NationStates Jolt Archive

Why Communism does not work: A short essay, by the man behind _Susa_

"Communism only works in heaven, where they don't need it, and hell, where they already have it" -Ronald Reagan.
Now, Letila, I know you will say Reagan is just referring to the Marxist Authoratative government stage of communism, where they truly never got to communism. I respect your views, and I think in a Utopian society, in a world without human emotions, your view of communism would work. I honestly think it would. But anarcho-communism will never, ever, ever, work in this world. If it could work, I would support it, because it seems like the best way to live in a perfect world. But our world is not perfect. Anarcho communism does not work, and here is why.

Hypothetical Situation in a Communist Nation: Farmer Jones, Farmer Smith, and Farmer Brown all work on a communal farm together. Now, for the first few days, everything goes smoothly, each man working equal to the others. But, as I said earlier, human emotions play into communism, and ultimately will make it fail. Farmer Brown is a lazy guy, he is naturally lazy, and he does not enjoy working. So, he decides to stop working. Totally. Because anyway, everybody shares everything, so he will still have all he needs to live, food, shelter etc. So now Farmer Brown is not working on the farm. He just sits around and feeds off the work of Farmer Jones and Farmer Smith. This angers Farmer Jones. He decides, well if Farmer Brown aint working, then sure as hell I aint working, and I will still get food and shelter and etc. because we all share. Soon after Farmer Jones quits working, Farmer Smith follows suit. Other workers take cues from the farmers, and quit working. They dont care about gaining a reputation for sharing, even if you are the best sharer, you are treated the same as everybody else, you cannot become rich. So now, no one has any incentive to work, and since there are no social classes, you cannot move up in the world. So now, the economy of this nation is ruined as more workers just stop working every day. Then what happens? How do we get these men to work again? Well, the USSR showed us how. Gulags. Torture. Fear. Force them to work. Now, they work, but they are forced to do it, or they will get killed. Productivity drops, because people are working, but only reluctantly. The system is ruined.

Capitalism gives you the incentive to move up in the world. You work for your own good, so you can stay alive, no one forces you to work. You work for yourself, and you are not doing it reluctantly. Capitalism feeds off the emotions of ambition and pride and greed and the hope for a better future. You become rich, you become happy. Or, you become comfortable, so you can die happy. The ones who do not work, or work lazily, fall behind. But now, people have incentive to work, and they do so. The economy flourishes, and the nation is stable.

Capitalism works in the real world, Communism works in other worlds, without human emotions.



I posted this in one of Letilas threads, so you might recognize it.

All I can say is...I agree! :)

By definition, Capitalism seems worse, honestly. It's based on knocking other people down to bring you up. Somehow, it works anyway, though. Doesn't really make sense.

The principles of Communism are based on the ideal that the community is more important than the individual; this is obviously true, but no individual is that selfless, unfortunately. Almost all humans are self-ish.

Too bad.

By definition, Capitalism seems worse, honestly. It's based on knocking other people down to bring you up. Somehow, it works anyway, though. Doesn't really make sense.

The principles of Communism are based on the ideal that the community is more important than the individual; this is obviously true, but no individual is that selfless, unfortunately. Almost all humans are self-ish.

Too bad.
Exactly. Communism is a morally superior system, but it will never work in our world of human emotions, and what began as a system of good intentions disentigrates into a dictatorship. So, Communism in its purest form is better than Capitalism, but Capitalism is better than the awful dictatorships that result from the failure of Communism.

All I can say is...I agree! :)

as do i! :D

It's based on knocking other people down to bring you up.
That isn't what it is based on...and if people better understood what capitalism was based on, communism wouldn't be that far of a moral superior.

I think you have a sad and depressing view of human nature. Do you really think that people are that lazy?

I think you have a sad and depressing view of human nature. Do you really think that people are that lazy?
I am.

EDIT: When unmotivated that is...

I think you have a sad and depressing view of human nature. Do you really think that people are that lazy?
No, but I know that people have the emotions and feelings of laziness, greed, and a sense of fair vs. unfair that will make communism fail. And has made communism fail in the past.

It's based on knocking other people down to bring you up.
Too bad.
It is, and it isnt. I beleive that people can coexist in a Capitalistic society, and that you can be succesful without harming others. Many times, this is the case. But other times, it can get a little dirty, but far less dirty than a communist dictatorship. So, that is why Capitalism > Communism.

I think you have a sad and depressing view of human nature. Do you really think that people are that lazy?
Absolutely. I'M lazy. My main motive for working is that I NEED to work, or else I won't be able to live, and that's always been one of my favourite things.

Then again, even a dictatorship, properly executed, is good. If a dictatorship can earn the trust of its people, though it is rare, it'll work better. Good discipline must always be enforced, regardless.

Many countries actually have a combination of capitalist and communist properties. Canada is one of them; we put limits to the amount people can fish and such. THAT is a communist ideal, though we are not completely communist.

It dosn't have to be all people, it just has to be about 1/10000 lazyness for people to stop working, because of the "If they ain't working, I ain't!" Logic. Also, there is no incentive to work, because they will be supported anyway.

_Susa_ your intelligence is staggering - I have never heard of communism vs. capitalism being explained in hypothetical terms before - what a novel idea you came up with!!!

That isn't what it is based on...and if people better understood what capitalism was based on, communism wouldn't be that far of a moral superior.
I don't see how being selfless is morally superior, though I understand lots of people argue that it is
Doing something for someone else is NOT automatically selfless.
If you give your baby a bottle of milk- it's not selfless because it allows your baby to live. Anytime you do something that you enjoy, it has a bit of selfishness to it.

Why does a world where no one can do anything they enjoy (not necessarily communism- just selflessnessism) seem morally superior? Why is unhappiness a trait to be admired?

I am willing to agree that there are circumstances in which humans are very lazy but i genuinely feel that this is a result of the alienation of people from the products of their labour. Obviously you cannot just take contemporary society and change the rules to install a communist system because people are socialized into behaving in certain ways - ie laziness when the product of ones labour is owned by an anonymous corporation. Society can change however and socialism will be widespread when people realise that cooperation is a better motive than greed.

Well, that was stupid of you.

There was a IRL situation he mentioned, the USSR.

Dumb***.

Eh...the base of capitalism isn't by knocking others down you profit more....

The goal of capitalism is to give the general public, the consumers, the best product for the best price...or a not so good product for a dirt cheap price, or an elitist product for a high price...this way the consumer gets the best products. How is this acheived? By pitting companies against each other and awarding the company that can do a better job with a thing called "profit." By working harder to provide the public with the best products, the company that makes more profit is allowed to live their life better. They made life better for someone else and in return, life for them is better.

EDIT: That's ideal capitalism by the way, so you communists don't start your chitter-chatter BS about monopolies etc. The only thing you ever argue for your side is ideal communism anyway...

I don't see how being selfless is morally superior, though I understand lots of people argue that it is
Doing something for someone else is NOT automatically selfless.
If you give your baby a bottle of milk- it's not selfless because it allows your baby to live. Anytime you do something that you enjoy, it has a bit of selfishness to it.

Why does a world where no one can do anything they enjoy (not necessarily communism- just selflessnessism) seem morally superior? Why is unhappiness a trait to be admired?
Well, the way I see it is, in this world, I oppose Communism because of its suppressing of human emotions. Communism is doomed by emotions. It fails because of them. Maybe in another world, where emotions do not come into play, communism is morally superior. Maybe in heaven.

It is, and it isnt. I beleive that people can coexist in a Capitalistic society, and that you can be succesful without harming others. Many times, this is the case. But other times, it can get a little dirty, but far less dirty than a communist dictatorship. So, that is why Capitalism > Communism.
Giving people power makes people want more power, regardless of the cost. In a communist regime, only the government has power. In a capitalist environment, everyone has power and wants more. However, it's not a consistent rate; people with more power want even more power, more than someone with a bit of power wants. Capitalism is like spreading out all the greed and evil amongst all the peoples; as a result, everyone is like that, but to a much lesser degree.

It's a sad way to put it, but it's true.

Giving people power makes people want more power, regardless of the cost. In a communist regime, only the government has power. In a capitalist environment, everyone has power and wants more. However, it's not a consistent rate; people with more power want even more power, more than someone with a bit of power wants. Capitalism is like spreading out all the greed and evil amongst all the peoples; as a result, everyone is like that, but to a much lesser degree.


Hey, at least in this system, the "less greedy people" can do things they want to do, and arn't forced to do what 5 people want them to do.

Well, the way I see it is, in this world, I oppose Communism because of its suppressing of human emotions. Communism is doomed by emotions. It fails because of them. Maybe in another world, where emotions do not come into play, communism is morally superior. Maybe in heaven.
I still disagree that intentionally hurting yourself is a good thing
We don't consider suicide morally superior

_Susa_ your intelligence is staggering - I have never heard of communism vs. capitalism being explained in hypothetical terms before - what a novel idea you came up with!!!
I am so smart, I believe I sniff a hint of sarcasm here!

I think I may have said this wrong; the basis for Capitalism is something completely different, I'm not even really sure. What I'm saying is that it allows people to be selfish, and that's the biggest reason it succeeds.

I still disagree that intentionally hurting yourself is a good thing
We don't consider suicide morally superior
True. I am not completely sure of what I think of Communism, except that in this world, I will fiercely oppose it.

Hey, at least in this system, the "less greedy people" can do things they want to do, and arn't forced to do what 5 people want them to do.
I am not saying that capitalism is bad, I'm just saying that there's a reason to why it works, and that DOES have a few drawbacks, regardless.


No system is perfect, for things to be perfect, they'd have to be in a perfect world. We can only settle for second-best.

the people of yalespin agree

the people of yalespin agree
Thank you.

Of course, pure capitalism is no better. The desire for more money becomes an obsession, and thus Farmer Brown kills his fellow farmers for their fields or money or house or whatnot. The task of government is to protect individuals' rights with socialized programs like health care and housing for those who can't afford it while giving the market enough of a free hand to foster the competition that leads to an increase in quality of life. Communism will only work after many many years of mindset shifting by the everyday person, to the point where people put the common good above their own personal welfare.

BTW don't confuse Stalinism with Marxism -- Marx wasn't for an oppressive government any more than Thomas Jefferson was. He was an anarchist

Of course, pure capitalism is no better. The desire for more money becomes an obsession, and thus Farmer Brown kills his fellow farmers for their fields or money or house or whatnot. The task of government is to protect individuals' rights with socialized programs like health care and housing for those who can't afford it while giving the market enough of a free hand to foster the competition that leads to an increase in quality of life. Communism will only work after many many years of mindset shifting by the everyday person, to the point where people put the common good above their own personal welfare.

BTW don't confuse Stalinism with Marxism -- Marx wasn't for an oppressive government any more than Thomas Jefferson was. He was an anarchist
Well, that is why where capitalism is practiced today, it is regulated. And do not worry, I know full well the differences of Stalinism and Marxism.

and old "bert and i" routine paraphrased because i dont own the recording.

bert went up to bangor to hear a lecture on communism. when he got home he told his friend enoch all about it.

"its share and share alike" bert said. "if you have extra, you give it to the other guy"

"you mean if you had 2 tractors, yould give me one?" enoch asked

"ayup" said bert "thats what it means"

"you mean if you had 2 plows, youd give me one?"

"ayup"

"you mean if you had 2 HOGS, youd give me one?"

"DARN YOU, enoch, you KNOW i got 2 hogs!"

Of course, pure capitalism is no better. The desire for more money becomes an obsession, and thus Farmer Brown kills his fellow farmers for their fields or money or house or whatnot. The task of government is to protect individuals' rights with socialized programs like health care and housing for those who can't afford it while giving the market enough of a free hand to foster the competition that leads to an increase in quality of life. Communism will only work after many many years of mindset shifting by the everyday person, to the point where people put the common good above their own personal welfare.

BTW don't confuse Stalinism with Marxism -- Marx wasn't for an oppressive government any more than Thomas Jefferson was. He was an anarchist
If just one person had read my post, you guys might recognize how ideal capitalism is just as (err, actually, more) beneficial to the common good than communism...and personal welfare is worked in too...

The way I see it, there are three main groups:
Marxism: Let's have an Authoritative stage which gradually changes into full communism.
Stalinism: Complete and total dictatorship.
Letila-ism: Communism in its purest ideal form, right off the bat.

And then Capitalism, the system which actually works. Well, let me correct that, Stalinism works, but at a terrible cost to human life and human rights.

The way I see it, there are three main groups:
Marxism: Let's have an Authoritative stage which gradually changes into full communism.
Stalinism: Complete and total dictatorship.
Letila-ism: Communism in its purest ideal form, right off the bat.

And then Capitalism, the system which actually works. Well, let me correct that, Stalinism works, but at a terrible cost to human life and human rights.
Capitalism doesn't work, it's just close enough to it actually working.

Capitalism doesn't work, it's just close enough to it actually working.
Well, it all depends on how you percieve it. I believe that the system that has been in place and is working quite fine, I believ that system works. Capitalism has gone through no major changes in the last 200 years, it is basically the same since the founding fathers laid out the system (for america) in the Constitution.

Capitalism doesn't work, it's just close enough to it actually working.
...and communism will?

If just one person had read my post, you guys might recognize how ideal capitalism is just as (err, actually, more) beneficial to the common good than communism...and personal welfare is worked in too...

I did read your post, but ideal capitalism falls prey to monopolies

I did read your post, but ideal capitalism falls prey to monopolies
That is why in America, we use regulated capitalism.

I did read your post, but ideal capitalism falls prey to monopolies
1) There are no monopolies to my knowledge in existence today.
2) Ideal communism (which is what all the commies argue for) falls prey to tons of things...

The goal of capitalism is to give the general public, the consumers, the best product for the best price...or a not so good product for a dirt cheap price, or an elitist product for a high price...this way the consumer gets the best products. How is this acheived? By pitting companies against each other and awarding the company that can do a better job with a thing called "profit." By working harder to provide the public with the best products, the company that makes more profit is allowed to live their life better. They made life better for someone else and in return, life for them is better.


Uhhh..... You're describing a MARKET, not CAPITALISM (as long as you just take out "company" and insert the more general "producer" to include individuals, companies, nations, or whatever else might produce a product). Markets existed long before capitalism... and I expect they will exist long after.

Now, if what you really want to argue is that capitalism provides the best framework in which the market can operate... or, perhaps, that capitalism provides the best solutions to the wide variety of market failures (e.g. externalities, shirking, the underproduction of public goods, etc.), then have at it.

But please, don't confuse capitalism with generalized market economics.

Actually, Capitalism changed pretty dramatically during the mid 1800s when companies decided to raise workers living conditions to stop the Marxist revolution, and in the early 1900s when TR started breaking up the monopolies.

1) There are no monopolies to my knowledge in existence today.
2) Ideal communism (which is what all the commies argue for) falls prey to tons of things...
Some might say Microsoft, but I would disagree with them. Ok, and what do you think is worse Realistan, the occasional monopoly, or a cruel ruthless dictator who wants to kill you, just because you spoke your mind? You realize that, in what a Communistic system amounts to, you would not be able to say what you are saying? You would have no free speech.

...and communism will?
No, it doesn't, but neither does Capitalism. If everything was working in Capitalism, we wouldn't have any problem with the system at any time. Furthermore, we wouldn't be using any parts of communism. It doesn't work perfectly until it IS perfect.

We do NOT live in a perfect world, as said before. Capitalism is the closest thing to a perfect world, but nothing is perfect.

Some might say Microsoft, but I would disagree with them. Ok, and what do you think is worse Realistan, the occasional monopoly, or a cruel ruthless dictator who wants to kill you, just because you spoke your mind? You realize that, in what a Communistic system amounts to, you would not be able to say what you are saying? You would have no free speech.
Microsoft only has a monopoly on the stupid. Kind of like AOL.

