• Capatalism and Communism. (Which is best?)
    481 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34735407]communism? subjective leadership? freedom inequality? can you please explain how exactly those relate.[/QUOTE] Well under capitalism, we are all "equal" unless you consider the difference in monetary wealth across the nation and what powers that brings. Under Communism we are all "equal" unless you consider the privileges and rights of the higher party members as compared to the common folk. And by subjective leadership I mean it always has the human factor of ego and greed that comes with wealth and resource management.
Capitalism, for human greed ruins what communism is.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;34751295]Well under capitalism, we are all "equal" unless you consider the difference in monetary wealth across the nation and what powers that brings. Under Communism we are all "equal" unless you consider the privileges and rights of the higher party members as compared to the common folk. And by subjective leadership I mean it always has the human factor of ego and greed that comes with wealth and resource management.[/QUOTE] Communism never meant to be 'led' by a communist party; the idea that a 'vanguard' party can lead the revolution is something that Lenin invented. A Communist party is in itself an anti-thesis, for Marx believed that Communism could only be achieved through a "spontaneous, revolutionary class consciousness". The proletariat were never meant to be 'led' by a party/dictatorship. I wish people would stop thinking that the USSR and other dictatorships were Communist (The USSR was a Leninist dictatorship). You can't have a leader in a true Communist system. [QUOTE=werrek;34751438]Capitalism, for human greed ruins what communism is.[/QUOTE] Communism, for human greed ruins what Capitalism is. Capitalism works fine until people get greedy, take excessive risks and then plunge the economy into turmoil. That is hardly a sustainable economic model.
[QUOTE=Mythman;34753704]Communism, for human greed ruins what Capitalism is. Capitalism works fine until people get greedy, take excessive risks and then plunge the economy into turmoil. That is hardly a sustainable economic model.[/QUOTE] And Communism is supposed to be immune to this how? Capitalism works fine until some guy decides that the government ought to make some laws that end up benefiting the elite and you get corporatism. [editline]18th February 2012[/editline] Also note that "true" Marxist communism is technically anarchism.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34753923]And Communism is supposed to be immune to this how? Capitalism works fine until some guy decides that the government ought to make some laws that end up benefiting the elite and you get corporatism. [editline]18th February 2012[/editline] Also note that "true" Marxist communism is technically anarchism.[/QUOTE] I am not saying Communism is immune to human greed, I was merely pointing out that Capitalism can be just as broken and misused as Communism is. The post I was referring to implied that Capitalism is immune from greed so I countered that in the same way the poster off-handedly dismissed Communism. For me personally, I think that Capitalism is a good way to distribute resources but I do not think it is the [I]fairest[/I] way to distribute resources. In a way I see Socialism and Communism as a way to further Liberal ideas. You cannot have equality of opportunity if there are massive differences in economic wealth. The poor have hidden talents but are unable to develop them because they have to spend their time stacking shelves in order to survive - that is hardly the best way for humanity to develop its full potential.
I can't believe this is even being debated... Capitalism is the best socioeconomic system that mankind has come up with thus far. Why? Capitalism, is not inherently flaws like Marxism is. When Capitalism was first introduced in the early 19th Century, the flaws were obvious. Yes workers were exploited, and guess what? government regulation and social policy fixed that problem. For the last 200 years the world has operated on the market principles of Capitalism, and we've seen more advancements than in mankind's previous thousands of years of existence combined. Now before some economically illiterate child claims that Capitalism is broken, and that it caused the 2007 recession. Let me remind you that Capitalism, our socioeconomic system, is the constant, and governments and their policies, are the variable. And when you look at the facts you will see that all the major periods of economic downturn in the past 200 years, which have been mere spots, in a period of [B]massive economic growth [/B], you will see that they were all caused by poor government policy. The Great Depression was caused by government regulation and intervention. There was no depression in America until Hoover started interfering in the economy. Unemployment in USA in the 1st year after the stock market crash was never over 10%. It later soared to the high 20s during the FDR administration. This latest recession, was caused by bad government policy that facilitated and created Crony Capitalism and Corporate Socialism. Bailing out banks is not Capitalism. Bail outs don't happen in Capitalism, period. Banks don't get favors from the government in Capitalism, period. Now on to Marxism. Marxism is the worst socioeconomic system ever created. And I say Marxism, not Communism. The Marxist theory it's self is inherently broken. Which is