higher than the other.

hey, now you're catching on. how many party elite starved to death in 1932/33 vs how many ukranian peasants?

i'll ignore your conflation of communism with stalinism (and leninism for that matter)...

i personally fail to see much of a material difference between "work or i'll shoot you" and "work or i'll withhold access to food and shelter from you"
You've got it wrong, it should be:

"work or I'll shoot you"
vs.
"I choose not to work, thus I choose to starve"

See the difference?

Instead of forcing people to work by force in a system that you can take advantage of (Communism), why don't you become Capitalist. Sure there will be those who are poor and those who are supper rich, but for the most part it's up to you. It's better than forcing people to work by shooting them and putting them in Gulag concentration camps. Capitalism compells people to work without executing those who don't.

Ah, so you choose whether to start with all the advantages then. George Bush chose to have rich parents who sent him to private school, covered his ass for his business failures and helped him become PoTUS. Right. Same way an illiterate kid in Brazil chose to be the child of a gang-raped penniless orphan 14-year old.

I could work my ass off all my life under Capitalism and my entire family would still be in thrall to those who's distant ancestors had the better sword-arm.

You've got it wrong, it should be:

"work or I'll shoot you"
vs.
"I choose not to work, thus I choose to starve"

See the difference?

And if there are no jobs available?

"I have no job so I starve because there are no jobs."

The really important difference.

Ah, so you choose whether to start with all the advantages then. George Bush chose to have rich parents who sent him to private school, covered his ass for his business failures and helped him become PoTUS. Right. Same way an illiterate kid in Brazil chose to be the child of a gang-raped penniless orphan 14-year old.
So what? The Bush family doesn't deserve to have money? What are you saying here? There are public schools for education. And hello brazillian appeal to emotion :fluffle: Capitalism: Gang-raping 14 year olds since 1765.

I could work my ass off all my life under Capitalism and my entire family would still be in thrall to those who's distant ancestors had the better sword-arm.
You could also work your ass off and make money/fame whatever. The point is that you have class mobility, you can make your own fortune.

And if there are no jobs available?

"I have no job so I starve because there are no jobs."

The really important difference.
This has little with the point to do. But there are unemployment systems to keep you alive for better times.

Funny how people die of starvation in communist countires and not the capitalistic ones.

Alright, I did a thread like this about capitalism, that cold-hearted, yet loving bitch, now to be fair and balanced, which I rarely aspire to be, I will do the same about communism. So, what makes this system so great? Can it work, will it? Why is egalitarianism important? Where can I get a Che' t-shirt?
You answered your own question. Che shirts!

"You could also work your ass off and make money/fame whatever. The point is that you have class mobility, you can make your own fortune."

I agree fully. I just don't see why Communists would rather force people to be equal when they could just let people decide their own fate and suffer the consequences instead of shooting them for being lazy. In Capitalism we do not hold access to food or shelter from those who went down a crappy path, they chose that path. This is my view of the poor boy, yes it sucks that you have no money. However, instead of feeling sorry for yourself that you don't have the money the rich man does, why don't you try to better your lives in the ways you can? Also, when I said "Why don't you become Capitalist" I was not refering to a single individual, but to a single nation. I can guarantee that if some countries become Capitalist, their economy would grow stronger. Communism really gives you no where to go if you are poor. One of the glorious things about Capitalism is that you can go into the department you want, you can make the most of your career. In Communism many times you are appointed to jobs you don't like. In theory, when one person is poor, the whole society is. I also find it funny how more people starve in Communist countries than Capitalist countries. If Communism didn't limit people so much maybe people could reach their full potential. And maybe these "lazy" people would be compelled to actually make something of their lives instead of taking advantage of a system that gives them a free ride.

Since when did I threaten to shoot people? I threaten social ostracization and food rations to disgrace TV dinners (at best). You wnat to live like that? fine by me.

In capitalism there is little social mobility. A few people rise but mostly class is a family matter. I have relatives who will probably do far better than me because their parents 'made it' I have others who are far less likely to because their parents did not. Not that I won't do my damndest to beat them all! but that's how it is.