Actually, Capitalism changed pretty dramatically during the mid 1800s when companies decided to raise workers living conditions to stop the Marxist revolution, and in the early 1900s when TR started breaking up the monopolies.
OK then, which changed more, the American Capitalist system, or the Soviet communist system? The idealism of lenin very quickly disentegrated into the ruthless dictatorship of Stalin.

Uhhh..... You're describing a MARKET, not CAPITALISM (as long as you just take out "company" and insert the more general "producer" to include individuals, companies, nations, or whatever else might produce a product). Markets existed long before capitalism... and I expect they will exist long after.

Now, if what you really want to argue is that capitalism provides the best framework in which the market can operate... or, perhaps, that capitalism provides the best solutions to the wide variety of market failures (e.g. externalities, shirking, the underproduction of public goods, etc.), then have at it.

But please, don't confuse capitalism with generalized market economics.
I was describing what I understood from the teachings of Smith.

Microsoft only has a monopoly on the stupid. Kind of like AOL.
And Fox News for that matter...

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree withyou totally. I'm just saying Capitalism changed some to prevent the horrors of a world-wide Communist revolution.

Ok, and what do you think is worse Realistan, the occasional monopoly, or a cruel ruthless dictator who wants to kill you, just because you spoke your mind?
Well, neither, of course. Democratic socialism is not an unattainable ideal, and it's what a true Marxian system would bring about. It's also interesting how corporations can establish their own dictatorships, when given free rein. I'm no idealist, of course -- a balance is best.

Microsoft only has a monopoly on the stupid. Kind of like AOL.


Ironically, this is precisely the reason that, for very good economic reasons, perhaps they SHOULD have a monopoly -- even a state-enforced monopoly.

You see, in certain industries -- usually those with such prohibitively high startup costs that there is a VERY low likelihood of new competitors -- the market comes to be dominated by two or three large producers. Besides computers, the automobile industry is an ideal example.

When this occurs, competition no longer functions to ensure maximum efficiency, i.e. "the best product for the best price." Theoretically, in the (everywhere non-existent but elsewhere approximated) "ideal market," if a producer slacks off -- performs at less than peak efficiency -- then consumers will simply select another producer, and the slacker will go out of business.

But with something like cars or computers, one of two things happens...

1) (Cars are a good example.) When a consumer becomes dissatisfied with one producer, he or she goes to one of the others... which is slacking off in identical or similar ways to the first. Thus, some of the OTHER producers' customers are "exiting" at the same time, back to the first company!! What you get is a constant shuffle of consumers between the major producers, with none of them ever having a great incentive to make the improvements that everyone wants.

2) (Computers are a good example.) There is one major supplier for most people, but it has serious problems (crashes a lot, security issues, etc). Now, whenever a company is "slacking off," the MOST quality conscious consumers will "exit" first -- to other companies that provide for their high-end needs. They may choose to pay higher prices (see private vs. public schools) or they may demand a product so tailored to their needs that it no longer fits the average consumer (which can actually also be described as a higher "price" as in paying the price of a more difficult to understand but higher-quality product). So most people are stuck with a crappy product, or an outrageous price, although the company COULD do better -- if consumers made them.

The solution to this mess? Well, it turns out that companies actually respond when enough of their customers voice their concerns -- loudly enough or frequently enough. But if people keep shuffling from company to company OR the most quality-conscious consumers -- the ones most likely to "voice" -- can leave for a more pricy option. You're left with a market that has a lot of slack in it -- low efficiency -- or a market failure. So... Theoretically, in this case if you enforce a monopoly, you may get BETTER rather than worse efficiency, because the company will be forced to deal with being bombarded with angry letters and phone-calls.


This OF COURSE is not an argument for monopoly in general.

"angry letters and phone calls" can easily be ignored. With a state-enforced monopoly, the company has ZERO incentive to increase quality of product -- no matter what it does, people have to buy it. The only state enforced monopoly that can be influenced by consumers is, ironically, the state itself.

I was describing what I understood from the teachings of Smith.

Indeed... And Smith is a brilliant theorist of the market. In fact, his principle distinction is being amongst the first to REALIZE WHAT WAS GOING ON. That is, he did not "invent" the market, or capitalism for that matter, which had both been around in one form or another for quite some time.

What Smith did was to argue that the market -- which already existed -- would function best according to capitalist principles, free of intervention from the government.

His writings are certainly worth the study... but he had no understanding of what we now consider the basic failings of the market. Not really his fault, of course -- no one had ever seen the results of an unfettered market, and abstract analysis was barely in its infancy.


But to return to my question, which are you arguing: that a market economy is generally a good thing (a point on which we would agree), or that the best form of market is a capitalist market?

"angry letters and phone calls" can easily be ignored. With a state-enforced monopoly, the company has ZERO incentive to increase quality of product -- no matter what it does, people have to buy it. The only state enforced monopoly that can be influenced by consumers is, ironically, the state itself.


Well, ironically -- :) -- you make my next point. While the evidence (see Albert O. Hirschman, Exit Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States) shows that everything in my post is correct, it ALSO shows that voice works BEST -- it DOES work, to varying degrees on pretty much any but the most authoritarian organization -- on democratically organized organizations: in our case, the state. Thus, it is an argument for the FULL socialization of certain sectors of the economy that are vulnerable to this type of market failure. In other words, the market is LESS efficient than government, OR government-combined-with-market, in these cases.

Thus, it is an argument for the FULL socialization of certain sectors of the economy that are vulnerable to this type of market failure. In other words, the market is LESS efficient than government, OR government-combined-with-market, in these cases.

Stop reading my mind!

But to return to my question, which are you arguing: that a market economy is generally a good thing (a point on which we would agree), or that the best form of market is a capitalist market?

I'm arguing that ideally, that system, a market economy, which...is a form of capitalism...is good for everyone and still promotes compitition which promotes progress and people can all live nice and happily...like what communists want. Of course, the key word is "ideally," but then again, all the communists do is argue from idealistic standpoints, so why can't we?

I think you have a sad and depressing view of human nature. Do you really think that people are that lazy?

Humans are lazy if there is no point to work, capitalism provides incentives to work in the forms of increased wages and benefits.

The difficulty in debating the two lines is the fact that there are currently relatively successful nations practicing capitalism and those claiming communism are largely considered unsuccessful.
The communistic nations are also ruled by people who arent communists. They're much more akin to capitalists. They are dictatorships.
This gives the capitalist their ideal insult against their opponents in their materialistic failure and if gives the communist their ideal insult in the corruptive force of capitalist like mindsets.

Government styles flow with time. As nations and the world evolve new ideas and new ideals come to light. Right now the capitalistic nations of the world are sliding ever deeper into socialism. If things continue to progess as they have our future is a socialist one. For who knows how long.
This is what both people and their leaders have put in place. There are many who oppose this movement, of course, but they have not stopped it. And the socialist force in the world's leading nations is arguably a successful one.

I'm arguing that ideally, that system, a market economy, which...is a form of capitalism...is good for everyone and still promotes compitition which promotes progress and people can all live nice and happily...like what communists want.

We're not good at paying attention, are we?

Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, with prices USUALLY but not always determined by competition on a free market. One counterexample to the notion that a market economy is "a form of capitalism" would be... well, any of the many incarnations of monopoly capitalism... or an economic system in which capital goods ARE subject to private or corporate ownership, but in which custom or law prevents precludes the possibility of competition.

A market, however, can exist in any variety of ownership situations. Thus, you can have market socialism, market capitalism, craft markets, etc. etc.

"Market capitalism" is ONE TYPE of capitalism. Or, capitalism is ONE TYPE of market.


Of course, the key word is "ideally," but then again, all the communists do is argue from idealistic standpoints, so why can't we?


First of all, I'm not a communist, so don't lump me in with them. I AM a socialist, but as I take the rather broad definition of market socialist Oskar Lange, I suspect you have little idea what that means. Suffice it to say that there are few "absolutes" in my world-view... and while I will give an "idealist" presentation the benefit of the doubt for the purposes of clear communication, I have little patience for arguments -- yours or those of your communist friends -- that refuse to acknowledge reality.

No, but I know that people have the emotions and feelings of laziness, greed, and a sense of fair vs. unfair that will make communism fail. And has made communism fail in the past.
Correction, has made it impossible for Communism to even begin.

As long as we are animals, capitalism works and communism doesn't. Once we ascend from being animals, communism will work.

I've noticed something lately, we are rapidly approaching the fall of capitalism. No, I'm not being a left-wing nut job. Just look at industry. In our relentless desire for faster, cheaper production of goods, industries are rapidly becoming more and more automated, manufacturing and now even services. For example they are creating technology that will render check out lines obsolete. Once fossil fuels become too scarce to be economically feasble, automated transport will become the norm and you can eliminate the need to go to the grocery store since you could buy products from an automated warehouse nearby. Capitalism will no longer be able to function since a large amount of people will be unemployed, leading to mass unrest and eventually revolution. There will be no one to buy products, since no one will have any money, except for welfare, but no one will be able to fund it, so welfare will be cut and people will be dieing in the streets from starvation.

No kidding?

Ever read C.B. MacPherson or Herbert Marcuse? They predicted the same thing a long time ago... of course, we can count them among us left-wing nut-jobs.

:p

I'm sure many people have realised that, I'm just surprised when people don't accept it and either stop advancing (which is impossible for human beings) or prepare themselves for when it happens. It probably won't happen in our life time but I can assure you that it will.

Of course, I should add that they both HOPE the employed classes (much larger now than Marx's proletariat... but still all exploited) would be able to figure out how to run things so that machines could do most of the work... and human beings could reap the benefits of a new golden age.

Wishful thinking? Well... at least it's thinking.

Should a technology based civilization where everything is automated arise, communism would be required, since otherwise it would play out like I said.

One prime thing you are forgetting - China's economy - although now mixed with Capitalist elements is still largely nationalised. And it is booming (Last Quarter it recieved, for the first time - more foreign investment than the US). Basically the point is that 'Pure' Capitalism will not work - because it will inevtably after some time trigger the end of the environment or a prolateriat uprising. And pure Communism does not work NOT, because in all the countries that it had a trial - it did not go through the proper Marxist stages of evolution. Basically from a Monarchist, to a part Parliamentary to a full Parliament to a Republic and then finally to a Prolateriat Dictatorship which follows onto basic anarchism with the people having no need for Government.

Russia skipped out a few stages in this evolution, basically going from Part Monarchist to Communist - and this is why it failed. The same with other Governments that experienced a Communist uprising.

Well, they are both Marxian thinkers... so yeah, that's about right.

Of course, the question becomes: centralized management (truly communist) or market-directed inputs (socialist -- technically with some truly communist elements, I'd imagine).

Also, there might be a large demand for hand-made crafts REGARDLESS of whether essentials are taken care of through automation. I expect this would amount to a small-producer capitalist economy within the whole setup. (But, allowing this kind of capitalism is reasonable from WITHIN the generalized socialist point of view.)

And before I get any half-assed replies from anarcho-communists who say communism isn't necessarily "centrally directed," I include democratic decision-making with a generalized scope as a "centralized" economy, AS OPPOSED TO a market-driven economy.

Why Capitalism works, and Communism Fails

Welcome to 25+ years ago.

Welcome to 25+ years ago.
ROFFLE!!

Well, it all depends on how you percieve it. I believe that the system that has been in place and is working quite fine, I believ that system works. Capitalism has gone through no major changes in the last 200 years, it is basically the same since the founding fathers laid out the system (for america) in the Constitution.


Is this true? That Capitalism was invented by the Americans, in their constitution? Surely Capitalism was alive and well in the Britain quite some time before this.... And furthermore is'nt Capitalism just a variation of Feudalism, which was prevalent all over Europe?

Obviously some people here don't understand communism and neither do they understand capitalism.
Please tell me what is your incentive to work when your capital can work for you? How many lazy fat asses doing nothing can capitalism handle before it colapse? Does Russia work better under the rule of capitalists (ie mafia)? Do you really think the working proletariat is rewarded for working? Or are the lazy fat asses rewarded for his work instead? Is that different from slavery? I suggest you go visit latin America and Africa and meet the proletariat. Then tell me how capitalism is working.

Is this true? That Capitalism was invented by the Americans, in their constitution? Surely Capitalism was alive and well in the Britain quite some time before this.... And furthermore is'nt Capitalism just a variation of Feudalism, which was prevalent all over Europe?Capitalism is often anachronically compared with feudalism. Capitalism was a progress when compared with feudalism. In France, it was the revolution of 1792 which replaced feudalism with capitalism, which replaced the old 3 class system (clergy, nobility and third state) with a new, more equal 2 class system (the bourgeoisy and the proletariat). Nowadays, capitalism is still compared with feudalism in order to prove capitalism is a superior system. However times have changed and the struggle of classes is no more between the nobility/clergy and the third state but between the proletariat and the bourgeoisy. The once revolutionary progressive system has became the old conservative and oppressing system. The struggle has moved and some people should open their eye and catch the train. The struggle will only stop with the abolishment of classes.

And do not worry, I know full well the differences of Stalinism and Marxism. Hey, don't keep us in suspense. Also explain the differences between Leninism and Marxism with specific reference to the Paris Commune.

I can't believe that not only did you use a cliched metaphorical explanation for this thread, but you also blatantly ripped off Animal Farm. You do know that Orwell wasn't a capitalist, yeah?

Capitalism is often anachronically compared with feudalism. Capitalism was a progress when compared with feudalism. In France, it was the revolution of 1792 which replaced feudalism with capitalism, which replaced the old 3 class system (clergy, nobility and third state) with a new, more equal 2 class system (the bourgeoisy and the proletariat). Nowadays, capitalism is still compared with feudalism in order to prove capitalism is a superior system. However times have changed and the struggle of classes is no more between the nobility/clergy and the third state but between the proletariat and the bourgeoisy. The once revolutionary progressive system has became the old conservative and oppressing system. The struggle has moved and some people should open their eye and catch the train. The struggle will only stop with the abolishment of classes.
My grandfather said recently that in 2006 at the latest, the people of Germany will rise up and remove the current government. I hope that this will be the removal of the classes as you say. The republic system of Germany is failing as much as anywhere else on the world and after a short time of anarchy, we might end up with a dictatorship of the proletariat, which would be good. Right now, we have a dictatorship of the rich, the economy and the unions. The politicians are constantly helping themselves to the money they dont own and remove welfare more and more, which is supposed to pressurize the jobless into finding a job. This however doesnt work and will not work - it will however make many people in Germany much more poor than they already are, which will again remove profit from the economy, who will lay off more people etc. etc. ad nauseum. Our current governmental system is doomed to fail sooner or later and as my grandfather said, it is going to be 2006 at the latest.

You are right when you say that this economic system is doomed to fail and be replaced. However, unfortunately, I don't think that a revolution in Germany alone will remove the class system. While the proletariat does not rule the world, there will be a class system and the bourgeoisy will fight to maintain their privileges. The revolution may start in Germany though. But it will necessarily be worldwide at one point. It can be a peaceful revolution, but according to the recent news, it looks like it will take the form of terrorism and war. The bourgeoisy may not like it, but terrorism is one part of the struggle of the classes : the proletariat fighting for their rights. While there are classes, terrorism is not about to stop. I just wish the terrorists themselves did see this and were not about to replace one class system with another.