why whenever Marxism is implemented, we get more sinister forms of Communism, like Stalinism or Maoism. If you still refuse to accept that then you can read this: [QUOTE][B]The Flaws of Marxism – The 7th Edition[/B] One of the fundamental problems with the Marxist system is the way that Marx perceived production. Specifically the way wealth was produced in the Capitalist system. In his eyes, labor was the single most important aspect of the production of goods, which creates wealth. Thus, it was logical to him that the power should be in the hands of the worker, the man who actually made the goods. Rather than those managing the enterprises and getting rich by "exploiting" the so called "real" producers of the wealth. However this fails to take a few things into account. The Marxist system ignores the fact that the work performed by the management, the owners and the investors is just as, if not more important than the work of those physically producing the goods. This is a fallacy that is still widespread today. Society tends to view laborers or workers as those who are employed, when in actuality the employer is no different. The fact that the employers are far fewer than the employees does not mean the employers play a role of lesser importance in the production of goods. Their role is not only more intellectually demanding, but also commonly requires more hours of work than the average laborer. For this reason it is infeasible to have the workers running everything, because they would all need to be educated in a wide number of fields that are critical to the efficient management of a company. A hierarchy exists in the workplace for this very reason. The work performed by those at the top usually requires a formal education, and involves many more hours of work. While not physically demanding, the intellectual demand is great. Anyone who knows a business person is well aware of this fact. Now while keeping the above in mind, we must remember that this does not mean that the worker is expendable. Marx believed that in the Capitalist system this was so, and while at the time that may have been true, today it is not. In a Capitalist system, workers have two major advantages that their counterparts did not enjoy under Communism or Socialism. The first is the average person’s ability to start their own business. While you may be working for someone else today, you may be working for yourself tomorrow. Capitalism allows anyone who has a good idea to make a business with minimal red tape. One doesn’t even need capital, as it can be borrowed from banks or directly from investors. This is something that doesn’t exist in a Marxist society, where all businesses are collectively owned, and nobody makes any profit off of them. The second advantage is that businesses have to compete with each other for labor. Because of this, businesses have a vested interested in treating their employees well, so that their competitors can’t steal them. But competition does not exist in a Marxist system, and thus everyone is paid exactly the same amount, even though, as stated above, the employee may do less difficult work than the employer. The Marxist system also seems to rely on the fallacious assumption that labor is the only necessary input that produces an output, or at the very least, the most important input. If that was true, then everyone would be capable of producing whatever they need, but that isn’t the case. Capital, knowledge (in the form of management, or skilled labor), technology (which in our modern world is necessary to achieve enough efficiency to be profitable and in many cases, to achieve enough volume of production to supply the demand) and natural resource, are all absolutely necessary inputs to successfully create outputs. A business needs centralized leadership to ensure that all these necessary inputs are plentiful and ready when necessary. There needs to be wealthy people, and or banks, to provide the crucial start up capital necessary for getting a business running, there needs to be skilled laborers who are superiors to the unskilled laborers, and much more for a modern economy to function. For these reasons, the workers cannot manage a large business, let alone an industry or a whole economy made up of hundreds of thousands of businesses. Perhaps Marx’s biggest misunderstanding of the Capitalist system was his belief that profits are the exploitation of the employee by the employer. Profits are actually the left over capital from sales after all expenses have been paid, which includes salaries. So the reality is that once employees have been paid, the owner of the business can do as he pleases with the profits. If he wants to give himself ridiculous bonuses or hide all the profits away in a Swiss bank account that’s his choice. But that begs the question why don’t all business owners do this? Arguably in recent years it has been a more common occurrence, but the fact of the matter is that it is a horrible business practice to keep all the profits for yourself. That’s a one way ticket to bankruptcy for your business. In a market with competition, profits MUST, be reinvested into the company. Otherwise you'll fall behind your competition. And this is what has happened in the global economy today. Companies have been plagued by incompetent businessmen that have stolen money from their companies, rather than doing the logical thing and reinvesting the money in their business, which would have resulted in the continued sustainability and profitability of their business. Had they done this, they would have