You've got it wrong, it should be:

"work or I'll shoot you"
vs.
"I choose not to work, thus I choose to starve"

See the difference?

on what planet do you live where capitalism creates full employment and there is no such thing as structual unemployment?

In capitalism there is little social mobility. A few people rise but mostly class is a family matter. I have relatives who will probably do far better than me because their parents 'made it' I have others who are far less likely to because their parents did not. Not that I won't do my damndest to beat them all! but that's how it is.

Not true in most cases. My parents are middle class, but their parents were lower-class (coal miners to be exact), and their parents had migrated from Europe and started life here quite poor. I'll be even better off then them, because they could afford college for me while my dad had to go to night school to get his degree after working in construction for 10 years.

The vast majority of people are poor because they didn't put the effort in to begin with. I put the effort in, and I will do well. There is no reason anyone else cannot.

on what planet do you live where capitalism creates full employment and there is no such thing as structual unemployment?

Most people who are unemployed are short term (83%) and find new work fairly quickly. There are people who refuse to work, and it isn't our duty to employ them just because we can.

Not everyone deserves a job. You have to earn it through effort and merit.

Lack of nationalism? Pah. Check out North Korea.

The good thing about communism is that the state is pretty likely to kill you, so you won't have to live through the brutal torment which is about to descend on the rest of your country.


Please use Big "C" when talking about fake communism. Real communism has no state, and it has no leader. Why do we always have to keep explaining this to you crazy ass libertarians?

How about my friend whho is, in all honesty Thick.

He works his ass off but he will never get that far in life.

How about all the social problems Capitalism perpetuates? Parents unable to care for children because the jobs they can get pay so little they have to work all hours, the single parents for whom the problem goes double. The 'pensions crisis'. Unemployment. Racial tensions on the lines of 'filthy x coming here taking our jobs'. Capitalism has no cure, Communism IS the cure.

Most people who are unemployed are short term (83%) and find new work fairly quickly. There are people who refuse to work, and it isn't our duty to employ them just because we can.

Not everyone deserves a job. You have to earn it through effort and merit.

Or through having the right friends, or through the simple luck of being first on the list. You think supermarkets vet candidates?

How about my friend whho is, in all honesty Thick.
He works his ass off but he will never get that far in life.

How about all the social problems Capitalism perpetuates? Parents unable to care for children because the jobs they can get pay so little they have to work all hours, the single parents for whom the problem goes double. The 'pensions crisis'. Unemployment. Racial tensions on the lines of 'filthy x coming here taking our jobs'. Capitalism has no cure, Communism IS the cure.

So instead of trying to fix the problems and keep capitalism, we instead lower everyone's living standards dramatically, crush individualism, and make everyone equal regardless of merit?

They shouldn't have had children; they should have thought of that before they had sex. Personal responsibility is key to success; if you don't have it, you deserve to fail.

Unemployment is a problem because there are people who never put the effort in, never got the education, or took initiative, and to say they deserve a job is ridiculous. Why do they deserve the same employment opportunity as everyone else?

Racial tensions exist everywhere. If there is only tension in capitalist countries, why do so many civil wars occur in Communist countries?

Or through having the right friends, or through the simple luck of being first on the list. You think supermarkets vet candidates?

How many people don't have friends in the right places? I didn't, and neither do the vast majority of workers. We got our jobs based upon qualifications; that being said, there is always going to be that peddling of influence and it is wrong.

Being first doesn't guarantee a job. You have to apply in a timely fashion, but being first doesn't matter.

There is influence peddling in Communism as well. How do you think good jobs are allocated? Based upon influence in the Party, not upon merit.

So instead of trying to fix the problems and keep capitalism, we instead lower everyone's living standards dramatically, crush individualism, and make everyone equal regardless of merit?

They shouldn't have had children; they should have thought of that before they had sex. Personal responsibility is key to success; if you don't have it, you deserve to fail.

Unemployment is a problem because there are people who never put the effort in, never got the education, or took initiative, and to say they deserve a job is ridiculous. Why do they deserve the same employment opportunity as everyone else?