Hypothetical Situation in a Communist Nation: Farmer Jones, Farmer Smith, and Farmer Brown all work on a communal farm together. Now, for the first few days, everything goes smoothly, each man working equal to the others. But, as I said earlier, human emotions play into communism, and ultimately will make it fail. Farmer Brown is a lazy guy, he is naturally lazy, and he does not enjoy working. So, he decides to stop working. Totally. Because anyway, everybody shares everything, so he will still have all he needs to live, food, shelter etc. So now Farmer Brown is not working on the farm. He just sits around and feeds off the work of Farmer Jones and Farmer Smith. This angers Farmer Jones. He decides, well if Farmer Brown aint working, then sure as hell I aint working, and I will still get food and shelter and etc. because we all share. Soon after Farmer Jones quits working, Farmer Smith follows suit. Other workers take cues from the farmers, and quit working. They dont care about gaining a reputation for sharing, even if you are the best sharer, you are treated the same as everybody else, you cannot become rich. So now, no one has any incentive to work, and since there are no social classes, you cannot move up in the world. So now, the economy of this nation is ruined as more workers just stop working every day. Then what happens? How do we get these men to work again? Well, the USSR showed us how. Gulags. Torture. Fear. Force them to work. Now, they work, but they are forced to do it, or they will get killed. Productivity drops, because people are working, but only reluctantly. The system is ruined.

There is a solution to this type of thing that I gave in the anarchist thread. Basically, someone asked the question (of what happens when in a commune someone doesn't want to work), and I replied that the communes would most likely vote the non-working individual out of the commune, thus no longer benefitting from the collective effort of the commune.

I'm not quite sure how this would play out in the Soviet Union, however. I suppose either they could deport the person, or they could give the person a small field and a one-room shanty and have them subsistence farm, without receiving the benefits of the Soviet economy.

[QUOTE=Opal Isle]1) There are no monopolies to my knowledge in existence today.QUOTE]

To my knowledge DeBeers has a monopoly on diamonds, although obviously they're not a U.S.-based company.

There is a solution to this type of thing that I gave in the anarchist thread. Basically, someone asked the question (of what happens when in a commune someone doesn't want to work), and I replied that the communes would most likely vote the non-working individual out of the commune, thus no longer benefitting from the collective effort of the commune.

I'm not quite sure how this would play out in the Soviet Union, however. I suppose either they could deport the person, or they could give the person a small field and a one-room shanty and have them subsistence farm, without receiving the benefits of the Soviet economy.
Actually there can be another solution : the person who doesn't want to work does not receive pay. Therefore he can not buy food. Although it is not very social, it can be moral, provided a job is available to everyone willing to work and the working person receive the just amount of money for his work. There can be a job market in a communist system, more or less social.

The market is not the great satan. It is useful in certain cases. However the market becomes harmful when applied in capitalism, because the capitalist bourgeoisy parasites the market and takes a small amount to an enormous amount of resources and money from the working class. The market can work very well without those parasites.

Well, neither, of course. Democratic socialism is not an unattainable ideal, and it's what a true Marxian system would bring about. It's also interesting how corporations can establish their own dictatorships, when given free rein. I'm no idealist, of course -- a balance is best.
Well, that is where we disagree. I do not think socialism is attainable, and you do.

Correction, has made it impossible for Communism to even begin.

As long as we are animals, capitalism works and communism doesn't. Once we ascend from being animals, communism will work.

I've noticed something lately, we are rapidly approaching the fall of capitalism. No, I'm not being a left-wing nut job. Just look at industry. In our relentless desire for faster, cheaper production of goods, industries are rapidly becoming more and more automated, manufacturing and now even services. For example they are creating technology that will render check out lines obsolete. Once fossil fuels become too scarce to be economically feasble, automated transport will become the norm and you can eliminate the need to go to the grocery store since you could buy products from an automated warehouse nearby. Capitalism will no longer be able to function since a large amount of people will be unemployed, leading to mass unrest and eventually revolution. There will be no one to buy products, since no one will have any money, except for welfare, but no one will be able to fund it, so welfare will be cut and people will be dieing in the streets from starvation.That is awfully apocolyptic... But I do not know enough about that subject in particular to have an opinion.

One prime thing you are forgetting - China's economy - although now mixed with Capitalist elements is still largely nationalised. And it is booming (Last Quarter it recieved, for the first time - more foreign investment than the US).
China has so much foreign investment because many US companies move there for the cheap labor. I do not think it has much to do with the socialist principles of the Chinese economy, but with the cheapness of labor in manufacturing.

Is this true? That Capitalism was invented by the Americans, in their constitution? Surely Capitalism was alive and well in the Britain quite some time before this.... And furthermore is'nt Capitalism just a variation of Feudalism, which was prevalent all over Europe?
No, Capitalism was not invented by America, but the American form of Capitalism has mostly stayed the same since it was introduced.

First of all, I'm not a communist, so don't lump me in with them. I AM a socialist, but as I take the rather broad definition of market socialist Oskar Lange, I suspect you have little idea what that means. Suffice it to say that there are few "absolutes" in my world-view... and while I will give an "idealist" presentation the benefit of the doubt for the purposes of clear communication, I have little patience for arguments -- yours or those of your communist friends -- that refuse to acknowledge reality.
...
I recognize that reality of capitalism and acknowledge. However, I've gotten tired of people not arguing what is real about a communistic world so I've responded to that by showing them the ideal side of capitalism.

Capitalism is often anachronically compared with feudalism. Capitalism was a progress when compared with feudalism. In France, it was the revolution of 1792 which replaced feudalism with capitalism, which replaced the old 3 class system (clergy, nobility and third state) with a new, more equal 2 class system (the bourgeoisy and the proletariat). Nowadays, capitalism is still compared with feudalism in order to prove capitalism is a superior system. However times have changed and the struggle of classes is no more between the nobility/clergy and the third state but between the proletariat and the bourgeoisy. The once revolutionary progressive system has became the old conservative and oppressing system. The struggle has moved and some people should open their eye and catch the train. The struggle will only stop with the abolishment of classes.
Abolishment of class is impossible. What you would have to do is create a communistic system, which I beleive is impossible, and will decline into a dictatorship. And in a dictatorship, the class lines are even more pronounced, with the tiny rich ruling class and the large incredibly destitute peasant worker class.

I know why capitalism works and communism fails.

In capitalism, co-ops and communes are a possibility.
In communism, no alternative is ever available.

I can't believe that not only did you use a cliched metaphorical explanation for this thread, but you also blatantly ripped off Animal Farm. You do know that Orwell wasn't a capitalist, yeah?
Well, there you go astray. The young George Orwell (his real name is Eric something) was a communist activist, and firmly believed in the Communist system. But then he saw what happened to the USSR, how the idealist communist republic slid into a Dictatorship, he switched affiliations. He became rabidly anti-communist, and became a proponent of the capitalist system. His two famous books, Animal Farm and 1984, were both published when he was a capitalist as allegory (Animal Farm) and as a prediction of a commmunist world (1984). Next time, read the whole biography, not just the beginning where it says he was a communist.

My grandfather said recently that in 2006 at the latest, the people of Germany will rise up and remove the current government. I hope that this will be the removal of the classes as you say. The republic system of Germany is failing as much as anywhere else on the world and after a short time of anarchy, we might end up with a dictatorship of the proletariat, which would be good. Right now, we have a dictatorship of the rich, the economy and the unions. The politicians are constantly helping themselves to the money they dont own and remove welfare more and more, which is supposed to pressurize the jobless into finding a job. This however doesnt work and will not work - it will however make many people in Germany much more poor than they already are, which will again remove profit from the economy, who will lay off more people etc. etc. ad nauseum. Our current governmental system is doomed to fail sooner or later and as my grandfather said, it is going to be 2006 at the latest.
Good Lord I hope you are wrong.

You are right when you say that this economic system is doomed to fail and be replaced. However, unfortunately, I don't think that a revolution in Germany alone will remove the class system. While the proletariat does not rule the world, there will be a class system and the bourgeoisy will fight to maintain their privileges. The revolution may start in Germany though. But it will necessarily be worldwide at one point. It can be a peaceful revolution, but according to the recent news, it looks like it will take the form of terrorism and war. The bourgeoisy may not like it, but terrorism is one part of the struggle of the classes : the proletariat fighting for their rights. While there are classes, terrorism is not about to stop. I just wish the terrorists themselves did see this and were not about to replace one class system with another.I hope you are wrong also.

Hey, don't keep us in suspense. Also explain the differences between Leninism and Marxism with specific reference to the Paris Commune.

I can't believe that not only did you use a cliched metaphorical explanation for this thread, but you also blatantly ripped off Animal Farm. You do know that Orwell wasn't a capitalist, yeah?

He might of seen himself as a socialist or communist (not too sure). Yet he still owned the rights to his book and sold them to the public.
So he owned property and tried to make money. Whatever he said he was, he seemed a bit capitalistic to me.

There is a solution to this type of thing that I gave in the anarchist thread. Basically, someone asked the question (of what happens when in a commune someone doesn't want to work), and I replied that the communes would most likely vote the non-working individual out of the commune, thus no longer benefitting from the collective effort of the commune.

I'm not quite sure how this would play out in the Soviet Union, however. I suppose either they could deport the person, or they could give the person a small field and a one-room shanty and have them subsistence farm, without receiving the benefits of the Soviet economy.
In the Soviet Union, they send the man to a Gulag. And torture or kill him. Make him an example to his neighbors, so they keep working.

China has so much foreign investment because many US companies move there for the cheap labor. I do not think it has much to do with the socialist principles of the Chinese economy, but with the cheapness of labor in manufacturing.

AND because they keep their currency artificialy low.

Actually there can be another solution : the person who doesn't want to work does not receive pay. Therefore he can not buy food. Although it is not very social, it can be moral, provided a job is available to everyone willing to work and the working person receive the just amount of money for his work.


Wow, that sounds like Capitalism! So in truth, the only way for a Communistic system to survive is if it is Capitalistic! Dont you see the elements of no work, no food! Isnt that the first principle of Capitalism?

AND because they keep their currency artificialy low.
Yes, that also.

My grandfather said recently that in 2006 at the latest, the people of Germany will rise up and remove the current government. I hope that this will be the removal of the classes as you say. The republic system of Germany is failing as much as anywhere else on the world and after a short time of anarchy, we might end up with a dictatorship of the proletariat, which would be good. Right now, we have a dictatorship of the rich, the economy and the unions. The politicians are constantly helping themselves to the money they dont own and remove welfare more and more, which is supposed to pressurize the jobless into finding a job. This however doesnt work and will not work - it will however make many people in Germany much more poor than they already are, which will again remove profit from the economy, who will lay off more people etc. etc. ad nauseum. Our current governmental system is doomed to fail sooner or later and as my grandfather said, it is going to be 2006 at the latest.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. funny

Well, there you go astray. The young George Orwell (his real name is Eric something) was a communist activist, and firmly believed in the Communist system. But then he saw what happened to the USSR, how the idealist communist republic slid into a Dictatorship, he switched affiliations. He became rabidly anti-communist, and became a proponent of the capitalist system. His two famous books, Animal Farm and 1984, were both published when he was a capitalist as allegory (Animal Farm) and as a prediction of a commmunist world (1984). Next time, read the whole biography, not just the beginning where it says he was a communist.
Out of curiosity have you read both of those books? I've read 1984, and I think it's unfair to assume that it is Orwell's vision of a communist world in the future. I think it is just his prediction of strong central governments.

the german politicians are doing the right thing.
The economy is decrepid and the workers have to much power. I mean come on a 35 hour week! LAbour costs are higher and its next to impossible to fire an employee.
There needs to be balance!

So... change people to make communism (or anarchy) work. Make people see that they have to give and not take. By always following capitalism one can never break the cycle. And in capitalism too there are leeches, mostly rich-daddy boys. But we can't do anything about them either because they have money and money = power.

Therefor for a better world ANARCHY: no government, no property, no rules. The perfect solution, if only people weren't that dumb.

I know why capitalism works and communism fails.

In capitalism, co-ops and communes are a possibility.
In communism, no alternative is ever available.
Daroth hit the nail on the head here...
In capitalism, you can have some compromise and allow a little bit of socialism or communism in it and the system will still work, however in communism, if any one person has any bit of advantage that is available in capitalism, the system quickly becomes unfair and corrupted.

Abolishment of class is impossible. What you would have to do is create a communistic system, which I beleive is impossible, and will decline into a dictatorship. And in a dictatorship, the class lines are even more pronounced, with the tiny rich ruling class and the large incredibly destitute peasant worker class.
Oh you mean communism would decline into capitalism...
Yes indeed, this a possibility, but I have to try. It is either communism or war forever. The struggle of classes is more than 6000 years old and will continue whether you like it or not until there are no class anymore. I choose to try to end the war, and even if I fail I loose nothing, but if I succeed, I win a lot.

So... change people to make communism (or anarchy) work. Make people see that they have to give and not take. By always following capitalism one can never break the cycle. And in capitalism too there are leeches, mostly rich-daddy boys. But we can't do anything about them either because they have money and money = power.

Therefor for a better world ANARCHY: no government, no property, no rules. The perfect solution, if only people weren't that dumb.
As I argued in another thread with the same topic, anarchy--especially anarcho-communism--would evolve into feudalism eventually.

thanks.

Oh you mean communism would decline into capitalism...
Yes indeed, this a possibility, but I have to try. It is either communism or war forever. The struggle of classes is more than 6000 years old and will continue whether you like it or not until there are no class anymore. I choose to try to end the war, and even if I fail I loose nothing, but if I succeed, I win a lot.
It is smart, power-hungry capitalists that will ensure that communism will fail.

I hope you are wrong also.I wish I was wrong as well, but unfortunately, this is the state of affair today. You have desperate people flying planes into buildings and I don't see any end in sight to poverty if we don't abolish property.

Wow, that sounds like Capitalism! So in truth, the only way for a Communistic system to survive is if it is Capitalistic! Dont you see the elements of no work, no food! Isnt that the first principle of Capitalism?
You don't understand capitalism. It is about the capital, it is not about rewarding the hard working people. I'm afraid you have been fooled.

You don't understand capitalism. It is about the capital, it is not about rewarding the hard working people. I'm afraid you have been fooled.
You've explained the reality of it. Susa explained the ideality of it. You've pinpointed the difference between real and ideal capitalism. I'll now ask you to identify the difference between real and ideal communism.

It is smart, power-hungry capitalists that will ensure that communism will fail.
I know, but at the end of the day, the proletariat has the real power. Because the proletariat creates the economy and is in higher number. There will be a revolution, sooner or later, this is necessary. Either this revolution will put another class system in place and perpetuate the class struggle forever or they will remove the class system and put communism in place. The bourgeoisy is short-sighted and that's why they will fight communism, but they will necessarily find themselves exploited in the next class system.

I know, but at the end of the day, the proletariat has the real power. Because the proletariat creates the economy and is in higher number. There will be a revolution, sooner or later, this is necessary. Either this revolution will put another class system in place and perpetuate the class struggle forever or they will remove the class system and put communism in place. The bourgeoisy is short-sighted and that's why they will fight communism, but they will necessarily find themselves exploited in the next class system.
Even if communism takes over, it will not last.

You've explained the reality of it. Susa explained the ideality of it. You've pinpointed the difference between real and ideal capitalism. I'll now ask you to identify the difference between real and ideal communism.
No Suza did not explain the ideal of capitalism because Suza confuses capitalism and freedom/democracy/free market/any bullshit propagated by the bourgeoise propaganda.
The difference between real and ideal communism is that ideal communism is a concept while real is an implementation.

Even if communism takes over, it will not last.
Nothing last forever indeed. But communism is the only hope of the human being to survive as a people.

No Suza did not explain the ideal of capitalism because Suza confuses capitalism and freedom/democracy/free market/any bullshit propagated by the bourgeoise propaganda.
The difference between real and ideal communism is that ideal communism is a concept while real is an implementation.
I'm about getting ready to say that I'm done debating this with you. You're coming off as worse than Letila because you won't admit differences between realities and idealities.

