NationStates Jolt Archive

Self-explanatory poll coming (gasp, no mandatory moderator option =-o).

My god. What idiot would vote for pure Capitalism? That's slavery!!

My god. What idiot would vote for pure Capitalism? That's slavery!!

I'd put money on Metascela, Corneliu, Frangland, Whittier and Melkor Unchained voting for it.

My god. What idiot would vote for pure Capitalism? That's slavery!!

I did. :p

Anyway, if were arguing solely from theory, pure capitalism would work. It's putting it in to practice that doesn't. There wouldn't be the problems associated with it if it functioned according to theory, and the same goes with communism. Neither theory has worked in practice on a large scale or for a long time.

I did. :p

Anyway, if were arguing solely from theory, pure capitalism would work. It's putting it in to practice that doesn't. There wouldn't be the problems associated with it if it functioned according to theory, and the same goes with communism. Neither theory has worked in practice on a large scale or for a long time.

True, although the "Communism" you speak of is actually a Dictatorship.

My god. What idiot would vote for pure Capitalism? That's slavery!!

I did, but only as the lesser of two evils. *cracks whip*

True, although the "Communism" you speak of is actually a Dictatorship.

That's my point; both work in theory, but fail in practice. The "communism" wasn't anywhere near it in the USSR or any country; the party elite lived off of the wealth of the very people they were supposed to help. It's as equally impossible for pure capitalism to work in practice.

I'll take true communism anyday over true capitalism.

Let's see, which do I really hold more important, my own skin, or the "collective good?"

I'll let you all guess what I voted for.

I'll take true communism anyday over true capitalism.

Why? Capitalism would enable you to have a better life through your own hard work, and you'd earn wages totally dependant on competition and marketability. There wouldn't be any impedimants to success other than the effort you put in.

Why? Capitalism would enable you to have a better life through your own hard work, and you'd earn wages totally dependant on competition and marketability. There wouldn't be any impedimants to success other than the effort you put in.

And the whims of the purchasers. What if I create the best OS ever? Microsoft are odds on to retain the market and I'll be barely supported by the tech-geeks.

And the whims of the purchasers. What if I create the best OS ever? Microsoft are odds on to retain the market and I'll be barely supported by the tech-geeks.

Not in theoretical pure capitalism. The company whose system is the best value will succeed, regardless of size. Since your system is the best, you would be able to compete with established companies once you found a way to sell it, provided the price is justified for the quality.

Remember, Microsoft started in the same way as your system would.

I'd put money on Metascela, Corneliu, Frangland, Whittier and Melkor Unchained voting for it.

And Me! I don't wantr to be made poorer, I want my employee's to be a cog in a machine, and I want to be the switch.

I voted for Pure Capitalisim, at least you get more freedom that way.

I'd put money on Metascela, Corneliu, Frangland, Whittier and Melkor Unchained voting for it.

yah

Capitalism: strong economy

Communism: weak economy

Why? Capitalism would enable you to have a better life through your own hard work, and you'd earn wages totally dependant on competition and marketability. There wouldn't be any impedimants to success other than the effort you put in.

There would also be no minimum wage, health benefits, safety regulations, unions. Monopoly's would be impossible to break and would become de facto totalitarian regimes. There would be no limits as to what could be sold, so prostitution and slavery would be legal.

But hey, if you don't consider those to be impediments to success...

I voted for Pure Capitalisim, at least you get more freedom that way.

that too

freedom vs. forced equality

i don't want to get into this argument so i'll stop there. i mean thar.

Why? Capitalism would enable you to have a better life through your own hard work, and you'd earn wages totally dependant on competition and marketability. There wouldn't be any impedimants to success other than the effort you put in.

Because in communism everyone would have a better life, working to the best of thier ability and having everyone reap the rewards equally. The system expounds upon sucess through cooperation, and minimalizes failure because of communality. People could work without having to worry about whether they are "marketable" enough for some corporation who doesn't care about them anyway.(when talking about "work," please remember when talking about communism Marx said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Therefore it follows that those who refuse to contribute when they can will not reap the same rewards as a hard worker, even in Communism.) Equal(er) distribution of wealth would lead to less crime and conflict, less tension, and ensure that class/power structures did not develop, something capitalism cannot ever guarantee.
It would eliminate starvation, deprivation and poverty, and greatly reduce the suffering of people. It would also be more efficient in using resources as instead of having 5 companies making the same damn blender, then spending even more resources advertising it, one group of workers would work on blenders, saving time, people and resources for other projects.