Racial tensions exist everywhere. If there is only tension in capitalist countries, why do so many civil wars occur in Communist countries?

Try to get it through your finely educated head. Communist countries do not exist BY THEIR VERY NATURE.

Second. You say that life chances of children depend on their parents circumstances. In other words some people deserve to be poor. if you are not socialized to be hardworking and moral you will not grow up that way. if you are barely socialized at all (as happens as a result of a lack of parenting) you will end up with the gang culture. Well documented facts. Capitalism provides no cure. your cure comes down to 'starve 'em'.

You've got it wrong, it should be:

"work or I'll shoot you"
vs.
"I choose not to work, thus I choose to starve"

See the difference?


What about all those who work at Boeing that just got laid off? They have to deal with:
Work, and we'll lay you off and you'll starve because there's no other plane manufacturers who will hire you.

So what? The Bush family doesn't deserve to have money? What are you saying here? There are public schools for education. And hello brazillian appeal to emotion :fluffle: Capitalism: Gang-raping 14 year olds since 1765.


You could also work your ass off and make money/fame whatever. The point is that you have class mobility, you can make your own fortune.


That little Brazilian kid also doesn't have access to free education. That's socialism!

How about my friend whho is, in all honesty Thick.

He works his ass off but he will never get that far in life.

How about all the social problems Capitalism perpetuates? Parents unable to care for children because the jobs they can get pay so little they have to work all hours, the single parents for whom the problem goes double. The 'pensions crisis'. Unemployment. Racial tensions on the lines of 'filthy x coming here taking our jobs'. Capitalism has no cure, Communism IS the cure.



*Claps Heartily*

Those defending communism are at an unfair advantage. In many posts, you are criticizing capitalism from a policy perspective i.e. evaluating it not upon its intentions, but upon its results. This is all well and good. However, you are being hypocritical in not allowing capitalists to do the same. When we attack communism i.e. the USSR, China, etc. the answer is inevitably "that wasn't true communism." You are forcing capitalists to evaluate theoretical communism while you attack real-world capitalism. How is that fair? I have heard very few theoretical attacks on capitalism, but defenders of communism insist capitalists must attack them from this framework.

If you argue both from the real-world perspective, capitalism has the advantage over Stalin, Lenin, Mao and the like. If you evaluate both from the theoretical perspective and completely forget about policy analysis, Adam Smith and the hundreds of other economic followers he has have the edge over Karl Marx and his minute intellectual following. Only by putting capitalism at a disadvantage can communism prevail.

What about all those who work at Boeing that just got laid off? They have to deal with:
Work, and we'll lay you off and you'll starve because there's no other plane manufacturers who will hire you.
OH MY, get Stalin on the phone!

That's how it goes, isn't it? There will be other work, it's not a right not to get fired.

Those defending communism are at an unfair advantage. In many posts, you are criticizing capitalism from a policy perspective i.e. evaluating it not upon its intentions, but upon its results. This is all well and good. However, you are being hypocritical in not allowing capitalists to do the same. When we attack communism i.e. the USSR, China, etc. the answer is inevitably "that wasn't true communism." You are forcing capitalists to evaluate theoretical communism while you attack real-world capitalism. How is that fair? I have heard very few theoretical attacks on capitalism, but defenders of communism insist capitalists must attack them from this framework.

If you argue both from the real-world perspective, capitalism has the advantage over Stalin, Lenin, Mao and the like. If you evaluate both from the theoretical perspective and completely forget about policy analysis, Adam Smith and the hundreds of other economic followers he has have the edge over Karl Marx and his minute intellectual following. Only by putting capitalism at a disadvantage can communism prevail.
I couldn't agree more. Well said sir.

That little Brazilian kid also doesn't have access to free education. That's socialism!
Did you just say Brazil is a socialist country withouth free education?

Communism is terrible because it supersedes the idea of the individual with the idea of the group, the collective, the state, whatever it ends up as. Any system which puts anything before the individual - and those things the individual chooses to value - is evil.