been able to increase their salaries at no damage to their business, their employees or the economy. Now whether the worker is being exploited in the sense that they are being paid very little is another matter entirely, and to determine that we must establish what an exploitative wage is. Any rational person will see that the concept of an exploitative wage is completely relative, rather than absolute. It is up for the individual person to decide what they are willing to work for, and the government has no place in telling people that they must be paid an arbitrary amount of money. Ironically, this is exactly what takes place in a Communist system in practice. The price of everything is arbitrarily decided by an army of bureaucrats. The Marxist system also ignores the fact that technological innovation is dependent on profits, rather than solely the will to do so. Most Marxists suggest that workers can simply cooperate to achieve technological innovation. However as stated before, the fear of bankruptcy is what forces companies to make profits, so they can continue to innovate and expand, in order to remain competitive. Now while the threat of competition does not exist in a Communist or Socialist society, it doesn't change the fact that profits are what facilitate innovation. Without profits, companies would be forced to divert production in order to facilitate innovation, but in a Communist system, any diversion of production will result in economic collapse, whereas in Capitalism it only means bankruptcy for one corporation. Thus we can conclude that innovation is impossible in a Communist system, because in order to achieve it, production would have to be slowed down in order to split energies so that innovation or expansion could be achieved. In moderation this would create a need to reduce consumption to rationing levels, or alternatively, it could destroy society by not supplying enough to meet demand. Now theoretically these problems could be solved by increasing the scale of production, which would allow enough to be produced, while innovation still occurred. But when taking all of Marxism other flaws into account, one can see that such measures would be impossible to achieve. As in any system not coordinated by prices, allocating scare resources which have alternative uses is extremely difficult, thus causing horrible inefficiency. The chief reason for Marxism’ inefficiency is its lack of a price coordinated market. In a Marxist system, good are produced to meet society’s needs, but in a large state, it’s impossible to know what those needs are. How can one calculate how much grain in one region needs to be shipped to the other regions? How can the same be done for timber? Or fuel? Most importantly, how will international trade be facilitated? If you aren’t producing goods for profit, then you won’t be able to sell them. Finally, Marx’s most serious misunderstanding of the Capitalist system was his belief that private property was merely a way for the rich to keep wealth away from the poor. This ignores one important aspect of human nature though, which Aristotle summarized quite well when he said, “That which no one owns, no one will care for.” What Aristotle meant by this was, if someone does not own something, he has no incentives to ensure that it is well kept, or operating efficiently. In a Marxist or Socialist system, everything is commonly owned, meaning everyone is responsible for it. This leads to a phenomenon where nobody maintains the commonly owned property, as they feel that someone else will just do it. Since everyone is equally responsible, nobody can delegate tasks, nobody can be blamed for something not working, or something not getting done. The people will just blame each other. One also needs to take into account that everyone is to be paid the same amount, but everyone is also suppose to be entitled to what they work for. This is a huge contradiction in Marxism that tends to get overlooked. As stated before, Marx believed that Capitalists were taking money from the “real” producers of the wealth, and that the workers should be entitled to what they themselves produce. But how can everyone be equal and get equal wages if everyone is suppose to be entitled to what they themselves work for. Let’s suppose there are 2 workers, Worker A and Worker B and together they can produce goods worth $200, or $100 each. Worker A workers hard and produces $100 worth of goods, but Worker B, does not, and only produces goods worth $50. Now if both workers are suppose to get an equal salary, then both workers can only be paid $75. Worker A is now taking a loss, and has no incentive to work hard, as he will only get $75 despite him producing goods worth $100. So maybe the next day he only produces goods worth $75. Worker B, seeing his colleague slacking, decides to work half as hard, only producing goods worth $25. Now, both workers only get $50 salary. So what can be done? There’s no management, nobody is in charge, and so the unproductive laborer can’t be fired. Taking everything into account, one can only conclude that a Communist or Socialist society, even if implemented as Marx envisioned (Which is simply impossible given the human psychology), would be in a constant state of economic and technological stagnation. The system would eventually destroy the society due to the difficulties in allocating resources. People would be living in a constant state of horrible poverty, technologically frozen in time, until the horrible conditions lead to violent revolution. And again, this all assumes that