Nothing last forever indeed. But communism is the only hope of the human being to survive as a people.
...uh, no?

Daroth hit the nail on the head here...
In capitalism, you can have some compromise and allow a little bit of socialism or communism in it and the system will still work, however in communism, if any one person has any bit of advantage that is available in capitalism, the system quickly becomes unfair and corrupted.On the other hand, in capitalism, the system is already unfair and corrupted from the start. And the corruption is getting worse and worse with time.

On the other hand, in capitalism, the system is already unfair and corrupted from the start.
...but it works because it is possible to compromise the two systems...

I'm glad you missed the point of that post by the way.

Why Communism does not work: A short essay, by the man behind _Susa_

"Communism only works in heaven, where they don't need it, and hell, where they already have it" -Ronald Reagan.
And then he filled his pampers. Your hypothetical situation is nice, but it is trumped by reality. Catalonia: 1936-1939. Nuff' said.

I know, but at the end of the day, the proletariat has the real power. Because the proletariat creates the economy and is in higher number. There will be a revolution, sooner or later, this is necessary. Either this revolution will put another class system in place and perpetuate the class struggle forever or they will remove the class system and put communism in place. The bourgeoisy is short-sighted and that's why they will fight communism, but they will necessarily find themselves exploited in the next class system.

No no no no. Don't you see that the proletariat as you call them have less power now. The "working class" are a shrinking minority. More people in the western world own property now than before. Why would they want to give that up for a utopian society where everything is owned by the group/commune/proletariat/whatever
The average person now realises that is lot can improve. Just look at where communism (in whatever form) came around. Russia, China, Cuba. The average person could not improve his lot.
And I find it interesting that most of the communists I meet have never been from a poor background. They've (as a general rule) always come from a well of background.

I'm about getting ready to say that I'm done debating this with you. You're coming off as worse than Letila because you won't admit differences between realities and idealities.I'm sorry but your question didn't make sense to me. What is the difference between an apple and a washing machine anyway?

But I think I understand what you want me to say. Yes communism in reality is not perfect, as nothing is perfect in reality. This is the implementation which is never perfect. However you can always try to implement an ideal. And you have to actually, necessarily. Here we are trying to debate which ideal is best. And I'm sorry to say most people have been fooled about the capitalist ideals.

And then he filled his pampers. Your hypothetical situation is nice, but it is trumped by reality. Catalonia: 1936-1939. Nuff' said.

True enough. But we don't know what would have happened had it been given a chance. Might have worked, might not.

Interesting point though, Catalonia was THE industrial heartland of spain at the time. Yet they were unable to hold of the fascists. But then no other part of spain did any better.....

I'm sorry but your question didn't make sense to me. What is the difference between an apple and a washing machine anyway?

But I think I understand what you want me to say. Yes communism in reality is not perfect, as nothing is perfect in reality. This is the implementation which is never perfect. However you can always try to implement an ideal. And you have to actually, necessarily. Here we are trying to debate which ideal is best. And I'm sorry to say most people have been fooled about the capitalist ideals.
1) If you think people have been "fooled" by capitalist ideals then you understand that capitalism is ideally better than what it really is, despite the fact that you argue real capitalism vs ideal communism.

2) I again emphasize you are arguing ideal communism vs ideal capitalism. If the two ideals were placed side by side, communism would have a slight advantage, but the difference would not be as great as you'd like to think it is.

3) In reality, communism is not perfect, like you just said. But like Daroth pointed out and I emphasized, for communism to work at all it absolutely must be perfect. This is where capitalism wins out. In reality, capitalism doesn't have to be in its perfect state to work whereas communism does. Unfortunately, the perfect state cannot be reached for either, and therefore capitalism, which works in an unperfect state, prevails.

No no no no. Don't you see that the proletariat as you call them have less power now. The "working class" are a shrinking minority. More people in the western world own property now than before. Why would they want to give that up for a utopian society where everything is owned by the group/commune/proletariat/whatever
The average person now realises that is lot can improve. Just look at where communism (in whatever form) came around. Russia, China, Cuba. The average person could not improve his lot.
And I find it interesting that most of the communists I meet have never been from a poor background. They've (as a general rule) always come from a well of background.But the world is not just Europe and the US. The third world is wider and wider. the factories are moving to the third world because that's where the proletariat is. No minimum wage, no union, no minimum working age, nothing. This is capitalism. Capitalism is just globalizing but it still exists.

Psylos, read and defend all three points made in my post or stop posting here.

But the world is not just Europe and the US. The third world is wider and wider. the factories are moving to the third world because that's where the proletariat is. No minimum wage, no union, no minimum working age, nothing. This is capitalism. Capitalism is just globalizing but it still exists.

No that's just business sense. You go where its cheaper! Do the 'proletariat' who work in a factory say in... vietnam earn less than the 'proletariat' working as a farmer in vietnam. OR better let them remain un-employed maybe?
Hell the west has only had these things for a short time, give the rest of the world a chance to catch up

True enough. But we don't know what would have happened had it been given a chance. Might have worked, might not.

Interesting point though, Catalonia was THE industrial heartland of spain at the time. Yet they were unable to hold of the fascists. But then no other part of spain did any better..... How it would have worked out had the people of Spain remained free is not my point: in those three years they proved Susa's critique to be unfounded.

As for their 'inability to hold off the fascists': Stalinist-ruled 'Republican Spain' held off arms from the militias, and actively attacked the communes and collectives and the Facists were supported by the industrial might of Italy and Germany.

Discipline and the will to fight were not factors in their defeat: towards the end the militias were charging into bullets and bayonets barehanded.
The productive capacity of Anarchist and Syndicalist Spain actually increased due to newly introduced industreal techniques and high worker morale. It was not enough though to fight a war with such well-armed adverseries on two fronts.

The CNT's relations with the Republic and hesitation to sieze the gold reserves and completely smash the state also brought on the downfall of Free Spain.

1) If you think people have been "fooled" by capitalist ideals then you understand that capitalism is ideally better than what it really is, despite the fact that you argue real capitalism vs ideal communism.I don't understand what you want to say, but most people here oppose democracy to dictatorship, instead of capitalism to communism. Capitalism is about the capital, isn't it? If you argue that having the right to move around is great, I agree. If you argue that having the right to move around is capitalism, you have been fooled by propaganda and you just don't understand the concept behind capitalism. If one has a capital, it means every other single man does not have it. If you own a factory, is doesn't mean you use your "right" to own that factory, but that you are denying it to just everybody else. I'm willing to debate this concept of ownership of the means of production, but debating freedom vs oppression is nonsense.

2) I again emphasize you are arguing ideal communism vs ideal capitalism. If the two ideals were placed side by side, communism would have a slight advantage, but the difference would not be as great as you'd like to think it is.Then go in Africa and see the difference.

3) In reality, communism is not perfect, like you just said. But like Daroth pointed out and I emphasized, for communism to work at all it absolutely must be perfect. This is where capitalism wins out. In reality, capitalism doesn't have to be in its perfect state to work whereas communism does. Unfortunately, the perfect state cannot be reached for either, and therefore capitalism, which works in an unperfect state, prevails.
I don't agree. Capitalism doesn't work, even in it's ideal form, but that is a matter of defining what is a working system. In my value system, a system is working if it can last. Capitalism can't.

Psylos, read and defend all three points made in my post or stop posting here.
Can I have 2 minutes please? There are many other posts I want to reply to.

A question for the communists or for anyone else.
At this moment the 'west' spends untold billions on maintaining their farmers as they cannot compete easily with the rest of the world.
These help the 'proletariat' farmers in the EU, US and Japan. But bugger everyone else on the planet.
Should we be true capitalists and allow free access within the food market?

No that's just business sense. You go where its cheaper! Do the 'proletariat' who work in a factory say in... vietnam earn less than the 'proletariat' working as a farmer in vietnam. OR better let them remain un-employed maybe?
Hell the west has only had these things for a short time, give the rest of the world a chance to catch upWhen your land is owned by the big corporations thousands of kilimeters away, and when they decide if you live or not, there is only one way to catch up : abolish their property.

I don't understand what you want to say, but most people here oppose democracy to dictatorship, instead of capitalism to communism. Capitalism is about the capital, isn't it? If you argue that having the right to move around is great, I agree. If you argue that having the right to move around is capitalism, you have been fooled by propaganda and you just don't understand the concept behind capitalism. If one has a capital, it means every other single man does not have it. If you own a factory, is doesn't mean you use your "right" to own that factory, but that you are denying it to just everybody else. I'm willing to debate this concept of ownership of the means of production, but debating freedom vs oppression is nonsense. Actually, it is you that does not understand what ideal capitalism is really all about. Do you honestly believe that someone would dream up a system in which the point was to make life miserable for such a large group of people?
Then go in Africa and see the difference.
I was unaware that ideal capitalism or communism existed anywhere in the world. Thanks for pointing out Africa. I'll check it out.[/sarcasm]
I don't agree. Capitalism doesn't work, even in it's ideal form, but that is a matter of defining what is a working system. In my value system, a system is working if it can last. Capitalism can't.
And at that, I'm off to find a new thread to argue about something different because there is no point in arguing with someone who won't identify the difference between reality and ideality and also won't look at the flipside of the argument.

How it would have worked out had the people of Spain remained free is not my point: in those three years they proved Susa's critique to be unfounded.

As for their 'inability to hold off the fascists': Stalinist-ruled 'Republican Spain' held off arms from the militias, and actively attacked the communes and collectives and the Facists were supported by the industrial might of Italy and Germany.

Discipline and the will to fight were not factors in their defeat: towards the end the militias were charging into bullets and bayonets barehanded.
The productive capacity of Anarchist and Syndicalist Spain actually increased due to newly introduced industreal techniques and high worker morale. It was not enough though to fight a war with such well-armed adverseries on two fronts.

The CNT's relations with the Republic and hesitation to sieze the gold reserves and completely smash the state also brought on the downfall of Free Spain.

what 2 fronts? I thought it was on only one. Please elaborate.
Also all weapons that were coming to spain from the left were going through communist controlled spain before reaching the anarchists in catalonia? please elaborate

Free Outer Eugenia:

If Orwell's account of Catalonia is anything to go by then nearing the end of those three years, the revolutionary spirit had completely dissapeared and there were signs of the bourgeoisie returning; such as tipping waiters and the reintroduction of the more formal way of saying Hello et cetera. Of course this was not known to the front line troops and their comeradeship lasted until the end.

A question for the communists or for anyone else.
At this moment the 'west' spends untold billions on maintaining their farmers as they cannot compete easily with the rest of the world.
These help the 'proletariat' farmers in the EU, US and Japan. But bugger everyone else on the planet.
Should we be true capitalists and allow free access within the food market?
The EU, the US and Japan should stop owning the farms of the rest of the world acquired by colonization. Then three will be access to the food market.

Also all weapons that were coming to spain from the left were going through communist controlled spain before reaching the anarchists in catalonia? please elaborate
Russian weapons were unlikely to be used by anyone other than the communists. The POUM were poorely armed at the front and the anarchists weren't that much better off.

Daroth:

It is pretty much only the French who are abusing their status in the EU to subsidies their farmers. This is likely to stop because other members are tired of paying to keep them in business. Food is unbelievably cheap and plentiful to the majority of us, but not when protectionism is implicated.

Out of curiosity have you read both of those books? I've read 1984, and I think it's unfair to assume that it is Orwell's vision of a communist world in the future. I think it is just his prediction of strong central governments.
I have read both. I guess you could say 1984 is not specifically a communist allegory, but it seems to me, according to my theory, that he is invisioning the dictatorship that comes out of the failure of communism. And anyone who has read Animal Farm should know it is blatantly anti-communist. It refers to the Russian Revolution in which the leaders turn into the people they tried to liberate themselves from. Like the pigs turning into men, the Supreme Soviets of the USSR turned into the Czars of past days, who they overthrew.

The EU, the US and Japan should stop owning the farms of the rest of the world acquired by colonization. Then three will be access to the food market.
They don't owne the farms! where did that come from?!?
But another thing, in Africa, property rights do not really exist except for a few nations. So they have no motivation to maintain or develope those farms. If they were allowed to own their land and the west would stopped subsidising their own farmers the whole continent would be richer and more stable.

Don't you see that the proletariat as you call them have less power now. The "working class" are a shrinking minority. More people in the western world own property now than before. Why would they want to give that up for a utopian society where everything is owned by the group/commune/proletariat/whatever

Who knows? Perhaps some people from OUTSIDE the western world will start attacking us and violently revolting against foreign capitalists raping their countries for all they're worth? Oh, wait...

The average person now realises that is lot can improve. Just look at where communism (in whatever form) came around. Russia, China, Cuba. The average person could not improve his lot.

Over time peoples' situations may change, but their place in society will be a lot more rigid. And even if THEY win the lottery or something and get rich, it won't help other people - capitalism really requires a large number of poor people supporting a small number of rich people. One day, even the poorest person might have a hovercar, but only once the rich people have pandimensional teleport belts that enable them to exist everywhere at once.

I find it interesting that most of the communists I meet have never been from a poor background. They've (as a general rule) always come from a well of background.

So what you're implying is... people who favour communism generally have a better education? And I realise you didn't DIRECTLY talk about education, but you can't deny the link between quality of life and education. Besides, the Cynical Communists' Handbook would say that if poor people can't afford a decent education, they can't be expected to understand how the capitalists are milking like like cows for their labour.

So... change people to make communism (or anarchy) work. Make people see that they have to give and not take. By always following capitalism one can never break the cycle. And in capitalism too there are leeches, mostly rich-daddy boys. But we can't do anything about them either because they have money and money = power.

Therefor for a better world ANARCHY: no government, no property, no rules. The perfect solution, if only people weren't that dumb.
That is why Anarcho communism does not work in this world, because people have emotions, or as you say "if only people weren't that dumb".

Ok first of all there can be no comparison unless you supply the USSR as a communist state; most people would say fairly that it was from its very beginnings a fascist state with some communist ideology. Unfettered capitalism does exist in some local economies but it almost always falls prey to depressions and failures like those found in the Van Burean era and the much larger collapse in the United States in the 20s and 30s. In reality we use a mixed economy in the United States the balance is in favor of Capitalisms in Europe Socialism. In short which one of these mixed economies is better depends on what your goal as a group is social justice or economic mobility since the US and Western Europe are both quite successful in very different ways I would have to say that all mixed economies work well as long as you do not stray to far in either direction... however both extremes can be successful in the near term for example the boom in the US economy after world war I and the great advances in the Soviet Economy under the first two or three 5 year plans, the danger to both these systems is in the long term as I have noted above.

Daroth hit the nail on the head here...
In capitalism, you can have some compromise and allow a little bit of socialism or communism in it and the system will still work, however in communism, if any one person has any bit of advantage that is available in capitalism, the system quickly becomes unfair and corrupted.
The only place where communism has ever been succesfully practiced is in Israel, on the Kibbutz. Israel is a Democratic Capitalistic society, but some socialism can work. Odd, how it only works in non-communist nations.

That is why Anarcho communism does not work in this world, because people have emotions, or as you say "if only people weren't that dumb".
Emotions isn't really the right word. Values and a sense of self-worth however...

Oh you mean communism would decline into capitalism...
Yes indeed, this a possibility, but I have to try. It is either communism or war forever. The struggle of classes is more than 6000 years old and will continue whether you like it or not until there are no class anymore. I choose to try to end the war, and even if I fail I loose nothing, but if I succeed, I win a lot.
Well, if you define Capitalism as a Dictatorship, then communism does decline into capitalism.

