NationStates Jolt Archive

I understand the flaws of capatalism. I understand that it is often unjust. I understand that communism has a wonderful theory behind it.
However, it is only a theory.
I am a firm believer in capatalism, and cannot believe the number of people who are under the impression that communism is a better system. Communism fails to take into consideration the awful reality that power corrupts. Yes, power corrupts. Man is a greedy creature, always taking more than he needs. We can see this in our excessive floundering of gas when cars exist that require none. We see this in cases such as Enron, the Microsoft Monopoly in the 90s, the Roman Empire, the exploitation of the Jews in Nazi Germany, etc.
Do we put man, a corruptable creature, in charge of the entire economy unopposed? No! You'll be economically destroyed!
That is why capatalism is privatized. As individuals we are flawed, but as mankind we have caused the fall of each of the afformentioned greediness. So we spread the economy as far amongst the individuals as possible. If corruption still exists, a government elected by the masses can eliminate it. If corruption exists within said government, checks and balances to leverage power back to the people eliminate that.
Thus capalism, in union with democracy, becomes a far less corrupt system than the afformentioned communism.
This has been common sense. Goodnight.

I understand the flaws of capatalism. I understand that it is often unjust. I understand that communism has a wonderful theory behind it.
However, it is only a theory.
I am a firm believer in capatalism, and cannot believe the number of people who are under the impression that communism is a better system. Communism fails to take into consideration the awful reality that power corrupts. Yes, power corrupts. Man is a greedy creature, always taking more than he needs. We can see this in our excessive floundering of gas when cars exist that require none. We see this in cases such as Enron, the Microsoft Monopoly in the 90s, the Roman Empire, the exploitation of the Jews in Nazi Germany, etc.
Do we put man, a corruptable creature, in charge of the entire economy unopposed? No! You'll be economically destroyed!
That is why capatalism is privatized. As individuals we are flawed, but as mankind we have caused the fall of each of the afformentioned greediness. So we spread the economy as far amongst the individuals as possible. If corruption still exists, a government elected by the masses can eliminate it. If corruption exists within said government, checks and balances to leverage power back to the people eliminate that.
Thus capalism, in union with democracy, becomes a far less corrupt system than the afformentioned communism.
This has been common sense. Goodnight.

Sounds about right. Put the power in the hands of the individual, not the state.

As individuals we are flawed, but as mankind we have caused the fall of each of the afformentioned greediness.
What collectivist thinking...

http://netlab.e2k.ru/forum/uploads/av-8803.jpg

Who said that a communist government couldn't have a system of checks and balances? Or that capatilism can't end up consolidating power (look into who owns what media, or other such groupings)?

What I love is both anti-communists and anti-capatilists say the same thing, "People are greedy." Except capatilism allows people to exploit that greed at the expense of others...

Who said that a communist government couldn't have a system of checks and balances? Or that capatilism can't end up consolidating power (look into who owns what media, or other such groupings)?

What I love is both anti-communists and anti-capatilists say the same thing, "People are greedy." Except capatilism allows people to exploit that greed at the expense of others...

So does communism, except a a governmental level, meaning at least one less check.

So does communism, except a a governmental level, meaning at least one less check.
You don't think capatilism doesn't suffer from greed at the government level? In the way of corperate donations and access? Have you seen the credit bill that passed? Or the protection that the oil companies recieved?

I'm not seeing where a check is removed.

http://ussrns.com/images/sillycapitalist.gif

So does communism, except a a governmental level, meaning at least one less check.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article336547.ece

Whats the difference? All governments are corrupt

http://ussrns.com/images/sillycapitalist.gif
She comes out swingin'!

She comes out swingin'!
I was looking for a thread to reply in, and this particular one immediately reminded me of that picture.

I was looking for a thread to reply in, and this particular one immediately reminded me of that picture.

You are my most favoritest newbie EVER.

You are my most favoritest newbie EVER.
:D Yay!

You are my most favoritest newbie EVER.
Seconded. Especially since I finally took a real look at her name, said it 'out loud.' Yay for favorite new-comer!

To leave millions of people die after 0/30 years of hell for a bigger TV or a 0,03% more surplus is what makes me puke about capitalism. But hey, I’m just a depressed region proletarian, what do I know?

Your argument is flawed in that it does not recognize the fundamental differences of philosophy regarding the nature of greed and man between "capitalism" and what I'll call "scientific socialism" (Marxism).

Capatilism just serves as a way for huge corparations to only compete with other huge corparations, which only put the lower class working man into poverty. I think its far better to have a communist government then one where its whole basis is get rich and forget everyone else. Communism can have checks in it just like democracy, keeping the government in balance and creating a overall middle class society. I think the best way to get communism to work is to seperate it into sectors like the country should be governed in a sector basis with local governments. This will help keep corruptness from happening at one source and spoiling the whole system.

So does communism, except a a governmental level, meaning at least one less check.
not that anyone really cares about my opinion, but ive been trying to find a way to perfect communism for a year now. not very promising, but ill get it right.

not that anyone really cares about my opinion, but ive been trying to find a way to perfect communism for a year now. not very promising, but ill get it right.

Whow weird me too, Ive been trying to develope my own sort of socilist society on paper, which could fix many problems within it.

Your argument is flawed in that it does not recognize the fundamental differences of philosophy regarding the nature of greed and man between "capitalism" and what I'll call "scientific socialism" (Marxism).

Communism doesn't work in this world because specific men are greedy and Capitalism is a greedy system that favours specific men.

Especially since I finally took a real look at her name, said it 'out loud.'

;)

Seconded. Especially since I finally took a real look at her name, said it 'out loud.' Yay for favorite new-comer!

Were she on MSN I'd harass her incessantly.