Assuming again that we are talking about a working version of the theorectical model.

Also, I'm a socialist so it would be utopia to me.

Not in theoretical pure capitalism. The company whose system is the best value will succeed, regardless of size. Since your system is the best, you would be able to compete with established companies once you found a way to sell it, provided the price is justified for the quality.

Remember, Microsoft started in the same way as your system would.

You're not familiar with history pre-monopoly busting days, are you?

yah

Capitalism: strong economy

Communism: weak economy


Amend that to

Capitalism = Economy, Economy Uber Alles

Communism = No need for 'economy'.

There would also be no minimum wage, health benefits, safety regulations, unions. Monopoly's would be impossible to break and would become de facto totalitarian regimes. There would be no limits as to what could be sold, so prostitution and slavery would be legal.

But hey, if you don't consider those to be impediments to success...

No, you're arguing from the effects of it in practice. In theoretical pure capitalism, monopolies would not exist because competition would be equally balanced between companies. The government would be free because there would be no regulation of the consumer, and companies would have to listen to them or go out of business. Wages would be higher due to competition between companies for skilled workers, and people would only earn less if they had nothing to offer their employer.

Slavery would be illegal, because it is inherently anti-capitalist and anti-competitive. Prostitution wouldn't be legal or illegal, because it would thrive solely on the desire of society to pay for it. Everything would hinge on the desire of the consumer.

Unions wouldn't be illegal, but they would have to attract workers' support or they would fail. After all, there's nothing uncapitalist about organizing for better pay and working conditions. Labor unions are corporations of the workers.

You're not familiar with history pre-monopoly busting days, are you?

That was pure capitalism in practice, which doesn't work (just like Communism). My argument, like the one for communism, is entirely based upon the theory. I know it wouldn't work in practice, and it's ridiculous to try and argue it would.

freedom vs. forced equality
[/I].
Freedom for a few, slavery for the rest.

Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality. Mikhail Bakunin

I hate extremes and would always be fighting for which ever system (Capitilism or Communism) was currently in the minority.

A well balanced system will never crash and is the only way to keep the apparency of the two systems to a minimum. An extreme system is always installed by an extremist(s), and therefore destined to always hit a 'brick wall'.

Looks like I'm going to vote Capitilism from how the votes have gone so far. However, I'm content in the knowledge that my choice is in an aim to deliquesce which ever system is currently the most extremely supported.

Because in communism everyone would have a better life, working to the best of thier ability and having everyone reap the rewards equally. The system expounds upon sucess through cooperation, and minimalizes failure because of communality. People could work without having to worry about whether they are "marketable" enough for some corporation who doesn't care about them anyway.(when talking about "work," please remember when talking about communism Marx said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Therefore it follows that those who refuse to contribute when they can will not reap the same rewards as a hard worker, even in Communism.) Equal(er) distribution of wealth would lead to less crime and conflict, less tension, and ensure that class/power structures did not develop, something capitalism cannot ever guarantee.
It would eliminate starvation, deprivation and poverty, and greatly reduce the suffering of people. It would also be more efficient in using resources as instead of having 5 companies making the same damn blender, then spending even more resources advertising it, one group of workers would work on blenders, saving time, people and resources for other projects.

Assuming again that we are talking about a working version of the theorectical model.

Also, I'm a socialist so it would be utopia to me.


Yes, but the only problem with that is it requires everyone to work equally and put in the same effort. There are always people who are not going to do their fair share of the work, and to give them the same reward as everyone else is unfair. That's the major flaw in Communism, it does not encourage individuals to work for their goals, and does not reward based upon the value of work put in. The only real motivation to work is for the good of everyone else, and human nature tells us that not everyone wants to; after all, the concept of wealth and classes had to originate with somebody. Crime would still exist because of selfish impulses.

