Communism and Capitalism

[Miles]

I would like to start this thread so that we can talk directly about this issue without going off topic on others.

I think it needs to be stated that neither pure capitalism nor true communism have ever been practiced, neither of which are possible.

Pure capitalism would lead to a country controlled primarily by big businesses. It would also lead to larger divisions between the rich and poor while allowing immoral business practices. We need the centralized government to counteract these things.

Communism on the other hand, puts entirely too much trust in the government, which is why it has always turned into a dictatorship. Communism also promotes mediocrity in it's civilians.

I think that the best answer lies somewhere in between. Certain institutions need to be socialized like medicine. Greed should not determine who gets medicine and who doesn't. However, free enterprise and competition drive people to work harder and produce better products.

I will leave it at that for now, as I would like to get feedback before going into more detail.

[The_Sadukar]

sounds true, you are wise.

[Edric O]

Pure communism is a perfect utopia, and as such it cannot be achieved. I agree to that.

And I agree that the only feasible system is a mix of capitalism and communism. However, I believe communism should be the dominant element in this. Democratic Communism, that is. The kind that the founders of communism supported, not the soviet perversion.

[Miles]

Pure communism is a perfect utopia, and as such it cannot be achieved. I agree to that.

And I agree that the only feasible system is a mix of capitalism and communism. However, I believe communism should be the dominant element in this. Democratic Communism, that is. The kind that the founders of communism supported, not the soviet perversion.

There are several problems with leaning towards communism. First, without free enterprise, the citizens will have little motivation to work hard to better their own lives. The competition between other individuals and other companies drives a person or company to learn more, work harder and create more quality products. This drives innovations and is why the US among other capitalistic societies (namely Japan) are technilogically superior to socialist or communist countries.

Next, communism creates leeches in society. We see this in our small forms of socialism i.e. welfare. Many people will find it easier to live in poverty with checks given to them by the government that to aspire to bigger and better things.

[Inoculator9]

The only true, perfect political system would be a society devoted mainly to a middle class. This would prevent worries over poverty, jealousy, and would help improve the morals and emotional development of all humans living under these circumstances.

[Avrillian_Sard01]

I'm kind of dissatisfied w/ capitalism:

-because of the effect that "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer" due to trade practices w/c seem unfair to the poor. (This is the main reason why I dislike it)

-There's some stuff w/c seem better off given instead of being capitalized from the people who really need it. (e.g. A cure for AIDS, for example. Or a free anti-virus program for your PC, w/c is readily downloadable... Like that "E-Anthology Anti-Virus" thingee...the only thing it gave is a scanning program for viruses and did not include the means to delete them...to get the full program you have to buy it...frigging capitalist pigs...)

[Inoculator9]

Everything is a money making scheme.

[Miles]

The only true, perfect political system would be a society devoted mainly to a middle class. This would prevent worries over poverty, jealousy, and would help improve the morals and emotional development of all humans living under these circumstances.

So what economic scheme do you propose?

The problem with your idea, as I see it, is that on an individual level it encourages mediocrity. People need the dreams of great rewards for their work, otherwise they will only do as much as they have to to meet the level of achievement that is set by the government. It encourages no great innovations, as the rewards are limited.

[Miles]

I'm kind of dissatisfied w/ capitalism:

-because of the effect that "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer" due to trade practices w/c seem unfair to the poor. (This is the main reason why I dislike it)

I agree, so what can the government due to curb this increasing rift? Socializing certain things, I think would help this some, but would not eliminate the classes.

-There's some stuff w/c seem better off given instead of being capitalized from the people who really need it. (e.g. A cure for AIDS, for example. Or a free anti-virus program for your PC, w/c is readily downloadable... Like that "E-Anthology Anti-Virus" thingee...the only thing it gave is a scanning program for viruses and did not include the means to delete them...to get the full program you have to buy it...frigging capitalist pigs...)

As I said, medicine should be socialized, it's a discrace that the poor with terminal ilnesses must go into incredible debt just to stay alive, but I see computers as a luxury. If people are willing to pay for an anti-virus, then companies have the right to market and make money off their innovations. There is nothing wrong with that.