Communism doesn't work in this world because specific men are greedy and Capitalism is a greedy system that favours specific men.
Ah the old familliar argument that communism does'nt work because of the nature of people. SAy I've got a wonderful wrench to sell you unfortunately due to the nature of mechanical devices it won't work on them. But it's a really good wrench and so we should just learn to admire it's nature and getr rid of that nasty old wrench that DOES work!

Ah the old familliar argument that communism does'nt work because of the nature of people. SAy I've got a wonderful wrench to sell you unfortunately due to the nature of mechanical devices it won't work on them. But it's a really good wrench and so we should just learn to admire it's nature and getr rid of that nasty old wrench that DOES work!

But... communism doesn't work precisely because of the nature of people... I don't understand your argument. If people were selfless and more concerned about others than themselves, then it would work...

Communism doesn't work in this world because specific men are greedy and Capitalism is a greedy system that favours specific men.



;)

I'll add my voice to those welcoming you.

Basically, unchecked Communism and unchecked Capitalism suck ass. A happy medium pleases no one, but it does the least harm.

Good regulation works. The hard part is determining the good from the bad and ensuring that the good doesn't turn into bad because of an excess of usage.

Yeah, life is complicated. Get a helmet. (this is directed at everyone.)

You don't think capatilism doesn't suffer from greed at the government level? In the way of corperate donations and access? Have you seen the credit bill that passed? Or the protection that the oil companies recieved?

I'm not seeing where a check is removed.

Hmm, let's compare two countries in their prime for corruption in both styles: the Soviet Union and the USA.

Soviet Union: Founded 1922, dictator instated 1924.
USA: Founded 1776, dictator instated never.

The USA's corruption has always been mild. A company aided unfairly here, a monopoly there, most of them either exposed or shut down completely. The Soviet Union managed to have a dictator instated within two years.
Like I said, communism is a good theory. But in practice, capatism owns.

Capatilism just serves as a way for huge corparations to only compete with other huge corparations, which only put the lower class working man into poverty. I think its far better to have a communist government then one where its whole basis is get rich and forget everyone else. Communism can have checks in it just like democracy, keeping the government in balance and creating a overall middle class society. I think the best way to get communism to work is to seperate it into sectors like the country should be governed in a sector basis with local governments. This will help keep corruptness from happening at one source and spoiling the whole system.
This is pretty close to what I would like to see. A large centralized system will disenfranchise the larger it gets. We are not capable of considering numbers so large. As a species we're really only wired to about 150 people, and it's something we need to take into account when trying to govern.

Communism doesn't work in this world because specific men are greedy and Capitalism is a greedy system that favours specific men. ;)

Once again, you fail to recognize the ultimate philosophical differences between communism and capitalism and argue those.

Stating what capitalism is, and then stating that communism doesn't work is not an argument. You need to address why the fundamental philosophical differences lead to difference in outcome.

Hmm, let's compare two countries in their prime for corruption in both styles: the Soviet Union and the USA.

Soviet Union: Founded 1922, dictator instated 1924.
USA: Founded 1776, dictator instated never.

The USA's corruption has always been mild. A company aided unfairly here, a monopoly there, most of them either exposed or shut down completely. The Soviet Union managed to have a dictator instated within two years.
Like I said, communism is a good theory. But in practice, capatism owns.
You forgot a crippling Great Depression that only a world war was able to pull us out of, labor abuses, unionbusters, the 'company store,' etc.

And USSR is not in its prime. China might be, and they're poised to overtake the US on the world stage economically.

And a slap on my wrist-this comparison does not follow nor prove a case. I shouldn't have entertained it. I'm sure someone else will draw that out...

But... communism doesn't work precisely because of the nature of people... I don't understand your argument. If people were selfless and more concerned about others than themselves, then it would work...

Ok I'll clarify. A political philosophy that is incompatable with human nature is useless to people. Just like a wrench that is incompatable with mechanical devices is useless. If I developed a political or economic theory that would work wonderfully if only people were 3 inches tall and purple it would be useless as well. People are not selfless because without the self there is no person.

What the hell is wrong with you capitalist pigs?!?!? Of course humans aregreedy arrogant beings but crist capitalism amplifies these traits not diminshes them. Communism on the other hand at least tries to stop these things. The real reason you all can't deal with Communism is because China, Cuba, and Stalin fucked it up for the rest of us. So take a chance and love a Communist today.

Your argument is flawed in that it does not recognize the fundamental differences of philosophy regarding the nature of greed and man between "capitalism" and what I'll call "scientific socialism" (Marxism).

Your argument is flawed in that Marx is not onicient, and therefore is not nessicarily right. My arguement instead chooses to use what is called logic, a tool used to prove things. Logic shows corruption in human nature through examples, and is affirmed by the many corrupt governments that have existed.

Yes, you are correct. Humans are severly flawed. We are greedy, we are envious, we are violent, we are corruptable. This much, no one can wholly disagree with (though it may be said that these features exist along a continuum within each individual, and cannot be totalized in terms of the entirety of the human species).

However, how is this exclusively connected to the idea of communism as some kind of utopia? No system is perfect; there will always be a flaw or imbalance of some kind. However, the ideal of communism - the idea of a worldwide society of equals - far supercedes that of capitalism - the pursuit of profit and personal gain (s/he with the most cookies at the end of the game "wins"). The fact is, capitalism itself, at its most base level, pits individuals against one another in an unhealthy form of competition -- my gain means your loss, and you are no longer a fellow human to me, you are a (potential) customer. Granted, this tension is typical of any competition; the difference here is that your "loss" may mean the loss of home, of health, even of life. THAT is unacceptable.

I am not a communist, I am not promoting a communist agenda - what I am taking issue with here is the unquestioning acceptance of a system whose primary philosophy is one of relentless profit, regardless of the repercussions, whose institution has been responsible (IMHO) for senseless poverty, environmental destruction, and the erosion of fundamental morality.