Pure captialism would enable everyone to succeed as long as they put in the effort, and there would be social classes based solely upon the amount of effort individuals put in. Crime would be low, but criminals would only be responsible for their crimes, and socioeconomic status would be due only to them. It would have unlimited social mobility, so class tensions would be nonexistent or very low. The society would be 100% meritocratic, and give everyone the chance to live their lives better through work, rather than being stuck with the same life as everyone else regardless of your own assets.

Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality. Mikhail Bakunin

I hate extremes and would always be fighting for which ever system (Capitilism or Communism) was currently in the minority.

A well balanced system will never crash. An extreme system is always installed by an extremist(s), and therefore destined to always hit a 'brick wall'.
What he said :D

Because in communism everyone would have a better life, working to the best of thier ability and having everyone reap the rewards equally. The system expounds upon sucess through cooperation, and minimalizes failure because of communality. People could work without having to worry about whether they are "marketable" enough for some corporation who doesn't care about them anyway.(when talking about "work," please remember when talking about communism Marx said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Therefore it follows that those who refuse to contribute when they can will not reap the same rewards as a hard worker, even in Communism.) Equal(er) distribution of wealth would lead to less crime and conflict, less tension, and ensure that class/power structures did not develop, something capitalism cannot ever guarantee.
It would eliminate starvation, deprivation and poverty, and greatly reduce the suffering of people. It would also be more efficient in using resources as instead of having 5 companies making the same damn blender, then spending even more resources advertising it, one group of workers would work on blenders, saving time, people and resources for other projects.

Assuming again that we are talking about a working version of the theorectical model.

Also, I'm a socialist so it would be utopia to me.

what happens when you take away the incentive of money?

who's going to start a business when the tax rate is 100%

lol

communism fails primarily because it puts a ceiling on how far someone can advance, how successful one can be.... and that really freaks out the smart, ambitious business minds who would provide tons of jobs for workers, great products for consumers and investment opportunities for investors with their genius and willingness to accept risk. That would be gravely missing in communism, and the people would suffer for it. Communist economies are invariably weak because they lack the stimuli necessary for healthy entrepreneurialism.

Freedom for a few, slavery for the rest.

sorry, i don't know a single person who doesn't have the right to start his own business...

lack of ambition does not equal slavery.

I think nearly everyone would vote communism if they knew what it was really about. Its difficult to imagine someone not liking a system where you can do the work you enjoy without having to worry about finances.

Yes, but the only problem with that is it requires everyone to work equally and put in the same effort. There are always people who are not going to do their fair share of the work, and to give them the same reward as everyone else is unfair. That's the major flaw in Communism, it does not encourage individuals to work for their goals, and does not reward based upon the value of work put in. The only real motivation to work is for the good of everyone else, and human nature tells us that not everyone wants to; after all, the concept of wealth and classes had to originate with somebody. Crime would still exist because of selfish impulses.

Pure captialism would enable everyone to succeed as long as they put in the effort, and there would be social classes based solely upon the amount of effort individuals put in. Crime would be low, but criminals would only be responsible for their crimes, and socioeconomic status would be due only to them. It would have unlimited social mobility, so class tensions would be nonexistent or very low. The society would be 100% meritocratic, and give everyone the chance to live their lives better through work, rather than being stuck with the same life as everyone else regardless of your own assets.

Yes it does require people with a certain morality, but suspension of disbelief is key in this exercise I believe. I am operating under the assumption that the "society" we speak of would be ripe for a communist system, otherwise it would never work. The same holds true with a pure capitalist system - it requires a vast majority of the people under it fit a certain profile.

The reason pure communism never works outside of a small setting is because there will be people like you mentioned, who care more about thier sucess and happiness then the life or happiness of their neighbours.

On the motivation - It comes down to where people are motivated from. In a communist society, motivation must be either altruistic, based on a bigger picture, or an internal desire to simply do a good job. Hard work does lead to reward, but that reward is simply spread out accross all those in the system. So if everyone decides they aren't going to do a damned thing, it gets felt. The same goes for if everyone gets up one morning and decides to work extra hard, the rewards will be reaped, but they will be reaped by the entire society. And, as I said above, based on Marxist doctrine, the equal rewards of communism belong to those who contribute according to their ability, so if you're not contributing like you should, you won't be as rewarded.