[DukeLeto]

I think that the best answer lies somewhere in between. Certain institutions need to be socialized like medicine. Greed should not determine who gets medicine and who doesn't. However, free enterprise and competition drive people to work harder and produce better products.

You mean like Socialism? ;)

Power to the People!

[Acriku]

Well, USA is mostly capitalism, and part socialism so probably :)

[Caid Ivik]

I see that most of you are soc-dems. Come to Slovakia, here we haven't any normal middle-left party ;D

[Miles]

I think that the best answer lies somewhere in between. Certain institutions need to be socialized like medicine. Greed should not determine who gets medicine and who doesn't. However, free enterprise and competition drive people to work harder and produce better products.

You mean like Socialism? ;)

No, free enterprise and private businesses should be free to succeed without government control, although I think some general restrictions need to be in place to avoid monopolies etc... but we already have that.

Only those institutions vital to our nations health need to be socialized. A couple possible examples would be health care and essential energy (like heating homes).

I don't support government control over everything.

[Edric O]

I don't support government control over everything.

Neither does communism. Communism means collective ownership of the means of production by the people. Keyword: the PEOPLE. Not the government.

In fact, the government should be nothing more than another branch of civil services, like healthcare, education and so on. Speaking of which, they should all be free and equally available to all. There is nothing worse in capitalism than the fact that it gives proper health care and education only to the rich.

[Miles]

I don't support government control over everything.

Neither does communism. Communism means collective ownership of the means of production by the people. Keyword: the PEOPLE. Not the government.

In fact, the government should be nothing more than another branch of civil services, like healthcare, education and so on. Speaking of which, they should all be free and equally available to all. There is nothing worse in capitalism than the fact that it gives proper health care and education only to the rich.

And Health care and education are exactly what I would have reformed. Bush is making this problem even worse in education with his "No child left behind". However, people have the right to reap the benefits from their own innovations, and labor. Private ownership of corporations, agriculture, and small private businesses need still to be in private hands. As I said, I would ONLY support the socialization of institutions that were vital to people's lives like health care.

In any fledgling communistic state, there would have to be a massive centralized government to make the decisions on distribution of the wealth. They would also decide on trade and foreign relations. Even in a democracy, this would give them tremendous power. This leaves too much temptation for corruption, and is the reason it hasn't worked in the past. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Edric O]

Actually, the reason communism hasn't worked in the past is that the only three countries who actually had legitimate revolutions without outside "help" (namely Russia, China and Cuba) were backwards, impoverished countries devastated by a long and brutal war.

And despite all that, Cuba almost managed to achieve proper communism (probably thanks to its small size), but then the US imposed sanctions and ruined the would-be prosperous truly communist country. They also forced Castro to ally with the Soviets, who further hampered the development of communism.

[emprworm]

I would like to start this thread so that we can talk directly about this issue without going off topic on others.

I think it needs to be stated that neither pure capitalism nor true communism have ever been practiced, neither of which are possible.

Pure capitalism would lead to a country controlled primarily by big businesses. It would also lead to larger divisions between the rich and poor while allowing immoral business practices. We need the centralized government to counteract these things.

Communism on the other hand, puts entirely too much trust in the government, which is why it has always turned into a dictatorship. Communism also promotes mediocrity in it's civilians.

I think that the best answer lies somewhere in between. Certain institutions need to be socialized like medicine. Greed should not determine who gets medicine and who doesn't. However, free enterprise and competition drive people to work harder and produce better products.

I will leave it at that for now, as I would like to get feedback before going into more detail.

nice post, Miles. However the #1 element of communism according to Marx and written in the Communist Manifesto is the abolishment of private property. There Capitalism allows private property. EIther you own property or you don't. is no middle ground on this. I see no way to have "a little of both". By having one, you are excluding the other. Or can you see another way?

[Edric O]

That's property over the means of production, Emprworm.

[Anathema]

And despite all that, Cuba almost managed to achieve proper communism (probably thanks to its small size), but then the US imposed sanctions and ruined the would-be prosperous truly communist country. They also forced Castro to ally with the Soviets, who further hampered the development of communism.