I find it amusing that, for many, it seems one can only be a capitalist or a communist... Obviously NO other political options exist... :rolleyes:

Besides, this all assumes that there is only one form of capitalism and one form of communism (and, I admit, perhaps my argument against capitalism is guilty of this as well). Any moderately educated human being on the face of the planet can admit that all forms of communism implemented up to this point have NOT been Marxist communism. If one has read even the most elementary of Marx's works, then one would know that starving, exploited, and emaciated humans were not part of his agenda. Regardless of this, is it not possible, for instance, to conceive of a kind of democratic communism (a la Jurgen Habermas - that's not his exact philosophy, but fundamentals for that kind of thinking can be found in his works)? A form of radical democracy, aiming for the unifying and liberating ideals of communism? Or, perhaps, we could consider changing the game of capitalism. Those who profit the most and simultaneously hoard the most could be considered miserly and selfish - shunned in the eyes of the majority (remember, much of what humans do, we do because it is acceptible ).

I don't know... I'm not trying to suggest viable alternatives or anything -- such things are beyond my field of expertise. All I know is that what we are doing now isn't working...

What the hell is wrong with you capitalist pigs?!?!? Of course humans aregreedy arrogant beings but crist capitalism amplifies these traits not diminshes them. Communism on the other hand at least tries to stop these things. The real reason you all can't deal with Communism is because China, Cuba, and Stalin fucked it up for the rest of us. So take a chance and love a Communist today.

Ya' i have to admit that capitalism really is bad and communism is actaully not that bad even though it has failed in every instance but by the same thing. When some big moron decides to wield all the power then communism fails but the only reason capitalism has not failed is because it can't because of how the rules work.

oh wow... this forum is moving quickly (or i'm typing slowly)... there were only a few posts back when i started my rant :p

Your argument is flawed in that Marx is not onicient, and therefore is not nessicarily right. My arguement instead chooses to use what is called logic, a tool used to prove things. Logic shows corruption in human nature through examples, and is affirmed by the many corrupt governments that have existed.

As cute as it is to try to obfuscate the issue by criticizing my methods, you haven't proved the point.

I'll spoon-feed it to you. Many Marxists believe that "greed" as it were, is a learned trait of man, and not an innate one. How would you respond to that? Many philosphers, and indeed, many historic examples of societies that functions without private property and private greed? How did such societies exist?

Ok I'll clarify. A political philosophy that is incompatable with human nature is useless to people. Just like a wrench that is incompatable with mechanical devices is useless. If I developed a political or economic theory that would work wonderfully if only people were 3 inches tall and purple it would be useless as well. People are not selfless because without the self there is no person.

Useless to people in practice, but it provides an interesting model of what doesn't work, I suppose.

Shit, I think Communism's a retarded idea in practice. ;)

What the hell is wrong with you capitalist pigs?!?!? Of course humans aregreedy arrogant beings but crist capitalism amplifies these traits not diminshes them. Communism on the other hand at least tries to stop these things. The real reason you all can't deal with Communism is because China, Cuba, and Stalin fucked it up for the rest of us. So take a chance and love a Communist today.

Well you're making assumptions. First that greed is a bad thing and not just another word for the natural tendency to improve the self. That arrogance is not the acknowledgement that you are the center of your universe and I am the center of mine. Oh yes and as a good Marxist you can't call me a capittalist because I do not own a business that imploys others (I sub-contract but have no employees). Fortunately as a good capitalist I can call myself one all I want.

Did you considerr the possibility that China Cuba and the old soviet failed specifically because the basic human nature that the theory ignored? Have you considered the fact that all of the more capitalist (there is no case of pure capitalism or communism so we have to go with 'the best we could do') are more free and the communist attempts have all ended in totalitarianism as maybe a little hint that in practice capitalism is better for all involved?

Little known fact, Marx did not invent the idea of socialism. He just removed God from the picture.
The communist manifesto was written in 1848. However, Mormon prophet Joseph Smith affirmed the idea of shared wealth between the people in Mormon scripture written in 1831 (http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/70). The fundamental difference in Joseph Smith's version (or God's version, depending on the factuality of his claims to prophetics) is that it states, "all things are Gods, to be distributed as He sees fit."
The Mormons de-implemented this practice because the people were too corrupt to abide by it.

Hah, philosophy surely is fine, quite refined and such, every gentlemen knows about it, but communism is about people, and people still dying right now. I will like to find an argument about that from the bourgeois or aspirants defending their beloved capitalism. Is your ipod better than their lives?

Little known fact, Marx did not invent the idea of socialism.
Little known fact: Socialism was around long before the Mormons. If you think a crackpot like Smith invented anything, then that is not a good sign.

Fact of the matter is that Marx was a philosopher who expanded on ideas mentioned before and AFAIK was the first to come up with Dialectic Materialism, everything else followed from there.

Ho hum.....

This is largely the reason why no progress is ever made on these forums. If you want to make a point, play to the other sides views, don't just spout your own viewpoint over and over again.

1) Democracy is a collectivist government, communists don't see a democratic government as one that is influenced by a corrupt individual.

2) Communists see money as power, and saying that power corrupts only strengthens their resolve against capitalism.

I understand the flaws of capatalism. I understand that it is often unjust. I understand that communism has a wonderful theory behind it.

No, capitalism is not unjust, life is unjust capitalism tries not to mess with it.

Communism has a flawed theory behind it, because no one has a clue how to make it happen.

Do we put man, a corruptable creature, in charge of the entire economy unopposed? No! You'll be economically destroyed!
That is why capatalism is privatized. As individuals we are flawed, but as mankind we have caused the fall of each of the afformentioned greediness. So we spread the economy as far amongst the individuals as possible. If corruption still exists, a government elected by the masses can eliminate it. If corruption exists within said government, checks and balances to leverage power back to the people eliminate that.
Thus capalism, in union with democracy, becomes a far less corrupt system than the afformentioned communism.

There is huge logical problem with this. You claim that a government, when put in power of the economy, will become corrupt, yet you turn around a say that government can cure corruption.