such a society could be achieved in the first place, which it most certainly could not. The most fundamental flaw of Marxism has nothing to do with economics at all. It has to do with psychology. The human race as a whole is inherently greedy. Individuals may not be greedy, but collectively, humans are self centered. We think about ourselves above others. Now while some people may suggest that this is just a mindset that the current socioeconomic system has created, historical study will prove that since Ancient times, individuals have cared about themselves first and their community second. That’s just how the human mind works, and we need to accept that. But Marx did not. Despite the fact that we are self centered, his theories were predicated on the fallacy that humans are inherently, kind, caring, and cooperative. But we aren’t, so what happens when people resist because they value personal freedoms above the “greater good”? Well then they need to be killed, but what if they start a guerrilla war? Well then there will need to be a police state with a powerful military to suppress these people and in order for that to happen you need a dictator. But what if the dictator doesn’t want to give up power? Now while many believe that a Stalinist style dictatorship is not the inevitable result of Communist ideas being put into practice, history, and simple logic prove that it is. There is simply no way that Marxism is a viable socioeconomic system for any modern state. The sooner we recognize this as the fact that it is, the sooner we can continue to move forwards economically, rather than backwards. Now you may have not taken this all in, and that’s fine. Socioeconomics isn’t one of the easiest subjects to grapple with. But if there is one thing that you should try to take away from this paper, it is this: In a Communist state, all other political theories would be violently suppressed. But in our Capitalist society, people are free to read about whatever they want to. You are not forced to believe anything. You can read an infinite number of opinions on a wide variety of different political theories. That is not a liberty that people had in Communist countries. It’s a liberty we take for granted. Thanks to great men like John Locke, and Adam Smith, who pioneered the concepts of individual freedoms, we are free to believe whatever ideologies we want to, whereas under Marx, you would be forced to believe in Communism and Communism alone. So while you may not agree with Locke and Smith, at least acknowledge that you are able to read about Marx because of them. So ask yourself, would you have the same liberties under Marx? [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Destroyer25;34766162]I can't believe this is even being debated... Capitalism is the best socioeconomic system that mankind has come up with thus far. Why? Capitalism, is not inherently flaws like Marxism is. [/QUOTE] Capitalism is inherently flawed as well (as I will divulge later on). Both systems are inherently flawed and that is why no-one in this thread is arguing that one is superior to the other. Most people are arguing we need a balance of the two. [QUOTE] When Capitalism was first introduced in the early 19th Century, the flaws were obvious. Yes workers were exploited, and guess what? government regulation and social policy fixed that problem. [/QUOTE] Woah, Government regulation in a Capitalist economy? Capitalism is designed to work without government intervention. Capitalism arose after the businessmen got fed up with Mercantilism and the large amount of government control it brought. [QUOTE] For the last 200 years the world has operated on the market principles of Capitalism, and we've seen more advancements than in mankind's previous thousands of years of existence combined. [/QUOTE] That is subjective. I could argue that Capitalism is bad since the world made the most significant leap in advancement during the Ancient Hellenic world. Philosophy, Science, Mathematics, Politics and Democracy all appeared in the space of that time period. Therefore a basic Feudal society is the best socio-economic system? [QUOTE] Now before some economically illiterate child claims that Capitalism is broken, and that it caused the 2007 recession. Let me remind you that Capitalism, our socioeconomic system, is the constant, and governments and their policies, are the variable. And when you look at the facts you will see that all the major periods of economic downturn in the past 200 years, which have been mere spots, in a period of [B]massive economic growth [/B], you will see that they were all caused by poor government policy. The Great Depression was caused by government regulation and intervention. There was no depression in America until Hoover started interfering in the economy. Unemployment in USA in the 1st year after the stock market crash was never over 10%. It later soared to the high 20s during the FDR administration. [/QUOTE] You have a very odd view of the Great Depression. If bad government policy is the cause of all economic downturns how come the Great Depression effect the entire world and not just America? Did the entire world's politicians screw up simultaneously? Also you ignore the fact that there were economic screw-ups before the great depression. [QUOTE] This latest recession, was caused by bad government policy that facilitated and created Crony Capitalism and Corporate Socialism. Bailing out banks is not Capitalism. Bail outs don't happen in Capitalism, period. Banks don't get favors from the government in