Capitalism is great in theory and in practice most of the time, but over time it stagnates into corporatism and oligopolies. If there was pure capitalism people would not be denied proper educations for lack of money, therefore pure capitalism would still be a litte socialist.

sorry, i don't know a single person who doesn't have the right to start his own business...

lack of ambition does not equal slavery.
Wow. How the fuck would that work? Everyone can start their own business, but I'd like to see them make money when they have to compete with asshole corporations like Wal :) Mart. For everyone to have their own small business, they could have no employees (since everyone that could be employees is now a small business owner) all world wide and country businesses would have to be outlawed, all businesses that went out of the city would have to be banned. Even then it'd be incredibly hard to get a small business afloat.

My god. What idiot would vote for pure Capitalism? That's slavery!!
The people who voted capitalism probably would say the same about Communism.

One of capitalism's fatal flaws is for one person to be happy, someone else must suffer.

yah

Capitalism: strong economy

Communism: weak economy
Capitalism: suffering society

Communism: caring society

at least in theory

that too

freedom vs. forced equality

i don't want to get into this argument so i'll stop there. i mean thar.
I dar yer! I'll take forced equality over forced inequality any day.

Slavery would be illegal, because it is inherently anti-capitalist and anti-competitive.
Slavery is fundamentally ultra-capitalist. It is an example of property rights so liberally interpreted that they can extend to owning a person.

After all, there's nothing uncapitalist about organizing for better pay and working conditions.
Sure there is. In capitalist theory the pay and working conditions are supposed to be a deal between one employee and the employer. They are both determined by the worker's value to the employer. Unions are a whole new animal. They throw a third party into the works, by changing the nature of the contract from individual to collective.

what happens when you take away the incentive of money?

who's going to start a business when the tax rate is 100%

In a communist economy there is neither money nor business. Nor taxes, for that matter.

For the purpose of this question, I will assume that you only use communism and capitalism to apply to the market, since no type of genuine capitalism that I can think which could be used to also describe taxation and government spending. While it may seem obvious that capitalism is linked with small government, while in the United States most people favor capitalism tempered with some regulation (not an option in your poll obviously), most Americans also favor more government programs than could reasonably called "small government." (this comes from E.G. Dione's Why Americans Hate Politics, a book from the early 90s. Since he was trying to address why most Americans don't vote, this is likely not representative of the population who does vote. That's irrelevant though, I'm just trying to show why I only address market in my post. Spending would of course take even longer to address, as there are even more factors than in market, not all of which I address.)

There are more types of capitalism than just the lassiez faire capitalism of the robber baron era. Admittedly, at that time capitalism was literally "the supremacy of capital," and thus that was the only type.

Now however capitalism is generally defined by either a free-market or massive privatization and/or contracting. By "capitalism" I took the term to include "free-market capitalism" as I call it, and assumed that by "communism" you meant anarcho-communism. I would not think that too many people, aside from special interests and those in their pockets would support lassiez-fair capitalism when presented with the alternative of free-market capitalism would choose the latter. They might be more inclined to choose the contracting option for government than lassiez-fair but I still think that free-market capitalism of all of its types would be triumphant.

While it is impossible to have an absolutely free market as a permeate economic system in the same way that it is possible to have anarchy as a permeate system of government (NS ranking aside), it is theoretically possible to have a market only regulated to prevent abuses of the market (monopolies, trick contracts, protection rackets, etc) in the same way that it is theoretically possible to have a government which only regulates local government to ensure that it only regulates people's actions insofar as they harm others, if you get what I mean.

Similarly not too many people would choose Stalinism, except for those who were brainwashed growing up under its machine, nor any except the very desperately poor (much of the world these days thanks to colonialism, the Cold War, and the corporate-welfare/protectionism farce that our politicians try to pass off as capitalism) would choose tyrannical Maoism, Leninism, etc, nor a "worker's dictatorship, let us kill the capitalist pigs," concept either.