Goodnight.

I like the goodnight, like this is some definitive rebuke of communism that will end all conversation on the topic, when all of his points (both wrong and right) have been stated many, many time before.

I am waiting for Free Soviets to come to this thread and say, "You know what? You're right, I can't challenge those comments."

Hah, philosophy surely is fine, quite refined and such, every gentlemen knows about it, but communism is about people, and people still dying right now. I will like to find an argument about that from the bourgeois or aspirants defending their beloved capitalism. Is your ipod better than their lives? Should I Have lost mi foot because of a small infected red fingernail and lack of a proper public healthcare system here?

Reread my first post. I said I recognize the faults of capitalism. But capatalism's nature allows it less corruption than a communist government. Capatalism permits failure. Comunism forces failure.

Ho hum.....

This is largely the reason why no progress is ever made on these forums. If you want to make a point, play to the other sides views, don't just spout your own viewpoint over and over again.

1) Democracy is a collectivist government, communists don't see a democratic government as one that is influenced by a corrupt individual.

2) Communists see money as power, and saying that power corrupts only strengthens their resolve against capitalism.



No, capitalism is not unjust, life is unjust capitalism tries not to mess with it.

Communism has a flawed theory behind it, because no one has a clue how to make it happen.



There is huge logical problem with this. You claim that a government, when put in power of the economy, will become corrupt, yet you turn around a say that government can cure corruption.



I like the goodnight, like this is some definitive rebuke of communism that will end all conversation on the topic, when all of his points (both wrong and right) have been stated many, many time before.

I am waiting for Free Soviets to come to this thread and say, "You know what? You're right, I can't challenge those comments."

You really don't understand why I do this, do you?
Data collection!
I'm looking for strong pro-communist arguments to shut down so I am strong in future debates.
By the way, good point on the money thing. *checks*

You really don't understand why I do this, do you?
Data collection!
I'm looking for strong pro-communist arguments to shut down so I am strong in future debates.
By the way, good point on the money thing. *checks*

But of course! Silly of me! A how else could a capitalist be talking about communism if it wasn’t because of his own welfare! Thank god you have no moral or ethics, enjoy your deaths, goodnight.

You really don't understand why I do this, do you?
Data collection!
I'm looking for strong pro-communist arguments to shut down so I am strong in future debates.
By the way, good point on the money thing. *checks*

Good luck with it. I do the same thing.

I will usually bury myself in an off the wall assertion or viewpoint and try to defend it. I always look like a fool, but I discover a lot more that way.

Little known fact: Socialism was around long before the Mormons. If you think a crackpot like Smith invented anything, then that is not a good sign.

Fact of the matter is that Marx was a philosopher who expanded on ideas mentioned before and AFAIK was the first to come up with Dialectic Materialism, everything else followed from there.

According to wikipedia, socialism didn't exist as a solid concept until 1835. Once again, I assert Joseph Smith penned that in 1831.

But of course! Silly of me! A how else could a capitalist be talking about communism if it wasn’t because of his own welfare! Thank god you have no moral or ethics, enjoy your deaths, goodnight.

But of course. I'm not going to waste my time arguing on the internet if I won't gain something from it.
Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the special olymics. Even when you win, you still look retarded.

...I always look like a fool...

Underline ALWAYS! hehe..j/k

I find the more I read long communism threads the more radical I become. I start off a moderate social democrat and end up a propaganda spoutin' communist by page 20. Thank god it does'nt last long. lol

Underline ALWAYS! hehe..j/k

I find the more I read long communism threads the more radical I become. I start off a moderate social democrat and end up a propaganda spoutin' communist by page 20. Thank god it does'nt last long. lol

The discussion always seems to fall back on the same old talking points, I don't know why. I guess it is like the Godwin Law, as communist/capitalist debates go on, it is more and more likely that someone will say "It's against human nature!"

According to wikipedia, socialism didn't exist as a solid concept until 1835. Once again, I assert Joseph Smith penned that in 1831.

Hum... please... read something about the French Revolution (1789 AD). Communism began with Bebeuf, the precursor. He has been called by various marxists organizations as the "First Communist" (some others call him the "First socialist" too, but we have to remember that communism is just a form of socialism).

And for the rest of you, capitalist pigs, let me remember you that democracy is a much-idealized ancient Greek political system, and for those who are unaware, ancient Greece was built on slavery, the ultimate, direct form of exploitation of man. The problem is that true democracy cannot exist under a capitalist society. Whilst political parties are funded by corporations we cannot have a fair political system. People must always remember quite simply that we are a democratic society UNDER capitalism, not vice versa. Corporations are organized structures of highly motivated, ambitious, greedy and self-centered people who are accountable only to fat cats who possess a majority of the world’s wealth. Reducing the corporation to what it is, we see how dangerous it is to humankind. Corporations are the new plaything of would be imperialist empire builders, nothing more nothing less. A capitalist future is total self-destruction.

Never discount the idealists: Once upon a time slavery was assumed part of the natural order of things. Once upon a time every state in the world was despotic, while human rights and elected governments were at best fantasies...

¡Socialismo o muerte, camaradas!
(For non-spanish speakers: Socialism or death, comrades!)
¡Hasta la victoria siempre!

The last time I enflamed somebody like this, I collected enough data to write the following pro-Iraq war essay:

http://blacklight-ninja.blogspot.com/2006/01/why-war-was-great.html

It has turned several people to a pro-war stance.

Hum... please... read something about the French Revolution (1789 AD). Communism began with Bebeuf, the precursor. He has been called by various marxists organizations as the "First Communist" (some others call him the "First socialist" too, but we have to remember that communism is just a form of socialism).