Capitalism, period. [/QUOTE] You are correct banks shouldn't get bail-outs under Capitalism. But why were the banks bailed out in the first place? In the UK the bank RBS made a disastrous investment in ABN Amro which meant the bank began to haemorrhage money. The UK government had to bail the bank out in order to prevent a collapse of the UK economy. If RBS went bust it would mean a huge amount of UK investments, savings and pensions would have disappeared. You cannot claim that the government caused RBS to collapse, it was a bad investment decided by the CEO of RBS. If RBS was not bailed out then the entire UK economy would go into a very deep and very long recession. [QUOTE] Now on to Marxism. Marxism is the worst socioeconomic system ever created. And I say Marxism, not Communism. The Marxist theory it's self is inherently broken. Which is why whenever Marxism is implemented, we get more sinister forms of Communism, like Stalinism or Maoism. [/QUOTE] You cannot claim that all of Marx is broken. Have you read all of Marx? Marx wrote hundreds of articles and tens of books. University lecturers admit that studying Marx properly would take a lifetime. And for the last time: Stalinism and Maoism are not forms of Communism. First of all, they have a state (something Marx believed should "wither away"). Also Stalinsim and Maoism are merely dictatorships with a state run economy (Marx disagreed with a state and he disagreed with a state-run economy). [QUOTE] If you still refuse to accept that then you can read this: [/QUOTE] That is a very large bias wall of text. The author is blatantly against Marxism and omits many important details. I could do a point by point analysis on the text you quoted but I won't: it would be a waste of my time and you would not read it anyway. Instead I will take the final paragraph and ridicule it. [QUOTE=Huge ass bias wall of text] In a Communist state, all other political theories would be violently suppressed. But in our Capitalist society, people are free to read about whatever they want to. You are not forced to believe anything. You can read an infinite number of opinions on a wide variety of different political theories. That is not a liberty that people had in Communist countries. It’s a liberty we take for granted. Thanks to great men like John Locke, and Adam Smith, who pioneered the concepts of individual freedoms, we are free to believe whatever ideologies we want to, whereas under Marx, you would be forced to believe in Communism and Communism alone. So while you may not agree with Locke and Smith, at least acknowledge that you are able to read about Marx because of them. So ask yourself, would you have the same liberties under Marx? [/QUOTE] Firstly, the author shows his ignorance when he states that a Communist society will suppress political theory. The author is using Stalinism as an example of Communism which it is most definitely not. Secondly, Capitalism is not a socio-economic system - it is merely an economic system. Capitalism does not state any way in which society is formed. The author confuses Liberalism with Capitalism which are two completely different things. The author's rhetorical question at the end is a logical fallacy - it is an appeal to emotion. To state that Locke (a Liberal and not a Capitalist) and Smith (A capitalist that did not write anything on the type of society we should live in) somehow allow people to read Marx is rubbish. Under a Communist society the people will be free to do what they wish and think what they wish. America annoys me greatly when they conflate Liberalism with Capitalism. A final thought, please post the author of the wall of text you posted. A proper argument needs to have proper sources. TL;DR - Read my points and realise how you debate. (Sorry for the wall of text, ignorance annoys me)
[QUOTE=Destroyer25;34766162]I can't believe this is even being debated... Capitalism is the best socioeconomic system that mankind has come up with thus far. Why? Capitalism, is not inherently flaws like Marxism is. When Capitalism was first introduced in the early 19th Century, the flaws were obvious. Yes workers were exploited, and guess what? government regulation and social policy fixed that problem.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's not like exploitation isn't still rife in huge areas of the world or anything. State capitalism is so paradoxical and shit and it boggles my mind that so many people support it.
[quote]In a Communist state, all other political theories would be violently suppressed. But in our Capitalist society, people are free to read about whatever they want to. You are not forced to believe anything. You can read an infinite number of opinions on a wide variety of different political theories. That is not a liberty that people had in Communist countries. It’s a liberty we take for granted. Thanks to great men like John Locke, and Adam Smith, who pioneered the concepts of individual freedoms, we are free to believe whatever ideologies we want to, whereas under Marx, you would be forced to believe in Communism and Communism alone. So while you may not agree with Locke and Smith, at least acknowledge that you are able to read about Marx because of them. So ask yourself, would you have the same liberties under Marx?[/quote] lmao implying there's ever actually been a communist state, and not just socialist dictatorships (and guess what the real problem was there (the dictatorship part))
'Corporate socialism' lmfao Poor liberals. I'd hate to have to redefine everything to suit my views every once in a while.