There. All theoretical forms of Communism defeated.

Just another example of mobility in Capitalism: My grandmother lived in a two bedroom, one bathroom, one kitchen shack in West Virginia as a kid. She did not have indoor plumbing and she had a large family. My grandfather was lower middle class. They worked their asses off, neither of them had very high paying jobs, but through hard work and saving money they have a fortune of over a million dollars. My grandmother was a relator and my grandfather worked for the NSA, neither made over $70,000 a year but they saved and have around $1.5 million dollars today. Don't tell me that Capitalism isn't socially mobile.

There. All theoretical forms of Communism defeated.
Actually, all you did was provide your moralistic opinion. You defeated no one.

Unless you can go down the path of philosophy and somehow prove logically that favouring the individual over the community is always better, you can't defeat anything.

Those defending communism are at an unfair advantage. In many posts, you are criticizing capitalism from a policy perspective i.e. evaluating it not upon its intentions, but upon its results. This is all well and good. However, you are being hypocritical in not allowing capitalists to do the same. When we attack communism i.e. the USSR, China, etc. the answer is inevitably "that wasn't true communism." You are forcing capitalists to evaluate theoretical communism while you attack real-world capitalism. How is that fair? I have heard very few theoretical attacks on capitalism, but defenders of communism insist capitalists must attack them from this framework.

two things.

firstly, it has to do with the fact that the term 'communism' denotes a theoretical idea, while the term 'capitalism' denotes the currently existing system (and its immediate historical predecessors). so of course you would have to discuss them under those terms - it doesn't make sense to do otherwise unless we are discussing particular systems of operating under or arriving at communism. and in that case, you have to make sure that your historical examples are even relevant to the position put forward by the person you are discussing with. the actions of stalinist governments won't gain you ground in an argument with anarchists.

as for theoretical complaints against any general system of private ownership of the means of production and wage labor, there are many. one of the major ones is that they necessarily create and maintain an enormously stratified and hierarchical society, with a tiny elite that owns nearly all of the wealth and holds nearly all of the power in that society, while the vast majority of people are left to fight each other for the scraps. the benefits of pretty much everything go disproportionately to the elite, while the costs and hardships are disproportionately pushed onto everybody else. i'm surprised this has never been articulated to you before.

If you evaluate both from the theoretical perspective and completely forget about policy analysis, Adam Smith and the hundreds of other economic followers he has have the edge over Karl Marx and his minute intellectual following.

me thinks you rather grossly underestimate the sheer volume influence marx has had on things. and this is coming from a non-marxist.

Any system which puts anything before the individual - and those things the individual chooses to value - is evil.

There. All theoretical forms of Communism defeated.

are you actually being serious? this is so trivially false that i can't tell.

i personally fail to see much of a material difference between "work or i'll shoot you" and "work or i'll withhold access to food and shelter from you"

Because a capitalist company isn't the only entity with exclusive ability to provide food and shelter (or the means by which they can be got).

If the government tells you "work or I'll shoot you", you must.

If a CEO tells you "work or I won't pay you", you can work somewhere else.

two things.

firstly, it has to do with the fact that the term 'communism' denotes a theoretical idea, while the term 'capitalism' denotes the currently existing system (and its immediate historical predecessors). so of course you would have to discuss them under those terms - it doesn't make sense to do otherwise unless we are discussing particular systems of operating under or arriving at communism. and in that case, you have to make sure that your historical examples are even relevant to the position put forward by the person you are discussing with. the actions of stalinist governments won't gain you ground in an argument with anarchists.

as for theoretical complaints against any general system of private ownership of the means of production and wage labor, there are many. one of the major ones is that they necessarily create and maintain an enormously stratified and hierarchical society, with a tiny elite that owns nearly all of the wealth and holds nearly all of the power in that society, while the vast majority of people are left to fight each other for the scraps. the benefits of pretty much everything go disproportionately to the elite, while the costs and hardships are disproportionately pushed onto everybody else. i'm surprised this has never been articulated to you before.



me thinks you rather grossly underestimate the sheer volume influence marx has had on things. and this is coming from a non-marxist.