By the way, just so all the communists know, I think I speak for all the communist when I say this:
I am not denying how nice the world would if communism would actually work. Ideal communism is definitely better than ideal capitalism. What I'm arguing here is that communism is impossible where capitalism is not.

Actually, it is you that does not understand what ideal capitalism is really all about. Do you honestly believe that someone would dream up a system in which the point was to make life miserable for such a large group of people?A lot of people are dreaming about aving a lot of slaves and spending their days in shops, paying prostitutes and snorting cocaïn. The problem is that in this case the slaves are necessarily miserable. I'm interested in hearing what ideal other that that is capitalism serving. If you say capitalism is the freedom to own things, I'll answer that is removed the freedom of others to own that thing and that is the side of capitalism you don't see. You just see the side of the fat ass spending all his day in shops.

I was unaware that ideal capitalism or communism existed anywhere in the world. Thanks for pointing out Africa. I'll check it out.No here I was talking about the implementation of capitalism, not about the ideal form.

And at that, I'm off to find a new thread to argue about something different because there is no point in arguing with someone who won't identify the difference between reality and ideality and also won't look at the flipside of the argument.
I'm sorry you can't continue the argument. I hope this is not because of my rudeness. I'm trying not to be rude but I have to type very fast and I don't really work on my politeness. Please forgive me if I sound rude.
I'm willing to talk about the differences between ideal and real communism and capitalism. According to you, which are they?

I wish I was wrong as well, but unfortunately, this is the state of affair today. You have desperate people flying planes into buildings and I don't see any end in sight to poverty if we don't abolish property.
Oh Lord, now it is our fault that Islamist extremists fly planes into buildings to kill innocent Americans. Desperate people my a**.

Well, there you go astray. The young George Orwell (his real name is Eric something) was a communist activist, and firmly believed in the Communist system. But then he saw what happened to the USSR, how the idealist communist republic slid into a Dictatorship, he switched affiliations. He became rabidly anti-communist, and became a proponent of the capitalist system. His two famous books, Animal Farm and 1984, were both published when he was a capitalist as allegory (Animal Farm) and as a prediction of a commmunist world (1984). Next time, read the whole biography, not just the beginning where it says he was a communist.No, you're wrong. It's quite right to say that George Orwell (it's Eric Blair by the way) became disallusioned and hostile to the Communist (actually Stalinist) Party, but at no point did he become a capitalist. I defy you to find a quote from him that changes him. One of his main reasons for feeling like this, which you completly ignore as it doesen't fit your theory, was his experiences of the Communist Party when he was fighting on the side of the Popular Front in the Spanish Civil War. Does this suggest a man who had moved to the right to you? (Read Homage to Catalonia for more on this).

You also massively misrepresent both Animal Farm and 1984. Animal Farm first because it's quicker. The pigs, laid by Napolean, represent Stalinism. One of the main criticisms of the pigs is their alliance with the farmers. Even a cursory reading of the book shows us that the farmers are the representives of capitalism. So the criticism is not of communism, but of the selling out of communism for personal gain.

Your reading of 1984 is similarly misguided. Your suggestion that 1984 is a prediction of a commmunist world shows how little you know about the text. The original title of the book was 1948, Orwell changed round the numbers because otherwise he wouldn't have been able to get it published. In other words, the book is not a prediction of a dark communist dystopia, but a metaphorical reflection of what Orwell saw around him. If you look at the book you'll notice that the country that Winston is in is not balanced out by a nicer capitalist country. Indeed all three countries (representing the three dominant tolitarian systems of Orwell's time, capitalism, Stalinism and fascism) are presented as essentially the same. Even their alliances come and go at the drop of a hat, with no suggestion of any genuine ideological conflict. This mirrors the political events of the time, in particular Stalin's alliance first with the Hitler-Stalin pact, then with Churchill and the capitalist west. What within either book supports your interpretation of Orwell's politics? I've given specific examples (and I'll give more if you wish). Now it's your turn.

I have read both. I guess you could say 1984 is not specifically a communist allegory, but it seems to me, according to my theory, that he is invisioning the dictatorship that comes out of the failure of communism. And anyone who has read Animal Farm should know it is blatantly anti-communist. It refers to the Russian Revolution in which the leaders turn into the people they tried to liberate themselves from. Like the pigs turning into men, the Supreme Soviets of the USSR turned into the Czars of past days, who they overthrew.

well..... 1984 looks alot like communism to me (the corrupted versions that we've seen throughout the world). The organisations within as have taken on a life of themselves. there are the politicals and the normals. History is written and re-written to show how good the state is. and everyone is poor!

One point about animal farm, yes the pigs become just like the humans were. But he showed the humans on the farm to be incompetent as well.

A lot of people are dreaming about aving a lot of slaves and spending their days in shops, paying prostitutes and snorting cocaïn. The problem is that in this case the slaves are necessarily miserable. I'm interested in hearing what ideal other that that is capitalism serving. If you say capitalism is the freedom to own things, I'll answer that is removed the freedom of others to own that thing and that is the side of capitalism you don't see. You just see the side of the fat ass spending all his day in shops.
No here I was talking about the implementation of capitalism, not about the ideal form.

I'm sorry you can't continue the argument. I hope this is not because of my rudeness. I'm trying not to be rude but I have to type very fast and I don't really work on my politeness. Please forgive me if I sound rude.
I'm willing to talk about the differences between ideal and real communism and capitalism. According to you, which are they?
Uh...you've obviously no concept of what a ideal capitalistic world would be like...none at all (yet you argue adamantly against it). This is why I've been frustrated with you. You are arguing your ideal communism against what you think ideal capitalism is. Neither one are even accomplishable so I'm not sure why they're being compared, but if you're going to compare them, you could at least make an effort to find out what ideal capitalism is...

As for Africa, I said that the difference between ideal capitalism and ideal communism (as for how good they were for humanity) would be very slim. Note the word ideal there. You then tried disagreeing with me by citing some real example of some system...

Anyway, explain your perfect vission of communism and I'll tell you why it won't work. Because again, I'm emphasizing that I'm not saying capitalism is better than communism. I'm just arguing that communism is impossible. So if you can convince me that communism is achievable, I'll change my opinion. You have to do this not by telling me how bad capitalism is, but by telling how to achieve communism.

The Holy Word is right. Orwell was never a communist, he was a socialist. In The Road To Wigan Pier the second part explains in obvious detail Orwell's preference to socialism - there is a difference.

And then he filled his pampers. Your hypothetical situation is nice, but it is trumped by reality. Catalonia: 1936-1939. Nuff' said.
Sorry, do not know enough about that situation. And it sounds like it lasted for only 3 years.

By the way, just so all the communists know, I think I speak for all the communist when I say this:
I am not denying how nice the world would if communism would actually work. Ideal communism is definitely better than ideal capitalism. What I'm arguing here is that communism is impossible where capitalism is not.
I didn't see your argument proving communism is impossible. Would you be kind enough to tell me which page to search?
I think capitalism is possible but inherently end up in revolution, like any other class-exploitation system.

Anyway, explain your perfect vission of communism and I'll tell you why it won't work. Because again, I'm emphasizing that I'm not saying capitalism is better than communism. I'm just arguing that communism is impossible. So if you can convince me that communism is achievable, I'll change my opinion. You have to do this not by telling me how bad capitalism is, but by telling how to achieve communism.Ok. My personal view is that revolution is currently, and for the forseeable future, an unfeasible goal, and anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves. Instead the current struggle is to defend working class interests, regardless of the current political and economic structures with a goal of creating working class rule in working class areas.

How it would have worked out had the people of Spain remained free is not my point: in those three years they proved Susa's critique to be unfounded.

As for their 'inability to hold off the fascists': Stalinist-ruled 'Republican Spain' held off arms from the militias, and actively attacked the communes and collectives and the Facists were supported by the industrial might of Italy and Germany.

Discipline and the will to fight were not factors in their defeat: towards the end the militias were charging into bullets and bayonets barehanded.
The productive capacity of Anarchist and Syndicalist Spain actually increased due to newly introduced industreal techniques and high worker morale. It was not enough though to fight a war with such well-armed adverseries on two fronts.

The CNT's relations with the Republic and hesitation to sieze the gold reserves and completely smash the state also brought on the downfall of Free Spain.
OOC: I wonder, is that Francos Spain :D?

Ok. My personal view is that revolution is currently, and for the forseeable future, an unfeasible goal, and anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves. Instead the current struggle is to defend working class interests, regardless of the current political and economic structures with a goal of creating working class rule in working class areas.
Your "argument" for communism is three lines long? Please... I have errands to run. I'll probably be back in thirty minutes. Provide me with a real defense of how we reach your ideal communist society and how that ideal communist society is maintained. That is...if you want me to take you seriously.

No, you're wrong. It's quite right to say that George Orwell (it's Eric Blair by the way) became disallusioned and hostile to the Communist (actually Stalinist) Party, but at no point did he become a capitalist. I defy you to find a quote from him that changes him. One of his main reasons for feeling like this, which you completly ignore as it doesen't fit your theory, was his experiences of the Communist Party when he was fighting on the side of the Popular Front in the Spanish Civil War. Does this suggest a man who had moved to the right to you? (Read Homage to Catalonia for more on this).

Curious. Did he own the rights to his book. And did he make money from selling them. Not to argue, for he was brilliant.
Capitalism is really the idea of owning private property and he did. So......

OOC: I wonder, is that Francos Spain :D?Yep, that's where the nation got the name from. Franco was the leader of the fascist forces in the Spanish Civil War.

OOC: I wonder, is that Francos Spain :D?
No, it was Franco's Spain. The owner of the nation "Francos Spain" just has bad grammar.

If one has a capital, it means every other single man does not have it. If you own a factory, is doesn't mean you use your "right" to own that factory, but that you are denying it to just everybody else.

Does a factory that you own, that you built with your own money, with your money earned from your blood, sweat, and tears, does that factory truly belong to all the people, or does it belong to the person/people who built it? Does it belong to the person who pays the workers, bought the machinery, keeps it in working order, and runs it, or does it belong to the unemployed homeless man sitting on the street outside the factory, begging for coins and using his begging money to buy whiskey?

If you believe that a factory belongs to all the people, even the people who had nothing to do with it, then we cannot debate each other, we can just resolve that we are on different moral platforms.

Your "argument" for communism is three lines long? Please... I have errands to run. I'll probably be back in thirty minutes. Provide me with a real defense of how we reach your ideal communist society and how that ideal communist society is maintained. That is...if you want me to take you seriously.We have to look at reality. What the current situation warrents is for a political fight for working class communities to run their own affairs. It doesen't take a long explanation because it's not complicated to understand. Ask specific questions if you wish. Because from what I can see I'm one of the few people on here addressing the situation as it is, rather then indulging in utopian dreaming.

Curious. Did he own the rights to his book. And did he make money from selling them. Not to argue, for he was brilliant.
Capitalism is really the idea of owning private property and he did. So......Because people have to live in the real world. In the same way as there are Marxist miners and Marxist teachers. What do you suggest would have been the right way for him to support himself.

Does it belong to the person who pays the workers, bought the machinery, keeps it in working order, and runs it, or does it belong to the unemployed homeless man sitting on the street outside the factory, begging for coins and using his begging money to buy whiskey?
How about if the factory belongs to the workers who work there?

Now what means mentioning are the vast negative effects of capitalism, of greed.

People will do anything, hurt others, start wars, ravage nature, in order to "move up in life".

I could go on for paragraphs talking about the bad sides of capitalism, but I don't have the time now and I will let you research for yourselves. I know that the media never shows anything about the real world in the US, about the millions of acres of forests destroyed, about the millions of tons of toxic wastes spilled in our waters, about the millions of people that die and live in misery.

All of this because corporations want to make more profits out of the same products.

If you thought into the future 20 and 30 years instead of 5 or 10, you would see what we are doing to the world. But your eyes are blindfolded and you are desensitized.

Money does not bring happiness. Especially when it's more than anyone needs.

Who knows? Perhaps some people from OUTSIDE the western world will start attacking us and violently revolting against foreign capitalists raping their countries for all they're worth? Oh, wait...



Over time peoples' situations may change, but their place in society will be a lot more rigid. And even if THEY win the lottery or something and get rich, it won't help other people - capitalism really requires a large number of poor people supporting a small number of rich people. One day, even the poorest person might have a hovercar, but only once the rich people have pandimensional teleport belts that enable them to exist everywhere at once.



So what you're implying is... people who favour communism generally have a better education? And I realise you didn't DIRECTLY talk about education, but you can't deny the link between quality of life and education. Besides, the Cynical Communists' Handbook would say that if poor people can't afford a decent education, they can't be expected to understand how the capitalists are milking like like cows for their labour.
Ever heard of public education? Yea, all you got to do is pay yer taxes, and its free. Even if you dont pay your taxes, you get into school free.

How about if the factory belongs to the workers who work there?
But it wouldn't belong to the workers in a communist state, it would belong to the government.

Because people have to live in the real world. In the same way as there are Marxist miners and Marxist teachers. What do you suggest would have been the right way for him to support himself.

Of course he would have to support himself. But think of the money he (or the person who owns the rights) have made. Books, cartoons, films. He made more than a marxist miner did. Once he wrote the books he continously made money.
A miner is part of the proletariat as i understand it. How was he. If anything he would have had to work with capitalists to make the books, which meant that the abused proletariat would have had to make the paper, binding, books, etc.. and got no ownership.
You would think we would have proved himself to be a real socialist and have donated the money to the cause, or given everyone that took part in the making of the product a share....

Emotions isn't really the right word. Values and a sense of self-worth however...
True.

Ever heard of public education? Yea, all you got to do is pay yer taxes, and its free. Even if you dont pay your taxes, you get into school free.

pardon here, but what makes you think that nobody will notice that your not paying your taxes?

Uh...you've obviously no concept of what a ideal capitalistic world would be like...none at all (yet you argue adamantly against it). This is why I've been frustrated with you. You are arguing your ideal communism against what you think ideal capitalism is. Neither one are even accomplishable so I'm not sure why they're being compared, but if you're going to compare them, you could at least make an effort to find out what ideal capitalism is...Here is how I define capitalism : the power is the capital. People work for the capital and indivuduals own the capital. Idealy I think the aim of capitalism is remove the power from the religious institutions and from the monarchs. This is a great ideal, but I think it has been achieved 200 years ago at least.
My critic is that by owning the capital, people own other people's work. therefore this is another kind of class system, based on philosophy rather than on religion.

I'm ready to hear what you think the ideal of capitalism is.

As for Africa, I said that the difference between ideal capitalism and ideal communism (as for how good they were for humanity) would be very slim. Note the word ideal there. You then tried disagreeing with me by citing some real example of some system...ok sorry it was not relevant then. I think the advantage of having no class is that we have justice and therefore peace, which is a very big advantage in my opinion.

Anyway, explain your perfect vission of communism and I'll tell you why it won't work. Because again, I'm emphasizing that I'm not saying capitalism is better than communism. I'm just arguing that communism is impossible. So if you can convince me that communism is achievable, I'll change my opinion. You have to do this not by telling me how bad capitalism is, but by telling how to achieve communism.
This is the best way to proceed indeed.
My perfect vision of communism :
Note communism is a global system.
the factories and money renting are a monopoly of the state.
People can receive a salary for working, it can be democratic and the people can vote the way the factories are run, there can even be competition and free market, but it is a separate subject. Please do not start debating dictatorship/democracy or something like that. there can be both in both systems. The only thing communism is about is that the means of production are owned in common, as opposed to owned by individuals.

But it wouldn't belong to the workers in a communist state, it would belong to the government.Not in a genuine communist state. "The workers control the means of production" is pretty straightforward as a philosophy.