[quote]In a Communist state, all other political theories would be violently suppressed. But in our Capitalist society, people are free to read about whatever they want to. You are not forced to believe anything. You can read an infinite number of opinions on a wide variety of different political theories. That is not a liberty that people had in Communist countries. It’s a liberty we take for granted. Thanks to great men like John Locke, and Adam Smith, who pioneered the concepts of individual freedoms, we are free to believe whatever ideologies we want to, whereas under Marx, you would be forced to believe in Communism and Communism alone. So while you may not agree with Locke and Smith, at least acknowledge that you are able to read about Marx because of them. So ask yourself, would you have the same liberties under Marx?[/quote] this is actually one of the worst things I've ever read. John Locke was generally a very shitty philosopher frank; politically and metaphysically. His political philosophy is built on a foundation of false equivocations and generally shitty logical formation. As for Adam Smith, I have a very strong suspicion he would abhor at the state of our economic climate today and revile the idea that his works were being espoused by its supporters.
what are you talking about? [editline]19th February 2012[/editline] @conscript
I am talking about the newspeak trend and deflection style liberals have. Rather than concluding the problem is capitalism, it's 'crony capitalism' or 'corporate socialism' (which boils down to 'the problem is my center-left/center-right liberal electoral opponent', depending on your affiliation). If it's not working, it's not capitalism apparently. Some people have to redefine words and revise history for their ideological loose ends, and that guy's post is a great example. Hell, look at the quote robbo posted. It's not even an argument, just a deflective moral appeal. 'Our ideas may suck, but at least we let you consider alternatives!' (And then we fall back into reality when we realize it's just a state sponsored illusion). Hope that helps.
Seeing as this is the closest thing to discussion of personal political ideologies in this section, I'm a bit confused as to what I'd be considered. I took that political compass test, and I'm bottom left (Libertarian Left), yet I'm in support of strong government regulation of the economy. I think it's mainly because the government shouldn't be all "No you can't have an abortion because we said so", but I'm definitely against a laissez-faire economy. Basically, government can't tell you you can't do something if it doesn't negatively affect others but with state capitalism. Any insight?
[QUOTE=Mr. Bleak;34770919]Seeing as this is the closest thing to discussion of personal political ideologies in this section, I'm a bit confused as to what I'd be considered. I took that political compass test, and I'm bottom left (Libertarian Left), yet I'm in support of strong government regulation of the economy. I think it's mainly because the government shouldn't be all "No you can't have an abortion because we said so", but I'm definitely against a laissez-faire economy. Basically, government can't tell you you can't do something if it doesn't negatively affect others but with state capitalism. Any insight?[/QUOTE] Libertarian socialist, maybe? Left libertarianism in general is a strange place. [editline]19th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;34770607]I am talking about the newspeak trend and deflection style liberals have. Rather than concluding the problem is capitalism, it's 'crony capitalism' or 'corporate socialism' (which boils down to 'the problem is my center-left/center-right liberal electoral opponent', depending on your affiliation). If it's not working, it's not capitalism apparently. Some people have to redefine words and revise history for their ideological loose ends, and that guy's post is a great example. Hell, look at the quote robbo posted. It's not even an argument, just a deflective moral appeal. 'Our ideas may suck, but at least we let you consider alternatives!' (And then we fall back into reality when we realize it's just a state sponsored illusion). Hope that helps.[/QUOTE] It's not "redefining" capitalism at all, it's capitalism "with" corporate whatever.