While you deliberately, and I would say somewhat obnoxiously leave out any shades in between, and some systems that are just plain odd, a thing onto themselves, you also leave out socialism, which I find a baffling bit of logic, as well as some other market philosophies that don't have names, and some far less common in popularity, but nevertheless are very real, such as Fascism. Anywhen, on socialism.
Socialism is not communism, and despite that Marxists like to call themselves both, communism is not socialism.
Socialism, of course comes in even more shades and types than do capitalism and communism. I can only guess that you leave socialism out in hopes that socialists will vote for communism. As an ex-socialist, I can tell you that that doesn't always work. Marxist insistence that socialism is simply a transitive form of communism, combined with a few other things, eventually drove me from socialism back to market-socialism to capitalism. And just because someone supports some, perhaps very minor regulations, are we going to automatically prefer giving up all possessions and living in a worker's collective?

It is flawed to try to make us chose between two absolutes, theoretically possible, absolutely possible to achieve. Extremism and radicalism has always been one of my tenets. Absolutism here however, is absolute absurdism, as is calling anything non-absolute as "moderate."

At any rate, out of the two, I'd obviously chose pure capitalism. It's like asking "Would you rather have anarchy that might evolve tyranny, or tyranny from the start." We'll never have a situation where this comes to a vote though, since not even a congress of the most radical politicians would try to do this in absolutes.

Oh, and now that I've said my piece, fine, but after the time I spent writing this I'm not gonna waste even more time one one of those argument deconstruction wars.

And yes, I know that this doesn't flow well, it's how I write political things and something that I need to work on.

Freedom for a few, slavery for the rest.

Yep, that's communism for ya.

Who would kick whose ass: Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck?

That's basically what I'm hearing, with a bit more of the fantastic thrown in. :rolleyes:

Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Anarcho-Communism is an argument for idealist kids and bitter old hippies to discuss. Both are undesirable for many reasons.

Sure, we all have our favorites (I lean far more toward Anarcho-Capitalism myself), but neither is ever going to prove very successful, much less utopian.
To prop up either one of these Golden Calves and call them God is a farce.

Both have a tremendous amount of violence inherent in their systems. Anyone still whacking off to these utopian fantasies needs a daily dose of reason, stat.

Who would kick whose ass: Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck?

That's basically what I'm hearing, with a bit more of the fantastic thrown in. :rolleyes:

Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Anarcho-Communism is an argument for idealist kids and bitter old hippies to discuss. Both are undesirable for many reasons.

Sure, we all have our favorites (I lean far more toward Anarcho-Capitalism myself), but neither is ever going to prove very successful, much less utopian.
To prop up either one of these Golden Calves and call them God is a farce.

Both have a tremendous amount of violence inherent in their systems. Anyone still whacking off to these utopian fantasies needs a daily dose of reason, stat.


Again, some clarity of reason from Eichen. This debate will go in circles forever, because neither system actually works in practice as its theory says it will. Both forget to take in to account human nature, and that's why the fail.

Mickey Mouse would win; he can bite and has hands.:p

No, you're arguing from the effects of it in practice. In theoretical pure capitalism, monopolies would not exist because competition would be equally balanced between companies. The government would be free because there would be no regulation of the consumer, and companies would have to listen to them or go out of business. Wages would be higher due to competition between companies for skilled workers, and people would only earn less if they had nothing to offer their employer.

Slavery would be illegal, because it is inherently anti-capitalist and anti-competitive. Prostitution wouldn't be legal or illegal, because it would thrive solely on the desire of society to pay for it. Everything would hinge on the desire of the consumer.

Unions wouldn't be illegal, but they would have to attract workers' support or they would fail. After all, there's nothing uncapitalist about organizing for better pay and working conditions. Labor unions are corporations of the workers.

That's not capitalism, that's utopian meritocracy. There's no built in provision in even theoretical Capitalism to ensure fair competition. How is slavery anti-capitalist? You have a product. You sell it. Government has no ability to intervene. That's capitalism.

One of capitalism's fatal flaws is for one person to be happy, someone else must suffer.

Err, WTF? So you're saying that money = happiness? Wow! No poor people are happy, and all rich people are just fucking ecstatic?

That's not how it is and you really ought to know better. Happiness is not a zero-sum game.

Life is suffering. Capitalism is an economic system.


Capitalism: suffering society

Communism: caring society

at least in theory

Yeah. In communist theory. Not exactly an unbiased viewpoint there.