And for the rest of you, capitalist pigs, let me remember you that democracy is a much-idealized ancient Greek political system, and for those who are unaware, ancient Greece was built on slavery, the ultimate, direct form of exploitation of man. The problem is that true democracy cannot exist under a capitalist society. Whilst political parties are funded by corporations we cannot have a fair political system. People must always remember quite simply that we are a democratic society UNDER capitalism, not vice versa. Corporations are organized structures of highly motivated, ambitious, greedy and self-centered people who are accountable only to fat cats who possess a majority of the world’s wealth. Reducing the corporation to what it is, we see how dangerous it is to humankind. Corporations are the new plaything of would be imperialist empire builders, nothing more nothing less. A capitalist future is total self-destruction.

Never discount the idealists: Once upon a time slavery was assumed part of the natural order of things. Once upon a time every state in the world was despotic, while human rights and elected governments were at best fantasies...

¡Socialismo o muerte, camaradas!
(For non-spanish speakers: Socialism or death, comrades!)
¡Hasta la victoria siempre!

Interesting draw of similar governments.
You claim that our goverment is a mirror of the Greek government. They ran a democracy, another good but un-implementable theory. I live in a Republic. It was built with the pre-disposition that slavery would be ended. It was built specifically to end corruption.
Communism was built under the assumption that money is the sole source of power in the world. As such, it fails to protect itself from non-economic corruption. It fails to recognize the far greater source of power: fear. Most people would rather live in a poor society than a fearful one. And comunism often sports both (e.g. North Korea {I've been there, don't tell me it's otherwise}).

By the way, Hitler declared himself a socialist. Just because somebody declares themselves one, doesn't make it so.

The discussion always seems to fall back on the same old talking points, I don't know why.

because they're convenient and well-rehearsed. we should make a numbered list of them and just call out the numbers instead of actually discussing things.

The last time I enflamed somebody like this, I collected enough data to write the following pro-Iraq war essay:

http://blacklight-ninja.blogspot.com/2006/01/why-war-was-great.html

It has turned several people to a pro-war stance.

I don't really care about the war in Iraq, but I suggest making your page look a bit better. It's difficult for me to read.

Well as the OP has mentioned that the point of this tread is his own knowledge, and a better ability to defend his own position I will try to treat the topic with that in mind. I will do this because I think that the pursuit of knowledge is one of the highest endeavors a human being can aspire to and I can only hope with enough information you might give communism a ‘fair hearing’. Not because I purport myself as a communist but because no idea dreamed of in earnest by intelligent and logical beings should be dismissed without a fair consideration. If you take the information and use it for a more selfish end then you have another ‘check’ to put down beside ‘free rider principle’ and can use yourself as an example of the nature of human greed. No worries. As greed is inherently natural I am sure you will not take offense to me calling you greedy, as it’d be like me calling you a mammal.

First, Wiki is not a good source. Wiki is conversational knowledge and is interesting. Wiki offers you about as much validity as your local news. Most of the time it’s not really wrong, it simply does not allow for anything outside its limited scope. You can attribute this to it being peer reviewed by an uncontrolled peer group or any number of things that I will not discuss here. Suffice it to say it is not an authority on anything, fact check. They do make for a wonderful reference tool though (ideas for thesis et cetera).

The first person to make poignant observations about the nature of wealth in society can be argued to be Aristotle. He noted the different types of governments and the roles that the ‘demos’ and ‘Oligarchs’ played in government. He felt that government acted out the class struggle. Aristotle concluded that the best way to lessen the tension between these two powerful groups was to create an intermediary group, the middle class, and operate on moderation. Then again a perfect human was a happy moderate so there’s a reoccurring theme there.

Now this is me extrapolating a bit but from what I can tell Marx draws heavily on Aristotle insofar as identifying the class struggle. Where they diverge is in what should be done with it. There are always more demos so let us build a society that favours them.

Now I don’t mean to condescend but my guess is that you will point out that the society Marx posed is not neccassarily ‘better’ for our said working man (who is now being referred to as the proletariat). The nature of greed seems to figure prominently here. This will again have less reference to historical precedence but from what I gather there seems to be a distinction in greed between the capitalist and the communist. The capitalist seems to look at greed as all self interest, and it is inherently natural and benign. The difference to the communist would be that a sort of ‘unnatural desire’ existing within capitalism that is not appropriate for human being. This is what they refer to as greed.

I would again refer back to Aristotle, both because I am more familiar with him and because he illustrates this point well. When human beings acquire by nature a limit is imposed open them. This is a natural limit but it is not imposed on us so much as we acquiesce. When we fish we take one fish because we can only salt and eat one per day. When we forage we stop after a pound of berries because we will only eat so much.

The other way a human being can acquire is via exchange. Acquisition via exchange has no limit (when has a bank stopped you from putting money into your account?). So you fish four fish and sell the surplus, you gather as many berries as you have basket space. The ability to produce money is unending, and so is your desire to do so. Greed for a communist comes from this acquisition of ‘surplus value’. Employing other people becomes inherently problematic because you want to extract their surplus value and without a strong moral grounding a Capitalist might exploit, as they would be in a particularly advantageous spot to do so.

Interestingly enough communist who don’t fall to their swords and spout dogma can point to you ‘good people’ who happened to be bourgeoisie. Now because it is an unwieldy term I will simply refer to the bourgeoisie as capital, terribly Marxist of me but paint me lazy if need be. Falling on either side of the wage struggle (for future references the wage struggle, the economy, and the class struggle are all but synonymous for a communist) does not predicate your morality, nor does it speak about you as a person. What is does do is define your ‘class consciousnesses’. Personally I very much like people like Henry Ford. He felt he should pay his workers a fair wage and beyond that he was a philanthropist to boot. He also brutally broke unions. The fact that he was a good person and was generous can be attributed to him as an individual. The fact that he viewed unions with derision is due to his class.