Yay, go Fidel!

*waves Cuban flag*

btw, assuming Emp is still ignoring Edic I'll quote his laste post.

That's property over the means of production, Emprworm.

[Caid Ivik]

Actually, the reason communism hasn't worked in the past is that the only three countries who actually had legitimate revolutions without outside "help" (namely Russia, China and Cuba) were backwards, impoverished countries devastated by a long and brutal war.

And despite all that, Cuba almost managed to achieve proper communism (probably thanks to its small size), but then the US imposed sanctions and ruined the would-be prosperous truly communist country. They also forced Castro to ally with the Soviets, who further hampered the development of communism.

No, I have to say that Marx's plan was incredibly succesful. Engels written about three stages of communism. First is burjeau democracy (in Russia it was feudal system, altough massive industrialization was there too), where capitalists are overthrown (violence possible, I would say needed) by proletar leaders. These create a "proletar republic", one-way party-state, what was the stadium, in which most commie countries remained, because the parties turned quickly into an oligarchy. Hypothetical way was party creating a new order, de facto utopical socialism, where the state vanishes, because it isn't needed. The "proletar republic" is the critical time, many times described as era of possible oppression. Will must be definite then, other way is impossible. And now, find ONE person, which can be trusted to not disuse this power.

[Edric O]

You're almost right, except for one tiny but critical detail. The Proletar Republic must never be a one-party state. It must be a beacon of civil rights, a world benchmark of democracy.

[emprworm]

And despite all that, Cuba almost managed to achieve proper communism (probably thanks to its small size), but then the US imposed sanctions and ruined the would-be prosperous truly communist country. They also forced Castro to ally with the Soviets, who further hampered the development of communism.

Yay, go Fidel!

*waves Cuban flag*

btw, assuming Emp is still ignoring Edic I'll quote his laste post.

That's property over the means of production, Emprworm.

thanks Earthnuker, and yes I was. But I think Edric and Marx are now arguing with each other. I'll let Marx speak with his own words:

"the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." - Communist Manifesto, page 14

"1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance." - Communist Manifesto, page 20

"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend." - Communist Manifesto, page 16

Whatever Edric says, they are Edric's words. I obtain my source of communist instruction not from Edric, but from Marx and Engels. I think they are more of an authority than Edric.

Tell Edric and his greedy commies to keep their paws off my property. They have $$$ in their eyes and their lust of other people's material posessions will never reach my posessions. I will destroy everything I own- burn it in a bonfire- long before they get their greedy claws on it.

[Edric O]

Good, Emprworm. Now please show me which one of those quotes says you can't have personal belongings.

They only talk about things like land ownership, property over the industry, etc. Oh, and also, the abolition of the rights of inheritance is meant to eliminate the possibility of an oligarchy forming, where huge amounts of capital are passed down from one generation to the other. A capitalist dynasty... EXACTLY what is forming right now.

[Caid Ivik]

You're almost right, except for one tiny but critical detail. The Proletar Republic must never be a one-party state. It must be a beacon of civil rights, a world benchmark of democracy.

Proletar Republic is led by proletars. Of course, they can be "green proletars" or "national proletars", "christian proletars", but all have to stay on the way of building socialism. So it's a leftist republic. It would be nice as a state with civil rights, but such things weren't worshipped by Marx and Engels.

Also, you think civil rights are good? Then why you back Castro or North Korea?

[emprworm]

You're almost right, except for one tiny but critical detail. The Proletar Republic must never be a one-party state. It must be a beacon of civil rights, a world benchmark of democracy.

Proletar Republic is led by proletars. Of course, they can be "green proletars" or "national proletars", "christian proletars", but all have to stay on the way of building socialism. So it's a leftist republic. It would be nice as a state with civil rights, but such things weren't worshipped by Marx and Engels.

Also, you think civil rights are good? Then why you back Castro or North Korea?

civil rights do not exist in communism....or can someone please quote me the part in the Communist Manifesto that demonstrates it. ALl rights are granted by the state in communism.

If anyone is going to argue this point, you will cite a quotation from the Communist Manifesto or I will toss it in the dung heap.