Yep, that's communism for ya.

You know it's both. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly a partisan hack.

Mickey Mouse would win; he can bite and has hands.:p
That's true! Mickey wins, thread closed. :D

Having experienced neither option in this poll, I refuse to vote. Not even Maoist China was pure communism and not even Victorian England was pure capitalism.

We're doing this again?

Christ. I generally just stay out of these things now if I can help it: I'm seldom impressed with the opposition's arguments [all of which have been restated here I'd assume] and they never adequately answer mine. When will we learn?

We're doing this again?

Christ. I generally just stay out of these things now if I can help it: I'm seldom impressed with the opposition's arguments [all of which have been restated here I'd assume] and they never adequately answer mine. When will we learn?

It's not like either extreme is desirable or possible, so what's the point?

A “pure” communist system requires that all people are completely equal to one another and all methods of production are owned communally. However, such a system requires a more powerful entity to ensure the stability and compliance of these people. This very fact elevates a certain group over the rest, and thus negates the requirements for “pure” communism. And so is its inherent flaw.

Simple mathematical excercise. Lets say there's a "productivity index", that measures how much each person is capable of contributing economically to a society. Lets say it goes from 0-100, with 0 being someone who is a vegetable and can't do anything, and 100 being the most intelligent, resourceful, productive businessman in the world.

What happens if me and 2 of my friends have a productivity index of 80, 75, and 95 because we received secondary and post graduate education and have always been smart and hard, productive workers.

However, the other 5 people in our little group have productivity indexes of only 20, 50, 55 60 and 70 because they may be more inclined to sorts of activities that don't necessarily contribute as much to the GDP, or productivity factor as I'm calling it.

This makes the average productivity 63.125. That means that the _most productive_ members of the society are being forced to contribute what they've rightfully earned through their own abilities to those that have done nothing to earn it. It doesn't matter if they had an ability to earn it or not. The 20 may be mentally handicapped. That doesn't give him a right to what I've independantly produced, created, and earned.

If you honestly think that taxing the most productive half of society in order to increase the standard of living for those who are unable or unwilling to something they've done nothing to earn or deserve, I can only assume you are insane.

Err, WTF? So you're saying that money = happiness? Wow! No poor people are happy, and all rich people are just fucking ecstatic?
Yes. Well, it's not an exact law of mathematics, but people who don't have enough money to comfortably live are not as happy as those who do.

Life is suffering. Capitalism is an economic system.

"Life is suffering"? Where did you get that, Neitzche?

Yeah. In communist theory. Not exactly an unbiased viewpoint there.
We're talking only theory in this thread.

Capitalism is inherently a suffering society because most people are poor and will suffer because of it. Of course, they may work their way to success, but for someone to succeed in capitalism, others must fail and suffer.

Pure Communism I like better. But it is nearly impossible to matian, unless the people co-operate entirely. But order, Pure Communism dictates that everyone is equal no matter what, and there is no one under or over the social system.

The problem is, it gets out of hand. Then, it breaks because a group of people would have to govern it. It is like anarchy, but without the chaos. I like Communism, and I'm a devout Communist, but even I admit that it's hard next to near impossible in a world like this for Communism to work. But if the conditions were right, it would work spectacularly.

Simple mathematical excercise. Lets say there's a "productivity index", that measures how much each person is capable of contributing economically to a society. Lets say it goes from 0-100, with 0 being someone who is a vegetable and can't do anything, and 100 being the most intelligent, resourceful, productive businessman in the world.

What happens if me and 2 of my friends have a productivity index of 80, 75, and 95 because we received secondary and post graduate education and have always been smart and hard, productive workers.

However, the other 5 people in our little group have productivity indexes of only 20, 50, 55 60 and 70 because they may be more inclined to sorts of activities that don't necessarily contribute as much to the GDP, or productivity factor as I'm calling it.

This makes the average productivity 63.125. That means that the _most productive_ members of the society are being forced to contribute what they've rightfully earned through their own abilities to those that have done nothing to earn it. It doesn't matter if they had an ability to earn it or not. The 20 may be mentally handicapped. That doesn't give him a right to what I've independantly produced, created, and earned.