Interestingly enough the subject of class was brought up in this thread. A poster felt that he could not be called a capitalist by a communist because he did not employ anyone. This is a bit of a misconception; confusion about class is endemic to capitalism. Capitalism does not like to acknowledge classes so the people within it are left to make their own yardsticks. Class to a communist is easily defined by ones relation to production. The fact that he mentioned he owned his business would allow a communist to very easily place him onto the side of capital. I believe the sub-category is a new division referred to as ‘petite bourgeoisie’.

Hopefully I have cleared up a few things and offered you a few more ‘checks’. Finally you seem to be unclear about the parameters of the battle you fight. A Marxist would define a capitalist society with two basic caveats: 1) Private Property 2) Right of disposal. While Marx wrote about a certain Utopia modern Marxism would allow for things like a free market. Attributing certain stereotypes to Marxism does not help your case in a true academic debate. That said most people align themselves to the stereotype for other reasons so bash away.

Now as for government checks and balances, see above. That has nothing to do with whether a society can be considered Marxist, as for them it can all be referred to a person’s relation to the processes which they participate in.

Now as for the founding of the United States as a capitalist nation, I’d be iffy on that on. It is one now, for sure. Capitalism seems to be predicated upon a liberal/neo-liberal notion and as you mention the US was founded as a Republic. If you would care to refer to the federalist papers the Republic ideal, which was abandoned for liberalism, was that people would be independent; self sufficient people who could vote their conscience and not for survival. Lets take these textile mills which were popping up at the time. If you were working in a mill that sold its textiles to Great Britain then obviously you would not vote for a President who might disturb the flow of trade to London. So what if you just became independent from them, so what if they are imperialist, so what if this is pissing off France whom you owe a debt of gratitude to. If the trade is interrupted you are out of work and you family is starving. If you lived vis-à-vis the Republican ideal you would however be self sufficient. Trade with London might make you wealthier or have access to certain luxuries, but in the end you will not compromise any of your principle because when it comes down to it you will not starve if London gets pissy. That however is neither here nor there. It merely is.

As an interesting aside the privilege to have this debate is born of a Capitalist system. We are talking about theories produced by philosophers. Philosophers who used money to benefit from the surplus labour of others, so that they might philosophize. As a question to those more knowledgeable in Marx than I would I not be fair in assessing a philosopher to the side of Capital? The product of their labour produces nothing inherently tangible, does the alienation from the process allow for the metaphysical?

As a question to those more knowledgeable in Marx than I would I not be fair in assessing a philosopher to the side of Capital? The product of their labour produces nothing inherently tangible, does the alienation from the process allow for the metaphysical?

I don't know if this answers your question, but I can provide a quote for you (I happen to be working on Marx for a paper right now - challenging his critique of Feuerbach :) ).

From Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right: Introduction --

"Just as philosophy finds its material weapons in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its intellectual weapons in philosophy... Philosophy is the head of this emancipation and the proletariat is its heart."

So, although I guess the argument you are posing could be made and supported on various grounds, it would seem that Marx saw the relationship between philosophy and the proletariat as mutually appreciative and beneficial...

So it would seem. I only question whether these philosophers had a use ‘after the revolution’ so to speak. To Capitalism’s credit it does seem to produce people who are very skilled at one task, by dividing a process into smaller repetitive parts that can be improved upon. While these skills are useless in and of themselves they, when combined, make the complete process perfect from the ground up. (Well perfect in a profit extraction sense). I guess I just have to wonder whether a philosopher, could exist in the traditional sense if he was required to be slightly more,… productive. Hmm, I seem to have expressed this in a very simplistic manner, for the sake of expedience, hopefully you catch the gist.

I got a kick out of reading whoever wrote that the Mormon founder somehow created Marxism/socialism/communism.

Just for fun, I dug up some "socialist" quotes. Let's see if we can figure out where they're from:

" 7 The LORD sends poverty and wealth;
he humbles and he exalts.

8 He raises the poor from the dust
and lifts the needy from the ash heap;
he seats them with princes
and has them inherit a throne of honor.
"For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's;
upon them he has set the world."

""Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled. "

"Do not exploit the poor because they are poor
and do not crush the needy in court,

23 for the LORD will take up their case
and will plunder those who plunder them."

"32"Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. 33Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

But of course. I'm not going to waste my time arguing on the internet if I won't gain something from it.
Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the special olymics. Even when you win, you still look retarded.

2 points:

1.) You started the thread.

2.) Your closing line is harldy new. You might have just found the internets, but please don't tell us about the wheel you just invented.

I'll spoon-feed it to you. Many Marxists believe that "greed" as it were, is a learned trait of man, and not an innate one. How would you respond to that?
Why don't you try taking a toy from a baby? Then we'll see if the desire to have something that's yours is learned or not. OK?

I've only read so far, so please forgive me if somebody has already answered this.

Why don't you try taking a toy from a baby? Then we'll see if the desire to have something that's yours is learned or not. OK?

I've only read so far, so please forgive me if somebody has already answered this.

Try teaching a toddler who isn't ready how to use the potty.

You're saying we can't overcome child-like behavior? You do use the potty like a big boy, don't you?

Try teaching a toddler who isn't ready how to use the potty.

You're saying we can't overcome child-like behavior? You do use the potty like a big boy, don't you?
So, when you don't know how to fight an idea, you always use ad hominem attacks? Or am I an exception?

I don't have the time to deal with all of this , but yes you can defend communism.

(I'm no noob to forum debate, I just have sixty some odd pages to read by seven fourty today, it's two fifty four.)

By the way, Hitler declared himself a socialist. Just because somebody declares themselves one, doesn't make it so.

I understood your point with that, but still felt an importance to clarify.

---

National Socialist (Nazist), in Hitler's interpretation meant national togetherness (Nationalism), not an adherence to a Marx-based economic system.

Adherents of Nazism held that the Aryan race were superior to other races, and they promoted Germanic racial supremacy [Social Darwinism based on race biology] and a strong, centrally governed state [Fascism].

The Nazists followed the economic model of corporatism under the banner of nationalist socialism, where "corporate" business interests had a strong influence in the government's economic decisions.