Of course he would have to support himself. But think of the money he (or the person who owns the rights) have made. Books, cartoons, films. He made more than a marxist miner did. Once he wrote the books he continously made money.
A miner is part of the proletariat as i understand it. How was he. If anything he would have had to work with capitalists to make the books, which meant that the abused proletariat would have had to make the paper, binding, books, etc.. and got no ownership.
You would think we would have proved himself to be a real socialist and have donated the money to the cause, or given everyone that took part in the making of the product a share.... Utopian rubbish (no offence intended). He made a living like anyone else. And I think getting involved on the frontline in a war against fascism is reasonable proof of his committment.

Ok. My personal view is that revolution is currently, and for the forseeable future, an unfeasible goal, and anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves. Instead the current struggle is to defend working class interests, regardless of the current political and economic structures with a goal of creating working class rule in working class areas.
I agree with this, but I would say that the working class must rule everywhere.

Who knows? Perhaps some people from OUTSIDE the western world will start attacking us and violently revolting against foreign capitalists raping their countries for all they're worth? Oh, wait....

Mmmmm let's see. what could you be thinking of.... maybe 9/11 or whatever its called. Ah yes that's not because of american troops of Saudi Soil.


Over time peoples' situations may change, but their place in society will be a lot more rigid. And even if THEY win the lottery or something and get rich, it won't help other people - capitalism really requires a large number of poor people supporting a small number of rich people. One day, even the poorest person might have a hovercar, but only once the rich people have pandimensional teleport belts that enable them to exist everywhere at once.

So what is the problem? if everyone is given equal opportunities. The rich don't have to make the decisions do they? PLEASE DON'T USE THE US AS AN EXMAPLE!!!! Other countries have leaders from more normal backgrounds!

So what you're implying is... people who favour communism generally have a better education? And I realise you didn't DIRECTLY talk about education, but you can't deny the link between quality of life and education. Besides, the Cynical Communists' Handbook would say that if poor people can't afford a decent education, they can't be expected to understand how the capitalists are milking like like cows for their labour.

So equality for the educated? Or are some people more equal than others?

I agree with this, but I would say that the working class must rule everywhere.I don't question your sincerity, but I think you're falling into the standard utopian trap. For people to take you seriously you have to offer real solutions to real problems, not "after the revolution" dreaming. See www.iwca.info for a specific example of what I mean. (I'll declare an interest, I'm a member).

But it wouldn't belong to the workers in a communist state, it would belong to the government.
Then it's not communism.

This is the best way to proceed indeed.
My perfect vision of communism :
Note communism is a global system.
the factories and money renting are a monopoly of the state.
People can receive a salary for working, it can be democratic and the people can vote the way the factories are run, there can even be competition and free market, but it is a separate subject. Please do not start debating dictatorship/democracy or something like that. there can be both in both systems. The only thing communism is about is that the means of production are owned in common, as opposed to owned by individuals.

Sounds like a nice system (in theory lol)

Communism's base is metaphysically flawed anyway. And eithere Marx was misinterpreted or he was far too confident in himself. His borrowed metaphysical philosophy implies that there will be a conflict, all well and good and it is justified; but suddenly the synthesis is worker control - where did that come from? The workers were part of the antithesis.

If we were to apply the metaphysical theory now, communism and socialism is the antithesis to capitalism (the thesis) and the synthesis will be something else; I've not read enough of Marx's writings to know whether he was misunderstood or simply wrong.

I don't question your sincerity, but I think you're falling into the standard utopian trap. For people to take you seriously you have to offer real solutions to real problems, not "after the revolution" dreaming. See www.iwca.info for a specific example of what I mean. (I'll declare an interest, I'm a member).
I think you're right.
The communist revolution will not happen and we have to move gradually, step by step.

No, you're wrong. It's quite right to say that George Orwell (it's Eric Blair by the way) became disallusioned and hostile to the Communist (actually Stalinist) Party, but at no point did he become a capitalist. I defy you to find a quote from him that changes him. One of his main reasons for feeling like this, which you completly ignore as it doesen't fit your theory, was his experiences of the Communist Party when he was fighting on the side of the Popular Front in the Spanish Civil War. Does this suggest a man who had moved to the right to you? (Read Homage to Catalonia for more on this).

Yes, Eric Blair did become hostile to the Communist or Stalinist party of the time. He opposed what becomes of a communist society. At first, it works as an ideal society, then disentigrates quite quickly into a totalitarian dictatorship. I oppose this, and so did he. I doubt that after he saw what happened to the USSR he still supported Communism. And anyway, the Spanish Civil War came before 1984 was published.

You also massively misrepresent both Animal Farm and 1984. Animal Farm first because it's quicker. The pigs, laid by Napolean, represent Stalinism. One of the main criticisms of the pigs is their alliance with the farmers. Even a cursory reading of the book shows us that the farmers are the representives of capitalism. So the criticism is not of communism, but of the selling out of communism for personal gain.
No, I do not misrepresent Animal Farm. You say that the farmers are the representitives of capitalism. I disagree with you here. Animal Farm is an allegory of the Russian Revolution. Who do the pigs and the rest of the farm animals represent, in comparison to the russian revolution? They represent the Bolsheviks, the communists, the Leninists. Who is Snowball? Lenin. Who is Napolean? Stalin. Stalin forces Lenin and all the Leninist ideas and Lenin loyalists away when he takes power. So does Napolean.
Now, in the Russian Revolution, who do the communists revolt from? The Czar's, the White Army, the Nobles, the Monarchists. Who do the farm animals revolt from? The men. So, the men represent the Monarchists. And later in the book, what happens to the pigs? They turn into men. So, what does this represent in the Russian Revolution? The people who broke away from the Monarchists who ran a dictatorship, the same people (like Stalin) become the Monarchists running a dictatorship, so the new leader is the same as the old leader. No, it is obvious that Capitalists are not represented at all in Animal Farm.


Your reading of 1984 is similarly misguided. Your suggestion that 1984 is a shows how little you know about the text. The original title of the book was 1948, Orwell changed round the numbers because otherwise he wouldn't have been able to get it published. In other words, the book is not a prediction of a dark communist dystopia, but a metaphorical reflection of what Orwell saw around him. If you look at the book you'll notice that the country that Winston is in is not balanced out by a nicer capitalist country. Indeed all three countries (representing the three dominant tolitarian systems of Orwell's time, capitalism, Stalinism and fascism) are presented as essentially the same. Even their alliances come and go at the drop of a hat, with no suggestion of any genuine ideological conflict. This mirrors the political events of the time, in particular Stalin's alliance first with the Hitler-Stalin pact, then with Churchill and the capitalist west. What within either book supports your interpretation of Orwell's politics? I've given specific examples (and I'll give more if you wish). Now it's your turn
OK, if what you say is true, if the Capitalists were truly the evil ones in 1984, then lets see what happened. Has the UK become anything like Oceania in 1984? No. Has the USA? No. But has the USSR? Yes! The USSR did become the awful society in 1984. The KGB, secret police, Gulags, torture, people swept away in the middle of the night because they opposed the government, those things are in 1984 and the USSR. If what you say is true, that the evil in 1984 was Capitalism, then George Orwell was wrong.

Allright, Orwell opposed Communism, he opposed the hell communism turns out to be, so he wrote Animal Farm at a time when many thinkers and intellectuals in Europe and the US did not think Communism was all that bad. They had not seen into what really happens when a Communistic society disentegrates into Stalin's Russia. Then, to further enforce this message, he wrote 1984 to show what it is really like in a the dictatorship that comes out of failed communism, to try and discourage a communist movement in the UK or any other country. He thought if people knew what happens to a communist government, they would be discouraged to try to set up one. He was right, and the USA, the UK, and many other western European nations did not fall into the communist trap. And if you need any other information, talk to anyone that lived in Poland or anywhere else in Eastern Europe during the Warsaw Pact years.

Communism's base is metaphysically flawed anyway. And eithere Marx was misinterpreted or he was far too confident in himself. His borrowed metaphysical philosophy implies that there will be a conflict, all well and good and it is justified; but suddenly the synthesis is worker control - where did that come from? The workers were part of the antithesis.

If we were to apply the metaphysical theory now, communism and socialism is the antithesis to capitalism (the thesis) and the synthesis will be something else; I've not read enough of Marx's writings to know whether he was misunderstood or simply wrong.
No I think you didn't understand it right. There will be a revolution, this is necessary, because of the struggle of the classes, but it doesn't say that this revolution will be communist. There can be another class system taking over capitalism, but this system will end up in revolution as well.
Communism would be the end of the class struggle, but it is not necessary that communism will be implemented.

No, it is obvious that Capitalists are not represented at all in Animal Farm.
You were partly right until you said this. The other farms are representations of the capitalist interactions with communist Russia.

You were partly right until you said this. The other farms are representations of the capitalist interactions with communist Russia.
Well, what I meant was the the Men were not capitalists, but they were Monarchists.

No I think you didn't understand it right. There will be a revolution, this is necessary, because of the struggle of the classes, but it doesn't say that this revolution will be communist. There can be another class system taking over capitalism, but this system will end up in revolution as well.
Communism would be the end of the class struggle, but it is not necessary that communism will be implemented.
Where did this idea of necessity come from? Marx's borrowed metaphysics theory is fine for interpreting past historical events, but it is not a sound practise to use it to predict future events. That is what I meant when I said his theory was flawed. Capitalism doesn't have to be replaced necessarily by anything, it is quite possible for it to last until the end of the World - or the destruction of man, if you will.

Capitalism is not the same as it used to be. The working class is no longer exploited as before. The new libertarian ideaology in capitalism is stronger now, and the rights of the workers are recognised with more voice than ever before. Every class has the same rights, lower, middle, and upper.

Well, what I meant was the the Men were not capitalists, but they were Monarchists.
Agreed.

guys have fun!
hopefully join in later

Where did this idea of necessity come from? Marx's borrowed metaphysics theory is fine for interpreting past historical events, but it is not a sound practise to use it to predict future events. That is what I meant when I said his theory was flawed. Capitalism doesn't have to be replaced necessarily by anything, it is quite possible for it to last until the end of the World - or the destruction of man, if you will.

Capitalism is not the same as it used to be. The working class is no longer exploited as before. The new libertarian ideaology in capitalism is stronger now, and the rights of the workers are recognised with more voice than ever before. Every class has the same rights, lower, middle, and upper.
Of course, the synthetesis depends on the hypothesis you take.
I think you are wrong about the evolution of capitalism though. Capitalism has globalized but it is still exploiting a working class. Capitalism has survived until then thanks to war and colonization. As I see it, wars and colonization are the kind of revolution where big capitalism replaced small capitalism and where the lower classes have moved outside of the ruling countries. However, at one point, global capitalism will colapse as the working class is growing and the ruling class is shrinking.

Of course, the synthetesis depends on the hypothesis you take.
I think you are wrong about the evolution of capitalism though. Capitalism has globalized but it is still exploiting a working class. Capitalism has survived until then thanks to war and colonization. As I see it, wars and colonization are the kind of revolution where big capitalism replaced small capitalism and where the lower classes have moved outside of the ruling countries. However, at one point, global capitalism will colapse as the working class is growing and the ruling class is shrinking.
Can you give historical reference to any wars that were fought purely for the expansion of capitalism. The World Wars were fought to stop fascism spreading, but not to spread capitalism. I will admit that the British Empire had a hand at spreading capitalism, but that is no longer an issue as nearly all those countries have been given independance.

What is the "rulling class"? If you mean the upper classes then yes, it is shrinking, but so indeed is the working class - it is the middle classes that are growing. The middle-class in England is now the ruling class. Tony Blair was a hard working middle class lawyer, and the leader of the conservative party is a Jewish gypsy (I have nothing against Jews, but it just sounds amusing).

All that is left of the upper-class is the few-remaining Aristocrats and Royalty.

Here is how I define capitalism : the power is the capital. People work for the capital and indivuduals own the capital. Idealy I think the aim of capitalism is remove the power from the religious institutions and from the monarchs. This is a great ideal, but I think it has been achieved 200 years ago at least.
My critic is that by owning the capital, people own other people's work. therefore this is another kind of class system, based on philosophy rather than on religion.
Capitalism: The best product is developed and sold for the best price. This is acheived by a system of checks and balances, supplies and demands. Companies have to compete with each other to offer the better product at the better price and they also have to gauge prices effectively so they don't oversell. Everyone wins in this situation. The general public is rewarded with excellent products with appropriate prices and the company that does the best job of providing these products, which improves the life of the whole, receives compensation for his work--a symbol, the dollar--to go and use to either expand his company, therefore expanding the good he can do for humanity or to make his life better. You can't really say he didn't earn it because he won over the people, giving them the best deal, therefore earning the most profit.

--the flaw is that there are things like greed which makes companies' sole interest the capital, or the reward (like what you describe in what you think of ideal capitalism) and that there are also people who inherit large sums of money just by being the child of a hard worker.

(Now I'll wait for you to do some self-criticism of your perfect world of communism...since you haven't yet...)

This is the best way to proceed indeed.
My perfect vision of communism :
Note communism is a global system.
the factories and money renting are a monopoly of the state.
People can receive a salary for working, it can be democratic and the people can vote the way the factories are run, there can even be competition and free market, but it is a separate subject. Please do not start debating dictatorship/democracy or something like that. there can be both in both systems. The only thing communism is about is that the means of production are owned in common, as opposed to owned by individuals.
I don't know why you are getting off on this dictatorship/democracy thing...I never mentioned anything about it...but here is the thing.
Communism in a totalitarian state = some people have more power than others and the general public doesn't find it fair that not all people are really treated equally. The system is kind of flawed in that an elitist group of people tell everyone how much of whatever products determines their "need," therefore you still have classes.
Communism in a free state = power hungry humans beat the system and devise ways of hiring private armies to fight for control of more resources because if he has excess resources, he has the power to control more people, to gain more resources, etcetera, therefore it falls to feudalism.

By the way, now that I think about it, and if you think about it too...

Animal Farm

starts off kind of as free communism, right? The farmer ensures that all the animals are fed and stuff...

then that one pig beats the system and convinces all the animlas that he knows how it is and all of the sudden it turns into totalitarian communism...(but if it would have been a much larger scale and multiple private armies had been raised, it'd look more like feudalism)

Can you give historical reference to any wars that were fought purely for the expansion of capitalism. The World Wars were fought to stop fascism spreading, but not to spread capitalism. I will admit that the British Empire had a hand at spreading capitalism, but that is no longer an issue as nearly all those countries have been given independance.I think the nazis were fighting capitalism. They removed the bourgeoise/proletariat class system to put a jews/aryan/gypsy/whatever bullshit they had in mind class system. Next, after the war, capitalism is here again with its 2 class system.

What is the "rulling class"? If you mean the upper classes then yes, it is shrinking, but so indeed is the working class - it is the middle classes that are growing. The middle-class in England is now the ruling class. Tony Blair was a hard working middle class lawyer, and the leader of the conservative party is a Jewish gypsy (I have nothing against Jews, but it just sounds amusing).This is a good start. But it is just a start. There are still owners and workers. I think Britain is on the right way. They take socialist measures in order to limit the power and influence of capitalists, but idealy there would be no power of the capital.

All that is left of the upper-class is the few-remaining Aristocrats and Royalty.
Yes Britain should get rid of its monarchy I think.

Yes Britain should get rid of its monarchy I think.
Britains Monarchy has no power anyway, it is symbolic, but for the sake of unity and National pride, the Monarchy should stay.

I think the nazis were fighting capitalism. They removed the bourgeoise/proletariat class system to put a jews/aryan/gypsy/whatever bullshit they had in mind class system. Next, after the war, capitalism is here again with its 2 class system.
Uhm...no? Nazi Germany = Uber-capitalists. Know anything about Neitche [sp?], from which Hitler got his base ideas...?