If you honestly think that taxing the most productive half of society in order to increase the standard of living for those who are unable or unwilling to something they've done nothing to earn or deserve, I can only assume you are insane.

...yah... communism/socialism are designed for "social justice"

apparently social justice = robbing the productive to give to the non-productive (and, hence, hurt average productivity).

And then some of them go out and waste my hard-earned money on lottery tickets. and then complain about the tax cut that gave them that extra money to waste on lottery tickets... or they whine about not getting enough welfare money... when all they'd do would be to waste it on lottery tickets.

someone needs to tell the welfare recipients to stop wasting that money and start investing it instead.

Pure Communism I like better. But it is nearly impossible to matian, unless the people co-operate entirely. But order, Pure Communism dictates that everyone is equal no matter what, and there is no one under or over the social system.

The problem is, it gets out of hand. Then, it breaks because a group of people would have to govern it. It is like anarchy, but without the chaos. I like Communism, and I'm a devout Communist, but even I admit that it's hard next to near impossible in a world like this for Communism to work. But if the conditions were right, it would work spectacularly.

then you'd have to deal with those darn smart/ambitious people who want more financial freedom. heck, even a lot of the non-smart, non-ambitious ones would likely want more freedom.

and, finally, one more reason lottery tickets suck -- aside from being a source for hard-working tax-payers and welfare recipients alike to waste their money, as well as causing trouble in families by allowing some to become addicted to gambling -- is that nothing pisses me off more when I'm inside a gas station than to be stuck behind someone buying lottery tickets.

I'm serious... they'll turn in like 20 tickets, get back a total of about $50, then buy 30 more tickets. This whole process takes about 5 minutes. And there's one person behind the counter, so I just have to wait for this person.

PEEVE! (hehe)

My god. What idiot would vote for pure Capitalism? That's slavery!!
Actually, no it isn't. You see, we're dealing with the pure forms of both, and in pure capitalism the market is easily entered. There are vast numbers of companies in the market and they all compete to bring the best good at the lowest price.

If you claim the monopolistic situation would occur, then that is a corruption of pure capitalism. Just as Stalin and company are corruptions of pure communism.

I'm an anarcho-communist, so I'm all for a stateless, classless society.

...yah... communism/socialism are designed for "social justice"

apparently social justice = robbing the productive to give to the non-productive (and, hence, hurt average productivity).
Wow, are you seriously suggesting that disabled vegetables don't deserve any of your tax money to live, or that they should "work their own way out of poverty?" It is wrong to let them suffer just so you can keep a few extra cents of your paycheque.

That said, I believe that people who have the ability to work, but refuse to do so, do not have the right to society's support.

Getting all debate-like.

Capitalism = A "pretend" choice

Communism = No Choice

I'd atleast like to think that there's a choice in the way I conduct such aspects of my life, so yeah.

If you honestly think that taxing the most productive half of society in order to increase the standard of living for those who are unable or unwilling to something they've done nothing to earn or deserve, I can only assume you are insane.

Tax?

Hands up who has actually read Marx here?

Not the people who talk about "tax rates of 100%" and "taking my money". Communism pre-supposes a post money economy. If the actual economics is too difficult for y'all (and, yes, thats not a put down, i always found Das Kapital remarkably difficult), read Iain Bank's sci-fi novels about "the Culture", which has a similar post money economy as it's central conceit.

My god. What idiot would vote for pure Capitalism? That's slavery!!

My god. What idiot would vote for pure Communism? That's slavery!!

My god. What idiot would vote for pure Communism? That's slavery!!

Oh yes. Very intelligent response, there.

Actually, no it isn't. You see, we're dealing with the pure forms of both, and in pure capitalism the market is easily entered. There are vast numbers of companies in the market and they all compete to bring the best good at the lowest price.

If you claim the monopolistic situation would occur, then that is a corruption of pure capitalism. Just as Stalin and company are corruptions of pure communism.

Actually, in a pure Capitalism, these monopolies would be all the easier to create. There would be no laws against them.

Yes. Well, it's not an exact law of mathematics, but people who don't have enough money to comfortably live are not as happy as those who do.

I guess you never heard of Richard Cory...

