Communism and Capitalism

[Anathema]

Kirk, and people in a monarchy are free then? Lol.

[Miles]

I don't believe you quite understand socialism:

The government would provide the people with education, medical help, protection (military and police), basic nutrition, and spartan housing (with things like water and electricity). You want more, you get a job and pay for it yourself. So yes, there can be a little bit of both.

There are different degrees of Socialism, especially since it was originally intended as a stepping stone to communism. Gradually the government was to seize all land as means of production, gain control of corporations, then distribute the wealth to the citizens. This is it's final move towards communism. The closer socialism gets to this, the less I support it.

If a man puts in the effort to start his comany with an innovative and risky idea, then he should be able to reap the benefits, (and the wealth) from his creation. It should not be controlled by those he employs. Private ownership of businesses is essential to a free economy. competition between companies creates ambition for discovering new technologies, and better ways of doing things. communism, or even extreme socialism smothers this innovative spirit.

I think the definition that you gave for socialism sounds pretty good, as long as it protects private ownership of businesses and property.

[Edric O]

LOL, Emprworm, you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Or on second thought, maybe you do, but you just don't want the truth to be known.

Do you know Marx's definition of a COMMUNIST UTOPIA? It is a form of social organization in which there is no centralized government and communities rule themselves. One of the basic requirements of a communist utopia is that all the people must willingly accept it, and VOLUNTARILY work together for the common good.

The early Christian communities were almost identical to the Communist Utopia.

The social ideals of Communism and Christianity coincide almost perfectly.

[emprworm]

LOL, Emprworm, you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Or on second thought, maybe you do, but you just don't want the truth to be known.

Do you know Marx's definition of a COMMUNIST UTOPIA? It is a form of social organization in which there is no centralized government and communities rule themselves. One of the basic requirements of a communist utopia is that all the people must willingly accept it, and VOLUNTARILY work together for the common good.

The early Christian communities were almost identical to the Communist Utopia.

The social ideals of Communism and Christianity coincide almost perfectly.

ack! I unblock Edric and I immediately reap the rewards! ;D

well might as well dive right into it. Jeesh, and to think what I was missing all this time! :O

"The social ideals of Communism and Christianity coincide almost perfectly" utterly false if we use Marxist communsim as our source for idealist communism.

You really do not have a leg to stand on here, Edric. Remember we are not talking about Edric's dream world of COmmunism, but Marx's.

True or False: Jesus taught that when you give to God, it must be a voluntary act done joyfully or it is meaningless, regardless of how much you give? (Mark 12:41-44)

True or False: Jesus taught that rendering to Caesar is seperate and distinct than rendering to God. (matt 12:21)

True or False: those who gave to the early church gave freely, of their own free will, and were under no compelled orders from a centralized church body to give: (Luke 18 :18-30, Acts 2:44)

True or False: There were rich people who were disciples of Jesus (Matt 27:57; Matt 19:24-26)

True or False: Karl Marx said in the Communist Manifesto: "you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend"

True or False: Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto wants government ownership of property to be compulsory.

True or False: Under even an ideal communist government according to Karl Marx, a person born under that government will have no ability to choose whether or not to give to the state...the state already owns the wealth and has made those choices for him.

True or False: All the wealth of the early church was voluntarily donated by its members, according to their individual wills, and redistributed by those members.

True or False: All the wealth of the ideal Communist state under Karl Marx is

taken from people, regardless of their individual wills, and redistributed by the central authority.

A government which snatches personal wealth compulsory from people is analogous to Caesar snatching wealth. But the Bible tells us that Caesar and Church are different.

TRUE OR FALSE:

Humans who voluntarily give to the church according to their free will can be equated with humans to involunatrily give to Caesar according to Caesar.

In the Bible, humans own wealth, and freely give that wealth to God (a sacrifice they must make). In marxism, there is no sacrifice, no free will. HUmans have no wealth, the state simply takes, regardless of their will. Early church & marxism: They are diametrically opposed.

uhhh...sorry Edric.

[Caid Ivik]

LOL, Emprworm, you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Or on second thought, maybe you do, but you just don't want the truth to be known.

You are still talking same non-sense. Altough every human has read Capital and other such crap in early life, you also posted us about twenty times link for that Manifesto, what is de facto same. Who doesn't want to know the truth? Revolutionar stage of utopia-building is violental and oppressive. When tried practically, it brings horrible slaughteries and most possibly it turns into an oligarchy. As it is about 1:1 000 000 chance of reaching the "socialistic paradise" stage, we don't even know if we want to toss all our responsibility to hands of the system.

Not saying about their security and justice. Crime is everywhere, and unarmed "free" nation is a big lure for any militarist.