For the sake of argument, I will concede that communism refers to a theoretical idea. That said, capitalism does as well. Capitalism is not a pre-existing system. The United States is not a true capitalist system any more than the USSR was a true communist system. Under true capitalism, there would be no SEC, no graduated income tax, no Social Security, etc. etc. Therefore, all analysis of capitalism based upon trends in the US or other similar countries is as false a depiction of the economic system as Soviet Russia is to communism.

On to point two, theoretical arguments. True capitalism does not produce this because without governmental interferance in the free market, you do not have monopolies and the creation of privilige which cause this theoretical plutocracy to form. According to Smith, in a completely self-regulating society, the rule of supply and demand regulates all factions of the economy and equillibrium will eventually be reached where every member of society is freely contributing to their own betterment and the betterment of society through labor because of supply and demand.

Thirdly, Marx does have a great influence, this is true. However, the majority of his influence comes not from his true teachings as outlined in Economic and Philisophic Manuscripts and the Communist Manifesto, but from a gross distortion of these to serve the ends of dictators such as Stalin under "false" communism. His real philosophy as he intended it and as you are defending here has little international influence compared to the words of Hume, Smith, Hayek, and so many others.

There's absolutely NOTHING GREAT about Communism if you value human rights at all!

Oh, what? Communist Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea and so on aren't "real" communist countries because they have huge flaws which highlight the bad points of communism?

Perhaps the USA, Britain, Australia, Japan and so on aren't "real" capitalist countries. After all, they have bad points which reveal some of the shortcomings of modern capitalism. I'd better deny that they're the result of my philosophy. No. Communism is (according to Marx, the guy who came up with the label) the stage when the government had withered away because there was no need for it, and the people ran things themselves. Stalin mostly referred to Russia's policy as "socialism". Marx makes a clear definition between Communism and Socialism.

pros:
-everyone eats, whether or not he works (also a con)

cons:
-severaly limits the entrepreneurial spirit necessary to compete in the global marketplace, create jobs for people without such ambition (lest they all become farmers), provide quality/innovative goods and services for consumers, provide such goods and services in such a way as to provide value (low price/quality ratio), make it so that people don';t have to wait in line 3 hours to get a loaf of bread from the local general store, etc.

Greed is good, in many ways.... get rid of the chase for money/success and you hurt those who have no ambition to chase either (as briefly outlined above).

For the sake of argument, I will concede that communism refers to a theoretical idea. That said, capitalism does as well. Capitalism is not a pre-existing system. The United States is not a true capitalist system any more than the USSR was a true communist system. Under true capitalism, there would be no SEC, no graduated income tax, no Social Security, etc. etc. Therefore, all analysis of capitalism based upon trends in the US or other similar countries is as false a depiction of the economic system as Soviet Russia is to communism.

i, and history, disagree. the term capitalism was invented to put a name to the actually existing system that developed in europe and the united states and such. it was not used, and is not mainly used, to describe a specific theoretical state - it certainly doesn't require the lack of old age pensions or graduated income taxes to qualify.

there are really three seperate things we could discuss when talking about capitalism:

the first is capitalism as seen in any particular country or set of countries, and the real world data of wealth distribution, economic growth, employment rates, etc that goes with it.

the second is the generalized common denominator of capitalist countries. this is what best counts as the theoretical underpinnings of capitalism, as these would be the elements a place needed to have to count as capitalistic. some of these distinguishing features are that the means of production have to be largely privately owned, the bulk of people have to sell themselves on the labor market to those that own capital in order to make a living, and goods and services are sold on markets.

the third, and least useful, is to create a very specific imaginary construct and call that true capitalism. and let's be honest, it is an extremely detailed and specific imaginary construct that we are being asked to call 'real' capitalism, complete with a set of regulations, laws, and policies which are to be enforced and a set that are to be abolished.