And of course... since we're theorizing... in the perfect capitalist society, everyone has enough money to comfortably live. Also since we're talking about utopias here, hey, in pure capitalism everyone will be 100% happy! ;)


"Life is suffering"? Where did you get that, Neitzche?

No, the fact that mortal life is not Heaven and never will be. Have you ever known anyone who has never suffered at all? If so, they're lying.

We're talking only theory in this thread

Yes. So? Communist theory by definition states that capitalism is evil and it sucks. That has no bearing on reality, or even the reality of theory. It's sort of like that argument for God based on "perfection," if you've heard of that.

Capitalism is inherently a suffering society because most people are poor and will suffer because of it. Of course, they may work their way to success, but for someone to succeed in capitalism, others must fail and suffer.

This is just saying what you've already said. If it's true, it's because there are finite resources and not enough for everyone to live comfortably. Then it is also true that in a communist society, particularly with a poor economy, there are too few resources and instead of some rich, some poor, everyone is poor.

Of course... in perfect communism this isn't the case. La la la, in perfect capitalism it wouldn't be the case either. Infinity and ignoring economics is fun!

This is just saying what you've already said. If it's true, it's because there are finite resources and not enough for everyone to live comfortably. Then it is also true that in a communist society, particularly with a poor economy, there are too few resources and instead of some rich, some poor, everyone is poor.

This is what you don't seem to grasp. In a real Communism, there isn't an "economy". There's no need for one.

Oh, and our planet still has quite enough resources to give everybody a damn good life. It's a shame that not even 20% of its inhabitants actually get that, thanks in no small part to global Capitalism.

Oh yes. Very intelligent response, there.

I was merely pointing out that we have two very different concepts of slavery.

I was merely pointing out that we have two very different concepts of slavery.

Oh, really? I could've sworn that was a poor attempt at a cheap shot.

This is what you don't seem to grasp. In a real Communism, there isn't an "economy". There's no need for one.


You're right, I don't grasp how a political and economic system eliminates economy. Does there suddenly become infinite resources available to everyone, instantly? How come... Star Trek transporters and replicators, perhaps time travel? Please. There will always be an economy, because there are always limits to time, labor, energy, land, and anything else that qualifies as a resource.

It's not about a "need" for an economy. Is there a need for gravity?

Oh, and our planet still has quite enough resources to give everybody a damn good life. It's a shame that not even 20% of its inhabitants actually get that, thanks in no small part to global Capitalism.

Yes, you're one of the special few who realizes the obvious, whereas everyone who disagrees is ignorant, mislead by the evil propaganda of capitalism.

This is what you don't seem to grasp. In a real Communism, there isn't an "economy". There's no need for one.

Oh, and our planet still has quite enough resources to give everybody a damn good life. It's a shame that not even 20% of its inhabitants actually get that, thanks in no small part to global Capitalism.

You do realize that there has been no "Global Capitalism" in our known history. The benefits of expanding trade have been numerous, creating jobs in places where there were none, offering whole new parts of the world a chance at a powerful economy.

The fact that so many people get so few of their basic needs met is due to government restrictions. It makes no sense for African countries with massive famines to place import tariffs on food products, but they do, and things like that are what drive that kind of poverty.

The fact that so many people get so few of their basic needs met is due to government restrictions. It makes no sense for African countries with massive famines to place import tariffs on food products, but they do, and things like that are what drive that kind of poverty.

And those tariffs probably benefit mroe than a few capitalists (who want to reduce competition from outside).

I would prefer pure capitalism, but I don't think any society is well developed enough to handle it yet. Until we develop enough interaction to insure that responsible actions must be taken, we will continue to give up some of our property rights in the form of taxes, in return for some forms of government protection.

And those tariffs probably benefit mroe than a few capitalists (who want to reduce competition from outside).

You're contradicting yourself. (Pure) Capitalism entails no government intervention in the economy. The benefactors of those tariffs cannot, then, be Capitalists, but leeches.

Also, no Capitalist (In ideology or practice) would advocate the reduction of competition. That's called protectionism, which is a distinctly socialist position.

My god. What idiot would vote for pure Capitalism? That's slavery!!

It is the antithesis of slavery. Pure capitalism is complete control over your own labor.