[QUOTE=Conscript;34770607]I am talking about the newspeak trend and deflection style liberals have. Rather than concluding the problem is capitalism, it's 'crony capitalism' or 'corporate socialism' (which boils down to 'the problem is my center-left/center-right liberal electoral opponent', depending on your affiliation). If it's not working, it's not capitalism apparently. Some people have to redefine words and revise history for their ideological loose ends, and that guy's post is a great example. Hell, look at the quote robbo posted. It's not even an argument, just a deflective moral appeal. 'Our ideas may suck, but at least we let you consider alternatives!' (And then we fall back into reality when we realize it's just a state sponsored illusion). Hope that helps.[/QUOTE] I [I]kind of[/I] have sympathy for people calling the current economic climate by a different name as flat out capitalism, since I think [I]genuine[/I] laissez-faire capitalism may well be beneficial (and presumably this is the sort of thing some people call 'capitalism'). At least a [I]genuine[/I] free market incorporates the idea that the state is detrimental, however I'd probably neglect to ever call myself any sort of capitalist as private property as such a core part of its formulation, and PP is possibly the biggest fallacy in the whole of society.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34771048]It's not "redefining" capitalism at all, it's capitalism "with" corporate whatever.[/QUOTE] That's not how it's referred to. Center-right liberals call it socialism/crony capitalism (since socialism means whatever the hell they want as long as it's government related), center-left liberals call it 'corporatism' because the nation's capitalists *gasp* mean a lot to the government (the confusion seems to lie in the fact their voting blocs are organized labor and minorities). It's pretty much why I consider it a good idea to avoid, for lack of a better word, [b]L[/b]iberal political views. They're derived from a wealth-dependent shit flinging contest and have little analytical value, as opposed to the liberalism present in Occupy Wall Street which is relatively progressive and detached from commercialized politics. As of now they're struggling on how to get america out of this economic hole without pissing off the working class, paradoxically, after getting them there. I wouldn't take their opinions of workers movements and independent working class fightback very seriously. They have vested interests in opposing these things. [quote]I kind of have sympathy for people calling the current economic climate by a different name as flat out capitalism, since I think genuine laissez-faire capitalism may well be beneficial (and presumably this is the sort of thing some people call 'capitalism'). At least a genuine free market incorporates the idea that the state is detrimental, however I'd probably neglect to ever call myself any sort of capitalist as private property as such a core part of its formulation, and PP is possibly the biggest fallacy in the whole of society. [/quote] Detrimental to capital in ways, perhaps, but usually to lessen capital's oppressive impact on labor, as the state in a liberal society is a mediator of interest groups, labor and capital included. The last time the state didn't give a fuck about labor it was flogged with direct working class action which harmed both it and its major constituent: capital. There was always some hawkish right-wing stooges despising it, only recently decades after empowered labor, the red scare, the beatdown of unions, and the de-industrialization of america is there a serious consideration for 'laissez-faire'. As a worker, you should favor holding on to past working class gains, just not think of them as the be all and end all to labor's struggle. On the other hand, 'laissez faire' and its associates the libertarians, conservatives, and other numerous kinds of liberals don't care for that, and instead favor a petty-bourgeois, individualist appeal (or guise if you will, since it's mostly used to fool people into idleness). Let's not make dogmatic ideological considerations, let's look at our material interests as members of the working class. You won't find the 'genuine free market' to be in any way empowering.
What the fuck is a "center-right" liberal? A liberal is defined as a person on the [i]left[/i]. Anyway, I'm not a liberal and I still call it corporatism because that's what it fucking is.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34771532]What the fuck is a "center-right" liberal? A liberal is defined as a person on the [i]left[/i]. Anyway, I'm not a liberal and I still call it corporatism because that's what it fucking is.[/QUOTE] A liberal is an adherent of enlightenment philosophy, which was only historically and entirely 'left' when the right was made up of royalists and such. As the ruling philosophy behind the modern state, it's divided up to various currents which can all trace their historical and ideological lineage back to the 18th and 19th century liberalism, which essentially founded that state. Conservatives are liberals, the 'modern american liberals' are liberals, libertarians are liberals, social democrats are liberals, etc. How it's used in mainstream american politics isn't important. What makes america 'corporatist'? AFAIK actual corporatism is a right-wing nationalist invention, for now in america it seems to just be employed as a center-left political pejorative. Giving big capital weight in political matters doesn't strike me as actual corporatism, just practicality in a capitalist state.
[QUOTE=Conscript;34771813]A liberal is an adherent of enlightenment philosophy, which was only historically and entirely 'left' when the right was made up of royalists and such. As the ruling philosophy behind the modern state, it's divided up to various currents which can all trace their historical and ideological lineage back to the 18th and 19th century liberalism, which essentially founded that state. Conservatives are liberals, the 'modern american liberals' are liberals, libertarians are liberals, social democrats are liberals, etc. How it's used in mainstream american politics isn't important.[/quote] Then stop using the damn term if it's applied to everyone. [quote] What makes america 'corporatist'? AFAIK actual corporatism is a right-wing nationalist invention, for now in america it seems to just be employed as a center-left political pejorative. Giving big capital weight in political matters doesn't strike me as actual corporatism, just practicality in a capitalist state.[/QUOTE] "Practicality"? Are you fucking nuts? If you haven't noticed, a large portion of what's fucked up the economy is because of government "regulation" that was paid for by some corporation or another. [editline]19th February 2012[/editline] Also, the people who decide who gets to be featured in the presidential debates in the mainstream media are the leaders of the Republican and Democrat parties. And I'd be willing to bet you can pay a "fee" to get a specific candidate in there.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34772034]Then stop using the damn term if it's applied to everyone.[/quote] Except it's not? [quote]"Practicality"? Are you fucking nuts? If you haven't noticed, a large portion of what's fucked up the economy is because of government "regulation" that was paid for by some corporation or another.[/quote] That doesn't begin to cover the state's relationship with national capital. Whether or not state intervention caused this crisis is irrelevant, capital is a huge national consideration for a government. It's not out of this world to have corporate sway over politics. Capitalist society wouldn't work very well if it ignored its biggest constituent. [quote]Also, the people who decide who gets to be featured in the presidential debates in the mainstream media are the leaders of the Republican and Democrat parties. And I'd be willing to bet you can pay a "fee" to get a specific candidate in there.[/QUOTE] What does this have to do with anything?