On to point two, theoretical arguments. True capitalism does not produce this because without governmental interferance in the free market, you do not have monopolies and the creation of privilige which cause this theoretical plutocracy to form. According to Smith, in a completely self-regulating society, the rule of supply and demand regulates all factions of the economy and equillibrium will eventually be reached where every member of society is freely contributing to their own betterment and the betterment of society through labor because of supply and demand.

a kind of equilibrium is sort of reached by capitalism, sure. but what does that have to do with wealth distributions and the skewed distributions of costs and benefits? what is your evidence that removing 'government interference' while retaining capitalism tends to makes society less stratified, break up the concentration of wealth and property and power in the hands of a tiny elite, or lessen the extra hardships and costs pushed onto the non-elite? because the real world evidence tends to point the other way.

Thirdly, Marx does have a great influence, this is true. However, the majority of his influence comes not from his true teachings as outlined in Economic and Philisophic Manuscripts and the Communist Manifesto, but from a gross distortion of these to serve the ends of dictators such as Stalin under "false" communism. His real philosophy as he intended it and as you are defending here has little international influence compared to the words of Hume, Smith, Hayek, and so many others.

no, i'm really not talking about the influence of maoism or stalinism. i'm talking about in the academy, even in the economics departments (though less there than elsewhere in these days of neoliberalism).

I find it funny that after we provided examples of Capitalisms social mobility you changed to a different point. mehehehehe :D

I find it funny that after we provided examples of Capitalisms social mobility you changed to a different point. mehehehehe :D

who changed what subject?

and why should the existence of the possibility of mobility between classes mean anything to people who desire a classless society? i mean, what do you expect people to say?
"hey, it turns out that there is a possibility that different people could become part of the tiny elite that owns 95%+ of everything! that's amazing. screw freedom and equality, there is a remote chance i could do a bit of exploiting myself!"

Your rebutle does not adress the point I was making by proving that there is social mobility in Capitalism. You don't have to be at the top to not be poor, you could be somewhere in the middle. As for freedom, Capitalism GIVES people economic freedom you moron. It gives them the freedom to rise to the top. Social mobility doesn't mean a lot to Communists but the point that I was trying to make is that Capitalism has social mobility and that people who are poor actually can rise in economic power so saying that poor people are stuck poor in Capitalism is stupid. Also, just because you aren't poor doesn't mean you are a corporate executive, talk about a jump. You could not be poor and also not be exploiting. Unfortunately, some degree of exploiting has to occur for an economy to work. Does anyone else agree with me? One of the reasons Communism failed that along with lazy workers and limiting everything.

i, and history, disagree. the term capitalism was invented to put a name to the actually existing system that developed in europe and the united states and such. it was not used, and is not mainly used, to describe a specific theoretical state - it certainly doesn't require the lack of old age pensions or graduated income taxes to qualify.

This is true. However, at the time the idea of capitalism was developed, the United States was closer to the true meaning of the term, before the regulation brought on by the New Deal and Progressive Era that grossly distorted the term.

a kind of equilibrium is sort of reached by capitalism, sure. but what does that have to do with wealth distributions and the skewed distributions of costs and benefits? what is your evidence that removing 'government interference' while retaining capitalism tends to makes society less stratified, break up the concentration of wealth and property and power in the hands of a tiny elite, or lessen the extra hardships and costs pushed onto the non-elite? because the real world evidence tends to point the other way.

By equilibrium, I mean an equilibrium in the social sense with minimum unemployment and the greatest possible populus maintaining a healthy lifestyle. In terms of real world evidence, we are not considering this, remember, because I can't attack communism on a real world basis. Besides, human beings are not guarenteed a job as one of their natural rights, they are merely guarenteed the right to seek a job. Whether they get one or not is no one's concern exept theirs.

no, i'm really not talking about the influence of maoism or stalinism. i'm talking about in the academy, even in the economics departments (though less there than elsewhere in these days of neoliberalism).

I know that you are not. However, Marx is not well known based upon his theoretical evidence. His renoun comes primarily from those governments that attempted to copy him but failed miserably. "the academy" has little real-world influence outside of the Ivory Tower.