Under an ideological definition of Socialism — for example one stating that only a system adhering to the principles of Marxism can qualify as socialist — there is a well-defined gap between Nazism and socialism. Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class conflict and opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers should control the means of production. For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialism, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National Socialism" as non-socialist.

For socialists who consider democracy a core tenet of socialism, Nazism is often seen as a polar opposite of their views. Primo Levi argued that there was an important distinction between the policies of Nazi Germany and those of the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China: while they were all arguably totalitarian, and all had their idea of what kind of parasitic classes or races society ought to be rid of, Levi saw the Nazis assigning a place given by birth (since one is born into a certain race), while the Soviets and Chinese determined their enemies according to their social position (which people may change within their life). There are many other philosophical differences betwen Nazism and Marxism.

Industries and trusts were not nationalised in Nazi Germany, with the exception of private rail lines (nationalised in the late 1930s to meet military contingencies). The only private holdings that were expropriated were those belonging to Jews. These holdings were then sold or awarded to businessmen who supported the Nazis and satisifed their ethnic and racial policies. Military production and even film production remained in the hands of private industries whilst serving the Nazi government, and many private companies flourished during the Nazi period. The Nazis never interfered with the profits made by such large German firms as Krupp, Siemens AG, and IG Farben.

Independent trade unions were outlawed, as were strikes. Hitler despised Karl Marx and condemned Communism and Marxism as a Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy. He pledged to block its rise in Germany and argued that the nation's downfall was due to Marxism and its Jewish influence. These political views prompted some prominent conservatives and capitalists to fund and support the Nazis because they saw them as a bulwark against Communism.

So, when you don't know how to fight an idea, you always use ad hominem attacks? Or am I an exception?
He is teasing you a bit, but it's not an ad hominem so much. He's interogating the notion of using childrens behavior to rationalize adults behavior. The idea is that a child will yell "MINE" and not give up things, but a child also pees their pants. To accept the first is to also justify that we should all wear Depends because peeing our pants is an essential part of our nature on the same basis.

First, Wiki is not a good source. Wiki is conversational knowledge and is interesting. Wiki offers you about as much validity as your local news.
The journal Nature, (one of the oldest and most reputable general purpose scientific journals, first published on November 4, 1869), claims that Wikipedia is almost as correct as Encyclopedia Britannica...

The journal Nature, (one of the oldest and most reputable general purpose scientific journals, first published on November 4, 1869), claims that Wikipedia is almost as correct as Encyclopedia Britannica...
You left out a qualifier on that. They didn't rate it as overall, they rated it in a specific area...I'm sure we can guess which one. It's also an area that has a lot of hard one way or the other information that can be sourced.

In areas such as who killed Kennedy, it's been shown to be a little suspect...

I understand the flaws of capatalism. I understand that it is often unjust. I understand that communism has a wonderful theory behind it.
However, it is only a theory.
I am a firm believer in capatalism, and cannot believe the number of people who are under the impression that communism is a better system. Communism fails to take into consideration the awful reality that power corrupts. Yes, power corrupts. Man is a greedy creature, always taking more than he needs. We can see this in our excessive floundering of gas when cars exist that require none. We see this in cases such as Enron, the Microsoft Monopoly in the 90s, the Roman Empire, the exploitation of the Jews in Nazi Germany, etc.
Do we put man, a corruptable creature, in charge of the entire economy unopposed? No! You'll be economically destroyed!
That is why capatalism is privatized. As individuals we are flawed, but as mankind we have caused the fall of each of the afformentioned greediness. So we spread the economy as far amongst the individuals as possible. If corruption still exists, a government elected by the masses can eliminate it. If corruption exists within said government, checks and balances to leverage power back to the people eliminate that.
Thus capalism, in union with democracy, becomes a far less corrupt system than the afformentioned communism.
This has been common sense. Goodnight.

Captialism cannot function properly without "Manditory Voting". It eliminates "SOME" of the buying of votes (aka Campaign Contributions). ALL citizens should have the right to vote (yes including so called felons) because problems in certain parts of the socity are not addressed.

Die commies :sniper:

:p

Communism: Nice in theory, but never could (nor ever will) work properly. Corruption and inequality will still occur.

People will also always desire more (power, money, food, sex, clothes, possessions, whatever)

I understand that communism has a wonderful theory behind it.
However, it is only a theory.

As a person in training as a scientist, I must note that "it is only a theory" is a bad phrasing. A theory is something that has been tested and has gone through a great deal of trial before acheiving a state beyond a hypothesis. To say "it is only a theory" is to belittle the word through ignorance. I will admit that political science may have a more fast and loose use of the word in general use, but I've heard the phrase often in enough in opponents of the understanding of evolution that my hackals are raised whenever I see or hear it.

I understand the flaws of capatalism. I understand that it is often unjust. I understand that communism has a wonderful theory behind it.
However, it is only a theory.
I am a firm believer in capatalism, and cannot believe the number of people who are under the impression that communism is a better system. Communism fails to take into consideration the awful reality that power corrupts. Yes, power corrupts. Man is a greedy creature, always taking more than he needs. We can see this in our excessive floundering of gas when cars exist that require none. We see this in cases such as Enron, the Microsoft Monopoly in the 90s, the Roman Empire, the exploitation of the Jews in Nazi Germany, etc.
Do we put man, a corruptable creature, in charge of the entire economy unopposed? No! You'll be economically destroyed!
That is why capatalism is privatized. As individuals we are flawed, but as mankind we have caused the fall of each of the afformentioned greediness. So we spread the economy as far amongst the individuals as possible. If corruption still exists, a government elected by the masses can eliminate it. If corruption exists within said government, checks and balances to leverage power back to the people eliminate that.
Thus capalism, in union with democracy, becomes a far less corrupt system than the afformentioned communism.
This has been common sense. Goodnight.