Hitler was really just eliminating the Jews because he felt that they weren't worth anything and couldn't do a fair share of work, however, what you may not know is that he was planning on enslaving all the Slavs (the supposed untermench) to do all the work for the Nordic Aryans (the supposed ubermench). The thing is, you can mix racism into capitalism...which is why I don't agree with Nazism. A person's race has nothing to do with the ability of a person to work.

Know anything about Neitche [sp?], from which Hitler got his base ideas...?
Nietzsche.

Capitalism: The best product is developed and sold for the best price. This is acheived by a system of checks and balances, supplies and demands. Companies have to compete with each other to offer the better product at the better price and they also have to gauge prices effectively so they don't oversell. Everyone wins in this situation. The general public is rewarded with excellent products with appropriate prices and the company that does the best job of providing these products, which improves the life of the whole, receives compensation for his work--a symbol, the dollar--I think this is free market, not capitalism. This may be the communication problem we have. You can have all this without private ownership of the company.
to go and use to either expand his company, therefore expanding the good he can do for humanity or to make his life better. You can't really say he didn't earn it because he won over the people, giving them the best deal, therefore earning the most profit.

--the flaw is that there are things like greed which makes companies' sole interest the capital, or the reward (like what you describe in what you think of ideal capitalism) and that there are also people who inherit large sums of money just by being the child of a hard worker.

(Now I'll wait for you to do some self-criticism of your perfect world of communism...since you haven't yet...)And there is the part which is in my definition of capitalism. In my opinion, greed is in each indivudual and noone will ever choose do more good over make his life better.
And actually I don't agree that he earned everything he has. Because he made people work for him, therefore, he got a reward for owning, in addition to the reward for working. Therefore he got higher pay than he deserves, while other workers got lower earnings than they deserve because they didn't own.

I don't know why you are getting off on this dictatorship/democracy thing...I never mentioned anything about it...but here is the thing.
Communism in a totalitarian state = some people have more power than others and the general public doesn't find it fair that not all people are really treated equally. The system is kind of flawed in that an elitist group of people tell everyone how much of whatever products determines their "need," therefore you still have classes.
Communism in a free state = power hungry humans beat the system and devise ways of hiring private armies to fight for control of more resources because if he has excess resources, he has the power to control more people, to gain more resources, etcetera, therefore it falls to feudalism.
Communism in a totalitarian state : you still have classes, therefore you did not achieve communism, since the ruling members are owning everything. You are already in feudalism.
Communism in a free state : you can't hire private armies because the army is the monopoly of the state. Please don't confuse communism with anarchy. I think a free communist state is a democratic one, although freedom is relative.

Actually, if Farmer Brown quits working, the other farmers can apply free association and kick him out.

By the way, now that I think about it, and if you think about it too...

Animal Farm

starts off kind of as free communism, right? The farmer ensures that all the animals are fed and stuff...

then that one pig beats the system and convinces all the animlas that he knows how it is and all of the sudden it turns into totalitarian communism...(but if it would have been a much larger scale and multiple private armies had been raised, it'd look more like feudalism)I didn't read that book but it looks more like a capitalism vs feudalism essay to me.
Anyway, I didn't read it, so I really don't know.

I think this is free market, not capitalism. This may be the communication problem we have. You can have all this with private ownership of the company.
There are many different forms of capitalism. This is my idea of ideal capitalism. You asked for it. I provided it.
And there is the part which is in my definition of capitalism. In my opinion, greed is in each indivudual and noone will ever choose do more good over make his life better.
I can admit the obvious flaws of capitalism, so can you. When can you admit the obvious flaws of communism? And when can you realize that you're definition of capitalism is not the ideal form of capitalism?
Communism in a totalitarian state : you still have classes, therefore you did not achieve communism, since the ruling members are owning everything. You are already in feudalism.
Exactly.
Communism in a free state : you can't hire private armies because the army is the monopoly of the state. Please don't confuse communism with anarchy. I think a free communist state is a democratic one, although freedom is relative.
Uh...no? If there is a state, then you still have an elitist class of people deciding and therefore still have classes and therefore do not have communism. Even if there is a state, you can still have private armies. Ever heard of the freakin' mafia? However, if there isn't a state, forming private armies is that much easier.

Actually, if Farmer Brown quits working, the other farmers can apply free association and kick him out.
That sounds a lot more like capitalism to me...

I didn't read that book but it looks more like a capitalism vs feudalism essay to me.
Anyway, I didn't read it, so I really don't know.
...you should read it before you comment on it...
...also, being a propponent for communism, you should read it...
...also, it's a good book, you should read it...
...just read it...
Need more reasons? It takes like 3 hours to read, max.

Psylos, you miss my point completely. I advocate class distinction, I like Orwell, believe that classes will never be destroyed. I am different to the upper and lower classes, I am middle-class and I cannot change that. In the same way the lower classes will never be able to run the country and the upper and middle classes will always feel "better" than the lower classes.

Your class is defined by the work you do and the work you do is generally defined by your class - it's circular. I mentioned earlier that the middle-classes are growing and the lower classes are shrinking, that is because there are less lower-class jobs, they are now mostly done by machine. Infact the definition is slightly more complicated, the more common a job is the lower class it is; but that is not its key determinant, just an important one.

The class distinction will never die, even in a communist state it will survive. The workers will still be lower class, the policitians middle-class and probably the Monarchs will be dead, but I'm sure some remaining Aristocrats will fill-in for the upper class job until a dictator and his family rises into power - but now I am being silly. My point is that the workers are only one class, and they are the only class - in general - that wants anything other than capitalism and as I have mentioned they are growing smaller...

"...the proletariat are revolting but they will never revolt!"

Yes Britain should get rid of its monarchy I think.
You know nothing of politics of you think Britains' head of state should be "gotten rid of".

Ok, first off, the farmer jones farmer brown stuff can be easily avoided. The incentive in a socialist/communist society would be that you get your food and houe and such. So, if he stopped working he would stop recieving those things. If that's not incentive.....iunno what it.

Secondly, Communism really does fail because of the government part. The equal for all part always is good, but the usual dictatorship that is apparent in communistic societies screws it all over by puttin one man ahead of everyone; which is basically the reverse of the philosophy of communism.

Solution? Vote SP-USA! The democratic socialist party in America!

[QUOTE=_Susa_] ...Communism is a morally superior system, but it will never work in our world of human emotions, and what began as a system of good intentions disentigrates into a dictatorship...

Be that as it may, if there was a system, where anyone trying to get more power, or oppress others, than they could just be 'removed', in the non-sinister Mafia way... If it was on an island, not a huge freakin' country, there might be less of a threat. I believe that it can work, and I will make it work. Just look out for my name in the press in about 20-30 years! Elliot Taylor! We can share the love, man! (or woman, as the case may be)! :fluffle:

:fluffle:
Is that Mitosis or Meiosis?

:-O

There are many different forms of capitalism. This is my idea of ideal capitalism. You asked for it. I provided it.Then if you call that capitalism I agree, but I think you mean capitalism works best with free market. This is reasonable. My only problem is that we should try to talk as clearly as possible. I think you agree with me that there are two things. One is the ownership of the capital and one is the market.
What I mean is it : in a free market, what do you sell and buy? cars? food?
This is ok, because I need a cheap car and a lot of food.
However, let say you can own a stock share of a factory. Then in a free market, you will be able to sell and buy a stock share of the factory, but who need a stock share of a factory? Only a lazy fat ass need a stock share of a factory in order to make it work for him while he is tanning and snorting cocaïn.
Can we agree that free market is good, while private ownership of factories is bad?

I can admit the obvious flaws of capitalism, so can you. When can you admit the obvious flaws of communism? And when can you realize that you're definition of capitalism is not the ideal form of capitalism?Well I really think we agre but we call things differently. If we define capitalism as private ownership of the capital then you agree it is a bad thing. And if we define it as the freedom to buy and sell useful goods, they I agree it is a good thing.
Uh...no? If there is a state, then you still have an elitist class of people deciding and therefore still have classes and therefore do not have communism. Even if there is a state, you can still have private armies. Ever heard of the freakin' mafia? However, if there isn't a state, forming private armies is that much easier.
No I don't agree, the people working for the state are executives but the population decides. I think Mafia is present in our capitalism system. However, if you outlaw them their number decrease.

That sounds a lot more like capitalism to me...

No, capitalism would be where Farmer Brown "owns" the land and orders the other farmers around and pays them a wage that is only a fraction of the amount of money the crop sales made.

No I don't agree, the people working for the state are executives but the population decides. I think Mafia is present in our capitalism system. However, if you outlaw them their number decrease.
I'm not messing with the other crap anymore because we're not on the same page. However...despite all the things I could say in response to what I've quoted, I'll leave with only this: Do you think the mafia is legal today?

The workers will still be lower class, the policitians middle-class and probably the Monarchs will be dead.The politicians are supposed to be workers.
Anyway, all apologies about my comments about the british monarchy. I know it hurts your feelings and I have a high respect for the british monarchy. I wish them long live.

No, capitalism would be where Farmer Brown "owns" the land and orders the other farmers around and pays them a wage that is only a fraction of the amount of money the crop sales made.
Would these workers be called "Serfs" by any chance. :rolleyes:

I'm not messing with the other crap anymore because we're not on the same page. However...despite all the things I could say in response to what I've quoted, I'll leave with only this: Do you think the mafia is legal today?Maybe it is another communication problem between us. What do you call mafia? I think what I call mafia is legal today : in my opinion, a mafia is an organised band whose only work is to rob working people by threatening them of force. In my opinion, this is legal in capitalism and the threat of force is even provided by the government.

The politicians are supposed to be workers.
Anyway, all apologies about my comments about the british monarchy. I know it hurts your feelings and I have a high respect for the british monarchy. I wish them long live.
Is that the only response you have to what I said? Of course politicians are workers, so what? So are lawyers, yet they are still both middle-classes. To work makes you a worker, but it is the work you do that defines your class.

"Feeling" has nothing to do with my response to your comments on the Monarchy, simply common sense.

Maybe it is another communication problem between us. What do you call mafia? I think what I call mafia is legal today : in my opinion, a mafia is an organised band whose only work is to rob working people by threatening them of force. In my opinion, this is legal in capitalism and the threat of force is even provided by the government.
Eh...it's not a communication problem afterall...it's a probably with your level of comprehension...

BTW I know you must be tired of debating after that a long day. I hope we will debate again in the future about it. Thanks for taking the time so far.

What I find very typical in what I've read in this thread is, that the discussion tends to go towards the idea that it is impossible to live in a capitalistic environment and still be moral and social towards the people around you.
I find that strange, because it suggests that man is not able to look after his fellow man AT ALL without thinking of making a profit and it also suggests that only people that manage to accept the communist system have a higher moral standard.
I think, like _SUSA_ , communism doesn't work. I'm not sure if I think so for the same reasons, although the little story that started this all is pretty much what it comes down to.

I believe, we deserve equal opportunity to start with. But because after "the equal start" (if possible) we make different choices, we'll have different results and we need to accept we are not equal.

If someone does not work, he will make no money. If he has no work, because he chose not to work, so be it. Noone said life was easy. There is no free ride.
If he has no work for reasons beyond his controle (illness, disability), I have no problem with helping him and sharing my wealth with him. Not because I HAVE to in a communist system, but because I think it's a moral duty I have and I live in a civilised capitalist world.

Capitalism challanges us to improve what we do because improvements gives us a better results; that means technical progress, enabling us to live the modern life we have. Communist systems have made a lot less progress on their own. The most progress they made was by studying in the western (capitalist) world or by espionage; Simply take a look at the car industry in the west and the east, it sais it all.
If you take away someones challange, he'll stop working. Feed a lion in a zoo daily, and it'll forget how to hunt. That is natural and that is another reason why communism is not working for us.

No matter how civilised we are, we'll always remain being a little bit of an animal. And that's a good thing. It'll keep you sharp.

I think the majority of you communist-advocates are confused about the issue of private ownership, and I think the capitalist-advocates have overlooked this issue. Yes, capitalism allows private ownership, but very rarely does a single man own the means of production; unless it is a small business and these people are the champions of the modern age.

Private ownership now-a-days involves a board of people and shareholders who can be anyone. Anyone can own a part of the means of production via shares. People who work for companies get incredible share options and are capable of owning a part the means of production, so there you see there is not some huge, overweight evil man who owns everything on his own, it is lots of people who own everything.

Is that the only response you have to what I said? Of course politicians are workers, so what? So are lawyers, yet they are still both middle-classes. To work makes you a worker, but it is the work you do that defines your class.

"Feeling" has nothing to do with my response to your comments on the Monarchy, simply common sense.
It is ok to have the classes as you define them. The problem arise when there is a class ruling and a class in slavery.
I'm willing to debate the usefullness of the monarchy with you then, if you're sure there are no feelings behind it.

I think the majority of you communist-advocates are confused about the issue of private ownership, and I think the capitalist-advocates have overlooked this issue. Yes, capitalism allows private ownership, but very rarely does a single man own the means of production; unless it is a small business and these people are the champions of the modern age.

Private ownership now-a-days involves a board of people and shareholders who can be anyone. Anyone can own a part of the means of production via shares. People who work for companies get incredible share options and are capable of owning a part the means of production, so there you see there is not some huge, overweight evil man who owns everything on his own, it is lots of people who own everything.This is a very good analysis.
However, do you deny that there are a lot of people whose only work is to buy and sell stock shares all day? Can we agree that those people are parasites?

This is a very good analysis.
However, do you deny that there are a lot of people whose only work is to buy and sell stock shares all day? Can we agree that those people are parasites?
And a flaw of capitalism--however, not a justification for communism.

It is ok to have the classes as you define them. The problem arise when there is a class ruling and a class in slavery.
I'm willing to debate the usefullness of the monarchy with you then, if you're sure there are no feelings behind it.
Lets put it this way: the part of the class that is ruling will be the ruling class vis. each class will rule as a whole and look out for itself. So for example Tony Blair is looking out for the middle classes, although he purports to be interested in the welfare of the lower classes, he is a populist government since he lost his socialist background (New Labour).

That being said, there will always be a ruling class and it will never be the lower classes because the position of leadership is not lower class work, and if you accept my definition then you can't disagree. Besides, I am a libertarian and I do not advocate a class being in slavery, no man should be in slavery. But in modern-libertarian capitalism the lower-classes are not in slavery.

Click here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345444 for a topic on the Monarchy. Someone started it and I saw it by chance when scrolling on NationStates; my post is near the bottom.

And a flaw of capitalism--however, not a justification for communism.
Well, according to me, communism is just capitalism without the flaws (ie : individual ownership of the means of production).

Well, according to me, communism is just capitalism without the flaws (ie : individual ownership of the means of production).
Then you've got a horrible definition of communism. In communism, no one would be able to "get rich" per se even if that person does an excellent job, better than anyone else could possibly do...

Stockbrokers and market traders are not parasites. They are the means to investing. If they did not do their job then the purchasing and selling of shares would be too slow. When I say they are a means to investing I do not mean for those that buy the shares I mean they provide capital to a company in return for dividends and perhaps the value of the share afterwards.

Still, they are not parasites. They take huge risks, and they make the world go round. I am struggling to think why they are parasites, please justify your statement.

Stockbrokers and market traders are not parasites. They are the means to investing. If they did not do their job then the purchasing and selling of shares would be too slow. When I say they are a means to investing I do not mean for those that buy the shares I mean they provide capital to a company in return for dividends and perhaps the value of the share afterwards.