[Edric O]

Caid, you have no proof to back those claims. You just pulled some odds right off the top of your hat, and you make them sound like absolute truth... ::)

And also, I'd like to point out (again) that I DO NOT agree with Marx's every word. I agree with his principles and most of his economic ideas. In short, I support a marxist economy. But when it comes to the structure of the government and how the country is ruled, I support a very different system... Surely you remember Nema's Consiliary Dynamism?

Now for Emprworm... He he, it's just like the old days again. ;)

True or False: Jesus taught that when you give to God, it must be a voluntary act done joyfully or it is meaningless, regardless of how much you give? (Mark 12:41-44)

True or False: Jesus taught that rendering to Caesar is seperate and distinct than rendering to God. (matt 12:21)

True or False: those who gave to the early church gave freely, of their own free will, and were under no compelled orders from a centralized church body to give: (Luke 18 :18-30, Acts 2:44)

True or False: There were rich people who were disciples of Jesus (Matt 27:57; Matt 19:24-26)

True or False: Karl Marx said in the Communist Manifesto: "you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend"

True or False: All the wealth of the early church was voluntarily donated by its members, according to their individual wills, and redistributed by those members.

All those are true. I never said otherwise. However:

True or False: Under even an ideal communist government according to Karl Marx, a person born under that government will have no ability to choose whether or not to give to the state...the state already owns the wealth and has made those choices for him.

True or False: All the wealth of the ideal Communist state under Karl Marx is taken from people, regardless of their individual wills, and redistributed by the central authority.

In the Bible, humans own wealth, and freely give that wealth to God (a sacrifice they must make). In marxism, there is no sacrifice, no free will. HUmans have no wealth, the state simply takes, regardless of their will.

FALSE. Under an ideal communist government according to Karl Marx, there is no central authority. There is no "government" in the common sense of the word. How could the state take anything away from them, if the state doesn't exist? ::)

In the perfect Communist society according to Marx, people VOLUNTARILY share all their property, by putting everything they have in common.

And that is exactly what the early Christians did. Their society was almost identical to Marx's vision of a Communist Utopia.

[Caid Ivik]

Caid, you have no proof to back those claims. You just pulled some odds right off the top of your hat, and you make them sound like absolute truth... ::)

And also, I'd like to point out (again) that I DO NOT agree with Marx's every word. I agree with his principles and most of his economic ideas. In short, I support a marxist economy. But when it comes to the structure of the government and how the country is ruled, I support a very different system... Surely you remember Nema's Consiliary Dynamism?

I don't wear hats usually ;)

Proof? Then show me (rationally) at least ONE country, not only a small community, big nation which has build your utopic paradise, or at least tries to do so without hurting its people.

My words are true. If you don't think your words aren't, then why you preach this here? If you think that Marx's view on building socialistic utopia is same evil as in my opinion, than why wouldn't you make your own theory and leave Marx as he is (that means dead)? Marxistic economy isn't looking even what people want, just what they need. Overproduction is same in functional capitalism as in commie countries. Just quality and variability is much worse for centralistic economy.

[nemafakei]

Hm...

Edric, You should define what you mean by a communits society, preferably in one post.

If anyone here is pro-capitalist, and believes capitalsm is not in force anywhere, then they should make their own definition too.

[emprworm]

Under an ideal communist government according to Karl Marx, there is no central authority

....

In the perfect Communist society according to Marx, people VOLUNTARILY share all their property, by putting everything they have in common.

.

I dispute this. Please cite the reference in the Communist Manifesto that demonstrates this.

[Avrillian_Sard01]

-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.

Computers are something for the rich class, I guess. Most people probably won't be able to buy a PC, (much less the latest one). But capitalism started when people became dissatisfied w/ bartering, and made money. And now, we see that the most of the world runs on capitalism...and money...

It's the unfair practices of some capitalists that I want to hit... And in capitalism, competition is the only thing that matters...as well as that globalization thing...

[hide]Dammit, I already typed my post a while ago, and when I check something, it goes back to default...now I lost most of what I wanted to say...argh!!![/hide]

NM... But I do know this...humans will never be satisfied, w/c is why capitalism thrives. If we want to be satisfied, we'll have to go for mediocre living...but humans will always want more...at least, in my opinion...

[Caid Ivik]

Maybe on undeveloped Philipines are PCs a luxury, but in most capitalistic powers is middle class (or burjeausy; those between richest and poorest) largest and on much higher level than in communist or post-communist countries. And larger cities are still closer to western ideal.

[Miles]

Computers are something for the rich class, I guess. Most people probably won't be able to buy a PC, (much less the latest one). But capitalism started when people became dissatisfied w/ bartering, and made money. And now, we see that the most of the world runs on capitalism...and money...