This is more an explanation of why communism can't work, not why it is a bad idea.

I am a firm believer in capatalism, and cannot believe the number of people who are under the impression that communism is a better system.

That's probably because you are a "firm believer in capitalism."

Communism fails to take into consideration the awful reality that power corrupts.

No it doesn't, in fact for the myriad forms of libertarian communism they recognise the fact and use to argue against capitalism.

Yes, power corrupts. Man is a greedy creature, always taking more than he needs.

...

Do we put man, a corruptable creature, in charge of the entire economy unopposed?

By the way, state socialism (as seen in the USSR for example), isn't the only form of communism. To argue against communism only using state socialist examples is flawed. But yay for strawmen anyway.

Also, I find it odd that you assert man is both easily corruptable and greedy, and them support a system that panders to these base traits.

NB: I am neither a communist or a capitalist.

oh wow... this forum is moving quickly (or i'm typing slowly)... there were only a few posts back when i started my rant :p

Which is why most of us content ourselves by only writing one replies that don't really answer anything ;)

Little known fact: Socialism was around long before the Mormons. If you think a crackpot like Smith invented anything, then that is not a good sign.

Fact of the matter is that Marx was a philosopher who expanded on ideas mentioned before and AFAIK was the first to come up with Dialectic Materialism, everything else followed from there.

Well he so much as "come up" with Dialectic Materialism, as turn Hegelian Dialectics on its head.

According to wikipedia, socialism didn't exist as a solid concept until 1835. Once again, I assert Joseph Smith penned that in 1831.

I suggest you do more research then, and look futher then wikipedia. Though if that is too much then look at these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois-No%C3%ABl_Babeuf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Henri_de_Rouvroy%2C_Comte_de_Saint-Simon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tienne_Cabet

There are more of course.

EDIT: Also, you couldn't have looked at wikipedia too hard since the wiki article on socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) mentions all the people I mentioned above (bar Étienne Cabet)

because they're convenient and well-rehearsed. we should make a numbered list of them and just call out the numbers instead of actually discussing things.

Best idea I have seen on this thread.

He is teasing you a bit, but it's not an ad hominem so much. He's interogating the notion of using childrens behavior to rationalize adults behavior. The idea is that a child will yell "MINE" and not give up things, but a child also pees their pants. To accept the first is to also justify that we should all wear Depends because peeing our pants is an essential part of our nature on the same basis.
He could have kept the last remarck for himself, but let's move on. The main problem to his objection is that a child learns to control his body functions by himself. Nobody can teach a toddler how not to soil his pants. After he learns by himself how to controll his sphincter, you can tell him where to pee or to poo, but that is all. In a similar way, you can teach him that it's not right to take other people's toys, for example, but i don't think it's possible to instill in him the idea that it's right for other kids to take everything he has.

This is more an explanation of why communism can't work, not why it is a bad idea.
Well, it's easy. It has high ideals on paper, which make people want to try it again and again. However, because it can't work, all the attempts end in disaster. That's why it is a bad idea.

Hmm, let's compare two countries in their prime for corruption in both styles: the Soviet Union and the USA.

Soviet Union: Founded 1922, dictator instated 1924.
USA: Founded 1776, dictator instated never.

The USA's corruption has always been mild. A company aided unfairly here, a monopoly there, most of them either exposed or shut down completely. The Soviet Union managed to have a dictator instated within two years.
Like I said, communism is a good theory. But in practice, capatism owns.

Firstly, I'd like to question your statement that the USA's corruption has always been mild. That may have been the case up to a few years ago, but bears modification. Secondly, communism only doesn't work large scale. There are several small communities - communes - that make it work quite well.

Firstly, I'd like to question your statement that the USA's corruption has always been mild. That may have been the case up to a few years ago, but bears modification. Secondly, communism only doesn't work large scale. There are several small communities - communes - that make it work quite well.
I was born in 1982, in Romania. My parents had forwarded a request for a fixed phone line to be installed in our house even before I was born, I don't know exactly when. After a few years, when I was in kindergarten, they decided they had waited enough. They gave a bottle of whiskey and a box of Kent cigarettes (it may seem cheap, but it wasn't; such foreign goods were very rare at the time) to the right person and voila! the phone was installed immediatelly. At the time of the revolution, in 1989, there were some people with requests which were more than 20 years old!

I'd say any corruption that may exist in America must be extremelly mild compared with the situation above, which was not at all exceptional. It was the rule, actually.

I think the problem with communism isn't human nature but the scale of centralized government. I don't know if it's the best way to go about things but I definately don't agree with this whole "if not communism then capitalism" (and visa versa) idea. I don't see why people have to limit themselves to certain ideologies to the extent that they won't look for solutions outside thier ideology.

I agree, human nature is not a limiting factor in communism. Saying that communism is doomed to failure because people are naturally greedy and corrupt is a kin to saying capitalism is doomed to failure because people are naturally selfless and giving.

People are neither greedy and corrupt, nor selfless and giving, because we evolved in order to be better adaped to survive, not for fitting in one category or another. To a certain extent, people can be altruistic, but also selfish. Capitalism has nothing against the altruistic component of the humans; if you want to help somebody, you're free to do it. Communism, on the other hand, is totally against the selfish part of the human nature, and tries hard (but fails) to eradicate it. That's why there are so many problems with communism.

Thus capalism, in union with democracy, becomes a far less corrupt system than the afformentioned communism.
This has been common sense. Goodnight.

*ahem* I agree completely, one of the things that seems to go unnoticed is that communism does not exist independently of the NATURAL LAW that is Capitalistic Economy. In fact, iwithin the Capitalist paradigm, we have something upon which communism is based. What is it? A Corporate Monopoly is indistinguishable from Communism. Communism elects leaders to control the nation's resources, thus, making this CEO a multi-billionaire.

Communism? No thanks. Just a bunch of stupid high school kids looking to make excuses for why they failed their economics classes.