Still, they are not parasites. They take huge risks, and they make the world go round. I am struggling to think why they are parasites, please justify your statement.
Hmm...now that I've double thought, I'm going to repost my opinion on stock brokers.

The communist point of view is that they don't do any actualy work. There is no real labor involved in trading stocks, but they make profits anyways and that is leaching.

The counterpoint: The workers have to get paid. To pay the workers, the company has to have some sort of investment before they start making their own profits. Stock brokers take risks and invest in companies, paying the workers who are doing the best job of benefiting the society...without the stock brokers, the workers wouldn't be able to get paid initially...

Strockbrokers definitely do not have a "leach" way of life. Trying to predict the economy is like trying to sprint on your big toe alone. Their work is hard.

Anyway, I've got to go and eat, I might be back to continue this delightful discourse later, but until then...adios.

Lets put it this way: the part of the class that is ruling will be the ruling class vis. each class will rule as a whole and look out for itself. So for example Tony Blair is looking out for the middle classes, although he purports to be interested in the welfare of the lower classes, he is a populist government since he lost his socialist background (New Labour).

That being said, there will always be a ruling class and it will never be the lower classes because the position of leadership is not lower class work, and if you accept my definition then you can't disagree. Besides, I am a libertarian and I do not advocate a class being in slavery, no man should be in slavery. But in modern-libertarian capitalism the lower-classes are not in slavery.

Click here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345444 for a topic on the Monarchy. Someone started it and I saw it by chance when scrolling on NationStates; my post is near the bottom.
OK but I don't agree that the politicians are a ruling class. They can be but they should not in my opinion. I think politicians should be executives. They should be held accountable to the population and they should serve it.
I think the 3 branch of the classic government in modern democracies is a good way to keep the check and balances on the politicians. If a politician abuse his power, he is fired by the population.
But I agree this is not always working.
Hence the struggle between the politicians and the people. Then when I come to think about it, the class struggle still exist. Therefore communism is not enough to end the class struggle. I think you convinced me about that.
Thanks for the link I'm going to check this out.
Well after thinking more I still think communism is an improvment, although it will not solve everything.

OK but I don't agree that the politicians are a ruling class. They can be but they should not in my opinion. I think politicians should be executives. They should be held accountable to the population and they should serve it.
I think the 3 branch of the classic government in modern democracies is a good way to keep the check and balances on the politicians. If a politician abuse his power, he is fired by the population.
But I agree this is not always working.
Hence the struggle between the politicians and the people. Then when I come to think about it, the class struggle still exist. Therefore communism is not enough to end the class struggle. I think you convinced me about that.
Thanks for the link I'm going to check this out.
Well after thinking more I still think communism is an improvment, although it will not solve everything.
I think you are looking for socialism or a socialist capitalism.

Then you've got a horrible definition of communism. In communism, no one would be able to "get rich" per se even if that person does an excellent job, better than anyone else could possibly do...Well in my definition of communism, this is a nececity that nobody ends up billionaire, because only work provides money. Nobody can work enough in all his life so as to deserve as much money as a whole country of several million people (I exagerate in order to make the point clearer). The only way to make billions is to make people work for you, you can't work for several billions of dollars. And if you look at it, there is no single billionaire on earth who does not own workers. Therefore, one would not be able to "get rich" in my communism (if we define richness in the billions or even millions of dollars).

Would these workers be called "Serfs" by any chance.

No, that would be feudalism. I was talking about wage labor.

Well in my definition of communism, this is a nececity that nobody ends up billionaire, because only work provides money. Nobody can work enough in all his life so as to deserve as much money as a whole country of several million people (I exagerate in order to make the point clearer). The only way to make billions is to make people work for you, you can't work for several billions of dollars. And if you look at it, there is no single billionaire on earth who does not own workers. Therefore, one would not be able to "get rich" in my communism (if we define richness in the billions or even millions of dollars).
I hear authors, musicians, actors, etc are pretty rich. Who do they own?

I don't really get what you mean with capitaism working. It is working OK in parts of the world but remember that these parts of the world were the wealhtiest for the last 1000 years however they were governed. In many parts of the world where capitalism is ruling things are not working. In Africa and Asia there are many capitalistic states that are not working.
Are we using the resources in the most efficient way with capitalism? What about the state of the environment. How great has capitalism been for that? Or for HIV? The ideologies of Liberalism and Communism were founded in the 19th century. Don't stay stuck in old solutions. We need new leaders and ideologies.

Capitalism gives you the incentive to move up in the world. You work for your own good, so you can stay alive, no one forces you to work. You work for yourself, and you are not doing it reluctantly. Capitalism feeds off the emotions of ambition and pride and greed and the hope for a better future. You become rich, you become happy. Or, you become comfortable, so you can die happy. The ones who do not work, or work lazily, fall behind. But now, people have incentive to work, and they do so. The economy flourishes, and the nation is stable.

Eh, wrong... capitalism doesn't give anyone any more incentive to work than communism. I can work until my fingers are bloody stumps, yet still get paid the same, or even less than, someone who spends most of their day playing games on the internet or a scam artist.
Also, your example failed to mention who capitalism works for. Your three farmers, in capitalism, could get together and fix prices and wages, essentially ensuring that only they could get rich. And if there is a surplus of workers, they can pay them less than what is needed to live a decent life, on the basis that if the workers get sick or complain, they can always replace them with other workers. Or they can manipulate supply to increase profits, even at the detriment of the public welfare.

Stockbrokers and market traders are not parasites. They are the means to investing. If they did not do their job then the purchasing and selling of shares would be too slow. When I say they are a means to investing I do not mean for those that buy the shares I mean they provide capital to a company in return for dividends and perhaps the value of the share afterwards.

Still, they are not parasites. They take huge risks, and they make the world go round. I am struggling to think why they are parasites, please justify your statement.Overall, they don't take huge risk.
When you invest in the billions, you don't take risks. This is not lotery. You buy a property and you have it. If you buy Halliburton, you buy the oil of Iraq and if you by the oil of Irak, you're sure people will have to pay you to have oil. The only risk you take is that people will revolt and ask their property back.
The only people taking risk when trading stocks are the small loosers investing $5 000 and buying anything their banker advised, without knowing which property they bought (and most of the time they buy nothing in fact).
In othre words, if you are a big capitalist and you know what you buy, you have it. If you are a small capitalist and you don't know what you buy, you don't know what you have.

Why are communist allowed to spew out this absolute BS vision of capitalism and deny anything that anyone else says about communism? They're blind ideologists (as O'Reilly would say).

Why does a world where no one can do anything they enjoy (not necessarily communism- just selflessnessism) seem morally superior? Why is unhappiness a trait to be admired?

I think you misinterpret what selflessness is. It is not doing something and getting nothing out of it, it is doing something with the consideration that your benefit is, at best, of secondary concern. There is nothing about selflessness that neccessarily leads to unhappiness.

We need new leaders and ideologies.

But not technocracy. I hate that.

I hear authors, musicians, actors, etc are pretty rich. Who do they own?

They don't work hundreds of times harder than workers yet get hundreds of times more money. Now that's crazy.

Eh...the base of capitalism isn't by knocking others down you profit more....

The goal of capitalism is to give the general public, the consumers, the best product for the best price...or a not so good product for a dirt cheap price, or an elitist product for a high price...this way the consumer gets the best products. How is this acheived? By pitting companies against each other and awarding the company that can do a better job with a thing called "profit." By working harder to provide the public with the best products, the company that makes more profit is allowed to live their life better. They made life better for someone else and in return, life for them is better.

EDIT: That's ideal capitalism by the way, so you communists don't start your chitter-chatter BS about monopolies etc. The only thing you ever argue for your side is ideal communism anyway...[emphasis added]

Which is no less realistic than capitalism according to your ideal. Ideally, in both, people would set aside selfishness and greed (capitalism) or laziness (communism) for the common good. But real life doesn't work that way.

Hypothetical Situation in a Communist Nation: Farmer Jones, Farmer Smith, and Farmer Brown all work on a communal farm together. Now, for the first few days, everything goes smoothly, each man working equal to the others. But, as I said earlier, human emotions play into communism, and ultimately will make it fail. Farmer Brown is a lazy guy, he is naturally lazy, and he does not enjoy working. So, he decides to stop working. Totally. Because anyway, everybody shares everything, so he will still have all he needs to live, food, shelter etc. So now Farmer Brown is not working on the farm. He just sits around and feeds off the work of Farmer Jones and Farmer Smith. This angers Farmer Jones. He decides, well if Farmer Brown aint working, then sure as hell I aint working, and I will still get food and shelter and etc. because we all share. Soon after Farmer Jones quits working, Farmer Smith follows suit. Other workers take cues from the farmers, and quit working. They dont care about gaining a reputation for sharing, even if you are the best sharer, you are treated the same as everybody else, you cannot become rich. So now, no one has any incentive to work, and since there are no social classes, you cannot move up in the world. So now, the economy of this nation is ruined as more workers just stop working every day. Then what happens? How do we get these men to work again?

take it back a step or two...
if i were smith and jones, i'd throw brown off the communal land and redivide it. if he's not going to work, then he can find another communal farm to not work on, maybe they'll put up with him there.

ah, the joy of exile.

I hear authors, musicians, actors, etc are pretty rich. Who do they own?
The short answer is that they own their fans, and everybody, in a sense.

This is very interesting and a topic on its own. This is intellectual property. I think intellectual property should not exist at all.
Look : by copyrighting their work, they basically say I'm not allowed to say what I want to say anymore if they said it before.
I agree they should be rewarded, but they don't need to limit my freedom for that. There are other ways to do that in communism.

Which is no less realistic than capitalism according to your ideal. Ideally, in both, people would set aside selfishness and greed (capitalism) or laziness (communism) for the common good. But real life doesn't work that way.
...did you read all my posts?

I was arguing the idealism or capitalism because the only thing that communists ever present is the ideal version of communism, which when compared to the real version of capitalism, looks excellent...

The short answer is that they own their fans, and everybody, in a sense.

This is very interesting and a topic on its own. This is intellectual property. I think intellectual property should not exist at all.
Look : by copyrighting their work, they basically say I'm not allowed to say what I want to say anymore if they said it before.
I agree they should be rewarded, but for that they don't need to limit my freedom for that. There are other ways to do that.
In an ideal world, they wouldn't have to limit your freedoms. But we're not living in ideoworld.

In a communist regime, only the government has power. In a capitalist environment, everyone has power and wants more.

Nope, in a capitalist environment, companies have the power.

I'm done with this thread until the communist BS settles down some again.

Which is no less realistic than capitalism according to your ideal. Ideally, in both, people would set aside selfishness and greed (capitalism) or laziness (communism) for the common good. But real life doesn't work that way.
I think capitalism promotes both greed and laziness, while communism promotes work, because you get the full benefit of your work.

In an ideal world, they wouldn't have to limit your freedoms. But we're not living in ideoworld.
Indeed, we live in capitalism.

I'm done with this thread until the communist BS settles down some again.
Sorry but if we don't talk about communism in this thread, what is it about?
This should be called "why capitalism works" then.

Sorry but if we don't talk about communism in this thread, what is it about?
This should be called "why capitalism works" then.
Uh...obviously communism has to be talked about, but the communists aren't being very realistic.

I just thought this up while reading this thread

One way that communism could work is that the people under it work under a certain mind set where by it is socialy necessary to work hard for the state you are not an accepted member of the comunity unless you do. An example of this would be in some american communitys you go to church every sunday there is no question nor excuse you go, or the community as a whole frowns on you (people stop talking to you and such). while this isnt as common as in the past to instill a community work ethic like this into a population would mean that peer pressure would force people into certin work patterns thus solving the fundamental problem of communism. people have a reason to work ironicly this would have trouble working with the existence of a capitalist society as the work ethic would be eroded by the basis of greed and ambition that underlays capitalism.

another possiblity would be to have a goal for the society as a whole to reach (eg in WWII many ppl worked in factories for next to nothing to help the soldiers by making ammo uniforms etc) the trick here would be to set a goal that would keep generations working there hardest to achieve it.

opinions please : )

Uh...obviously communism has to be talked about, but the communists aren't being very realistic.
Which part did seem unrealistic to you?

I just thought this up while reading this thread

One way that communism could work is that the people under it work under a certain mind set where by it is socialy necessary to work hard for the state you are not an accepted member of the comunity unless you do. An example of this would be in some american communitys you go to church every sunday there is no question nor excuse you go, or the community as a whole frowns on you (people stop talking to you and such). while this isnt as common as in the past to instill a community work ethic like this into a population would mean that peer pressure would force people into certin work patterns thus solving the fundamental problem of communism. people have a reason to work ironicly this would have trouble working with the existence of a capitalist society as the work ethic would be eroded by the basis of greed and ambition that underlays capitalism.

another possiblity would be to have a goal for the society as a whole to reach (eg in WWII many ppl worked in factories for next to nothing to help the soldiers by making ammo uniforms etc) the trick here would be to set a goal that would keep generations working there hardest to achieve it.

opinions please : )What about giving higher salary to better workers?

Which part did seem unrealistic to you?
Some of the criticism on capitalism. Some of them are true, but a lot of them are just kind of dumb. And the worst part is that the communists always bring up these arguments (some realistic, some absurb), but dismiss EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT against them and typically fail to defend them properly.

No, that would be feudalism. I was talking about wage labor.
And I sir, was mocking your point of view.

well by that system you wouldnt have to better workers would be rewarded by higher community standing people would respect them for doing well they wuld be popular so to speak

well by that system you wouldnt have to better workers would be rewarded by higher community standing people would respect them for doing well they wuld be popular so to speak
It's the same as capitalism except you replace currency with respect. Instead of the best workers being hated, the best workers are respected.

Some of the criticism on capitalism. Some of them are true, but a lot of them are just kind of dumb. And the worst part is that the communists always bring up these arguments (some realistic, some absurb), but dismiss EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT against them and typically fail to defend them properly.
Which argument do you think is absurd against capitalism?
And which argument was not defended properly for communism?

Overall, they don't take huge risk.
When you invest in the billions, you don't take risks. This is not lotery. You buy a property and you have it. If you buy Halliburton, you buy the oil of Iraq and if you by the oil of Irak, you're sure people will have to pay you to have oil. The only risk you take is that people will revolt and ask their property back.
The only people taking risk when trading stocks are the small loosers investing $5 000 and buying anything their banker advised, without knowing which property they bought (and most of the time they buy nothing in fact).
In othre words, if you are a big capitalist and you know what you buy, you have it. If you are a small capitalist and you don't know what you buy, you don't know what you have.
When trading in huge amounts of money there is never a risk. Infact if you have huge amounts of money you buy currency, not stocks, it is far safer and gives you better yields. But still, there are people who are not spending peanuts or millions but are spending tens or hundreds of thousands. They are the normal stockbroker making their wage in an honest way.

Eh, wrong... capitalism doesn't give anyone any more incentive to work than communism. I can work until my fingers are bloody stumps, yet still get paid the same, or even less than, someone who spends most of their day playing games on the internet or a scam artist.
Also, your example failed to mention who capitalism works for. Your three farmers, in capitalism, could get together and fix prices and wages, essentially ensuring that only they could get rich. And if there is a surplus of workers, they can pay them less than what is needed to live a decent life, on the basis that if the workers get sick or complain, they can always replace them with other workers. Or they can manipulate supply to increase profits, even at the detriment of the public welfare.
..

It's the capitalists who are unrealistic by claiming that businesses will voluntarily respect the environment even when that cuts into profit.

It's the capitalists who are unrealistic by claiming that businesses will voluntarily respect the environment even when that cuts into profit.
And the communists who are unrealistic in thinking that I will comply to being considered anyone's absolute equal no matter the circumstance.