It's the unfair practices of some capitalists that I want to hit... And in capitalism, competition is the only thing that matters...as well as that globalization thing...

I don't think that captialism and globilization are the only things that matter. I think morality is playing a big part in the world.

[hide]Dammit, I already typed my post a while ago, and when I check something, it goes back to default...now I lost most of what I wanted to say...argh!!![/hide]

NM... But I do know this...humans will never be satisfied, w/c is why capitalism thrives. If we want to be satisfied, we'll have to go for mediocre living...but humans will always want more...at least, in my opinion...

Nor should we be satisfied. The day the human race is satisfied is the day we stop innovating and exploring. The day we accept mediocrity will be the beginning to our end.

[DukeLeto]

Under an ideal communist government according to Karl Marx, there is no central authority

....

In the perfect Communist society according to Marx, people VOLUNTARILY share all their property, by putting everything they have in common.

.

I dispute this. Please cite the reference in the Communist Manifesto that demonstrates this.

You've got half of the proof in your sig! ::)

[emprworm]

Under an ideal communist government according to Karl Marx, there is no central authority

....

In the perfect Communist society according to Marx, people VOLUNTARILY share all their property, by putting everything they have in common.

.

I dispute this. Please cite the reference in the Communist Manifesto that demonstrates this.

You've got half of the proof in your sig! ::)

my sig points out that property will be TAKEN, not given. now, please give me the proof that Marx's world consists of people voluntarily giving their wealth to the state.

[Caid Ivik]

Of course NO ONE will give all his wealth without any reason to state. For foundation, supporting poor people, maybe little part. For rational taxes, ok. But to give whole companies to state's hands just because they made such erarizating law, that's de facto robbery! Not saying, that also there isn't possibility to find such characteric people, who will really transfer it all to state, without some "provisions".

[Anathema]

Keep in mind that in Marx time, the industrial revolution was in progress and the vast majority of people were repressed by a small collection of industrials. The labourers had nothing, no chance to improve their welfare. They only had their children. They were the proletariat. Marx used to think that England would be the perfect country for the first revolution, but they managed to avoid it.

[Caid Ivik]

But the revolution wouldn't solve it. Who would rule then? Who would make that communist system? Politicians, who would quickly become an elite! And those oppressed poor people, who lived only for the going day, without any education, how they would see something is improving? How would they accept, that maybe after third generation they have promised a paradise? Sorry, but Marx's idea was unreal.

[Anathema]

It was mainly meant for Emp, who keeps yelling that Marx wants to steal his stuff. I agree that Marx ideas weren't perfect, they need to be changed. Nobody said you have to hold every word of it as true, it's not the bible or anything ::)

[Caid Ivik]

I talk about main things. "Cucche", spirit, how they were called by Kim Ir-Sen ;D

[Edric O]

Emprworm, I think Marx has something to say to you. ;) This excerpt from the Communist Manifesto looks as if it was custom made to answer your complaints:

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labor, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism. [...]

- Communist Manifesto, chapter 2

[Edric O]

And here is your proof, Emprworm! Taken from chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto, just like the previous quote. Here is the proof you asked for:

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.

Now do you understand?

[Davidu]

"It was mainly meant for Emp, who keeps yelling that Marx wants to steal his stuff." Earthnuker

LOL!!

I'm starting to like the way you express yourself! ;D

[Avrillian_Sard01]

Maybe on undeveloped Philipines are PCs a luxury, but in most capitalistic powers is middle class (or burjeausy; those between richest and poorest) largest and on much higher level than in communist or post-communist countries. And larger cities are still closer to western ideal.

Maybe, but I do belong to the middle class, and my PC will be considered as "average" compared to most of the other guys here... What abt. over there in Slovakia?

And even though me and my fellow Filipinos live in a capitalist system, most of the people here belong to the lower class, w/ most(but not all) of the wealth of the country belonging to the upper elite. (You must have noticed it in some documentaries or news abt. it...)

[Edric O]

Oh, Emprworm... where are you, Emprworm? :) Hehe, I'm not going to let you ignore the quotes I just posted above. They are proof that communism is not what you make it out to be.

[emprworm]

"We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labor, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism. [...]"

none of that, Edric, backs up your claims that people freely give to the state. These paragraphs merely talk about what is being forcibly abolished. They say nothing about voluntary giving. Your points are actually destroyed by this quote.

"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another."

All wealth goes to the hands of the whole nation where no individual has any ability whatsoever to "give freely". That quote also shows the robbery of individual free-will. This is in stark contrast to the example Jesus gave.