[QUOTE=sp00ks;34770142]lmao implying there's ever actually been a communist state, and not just socialist dictatorships (and guess what the real problem was there (the dictatorship part))[/QUOTE] And you're pretty much informing people that Communism is mostly used by Dictators.
I'm not redefining anything. I find it hilarious that people claim that the USSR was not actually Communist, but then accuse people like me of revisionism when I we blame Crony Capitalism and Corporate Socialism for economic recessions.[B][U] It's a complete double standard. [/U][/B] In our modern world we've drifted so far from what Capitalism is suppose to be it can be hardly called Capitalism. The state has been getting progressively more involved in the economy, and that's why what we have today is not Capitalism. As for Communism, the fact that Marxism has never been implemented as envisioned by Marx is irrelevant. Marxism it's self is inherently flawed, which is why all attempts to implement it result in bastardized versions of Communism. Communist states just get stuck in the authoritarian, transitional phase.
[QUOTE=Tampio;34772378]And you're pretty much informing people that Communism is mostly used by Dictators.[/QUOTE] Not really; he's probably saying that dictators espouse the ideals of communism while their methods are fundamentally opposed to the intended aims of communism (that is, statelessness and most importantly, freedom from the initiation of coercion). [editline]19th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Destroyer25;34772465]I'm not redefining anything. I find it hilarious that people claim that the USSR was not actually Communist, but then accuse people like me of revisionism when I we blame Crony Capitalism and Corporate Socialism for economic recessions.[B][U] It's a complete double standard. [/U][/QUOTE] I was thinking this the other day actually. But then I realised names were basically a waste of time anyway and semantics is an absolute waste of time in political philosophy. If you think laissez-faire capitalism is the only real capitalism, state it in your posts otherwise you'll just keep arguing past people. I'd say the same for communism, but I think it's less of an issue since it's quite well maintained that communism is something along the lines of statelessness and not the silly paradoxical communist dictatorships of the past. [editline]19th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Destroyer25;34772465]As for Communism, the fact that Marxism has never been implemented as envisioned by Marx is irrelevant. Marxism it's self is inherently flawed, which is why all attempts to implement it result in bastardized versions of Communism. Communist states just get stuck in the authoritarian, transitional phase.[/QUOTE] Again this is purely splitting hairs, and I'd agree with you in as much as communists that espouse the view we ought to coercively revolt against the bourgeois, but this isn't true of all communists or even all marxists.
[QUOTE=Destroyer25;34772465]I'm not redefining anything.[/quote] You're trying to quantify it as some kind of government-o-meter. This is a recent deviation. [quote]I find it hilarious that people claim that the USSR was not actually Communist, but then accuse people like me of revisionism when I we blame Crony Capitalism and Corporate Socialism for economic recessions.[/quote] Because for you it stops being capitalism when investments and capital are managed poorly, when it's not formal private capitalists making investments, and other arbitrary distinctions. For us it stops being capitalism when there is an end to wage labor, commodity production, and capital is abolished. These three things were not tossed out in the USSR, the state and its theoreticians actually embraced these and tried to justify it by pointing to the backwards nature of the country it arose from. The russian revolution itself was an abnormality to orthodox marxists of the period, they didn't believe a peasant mass could build anything else but capitalism, and it surely followed that the isolated revolutionary state in the former Russian empire never amounted to anything but state capitalism. I guess you'll find it hilarious the same people who conducted revolutions in Russia in China would agree what they were building wasn't communism. Lenin believed it was more pragmatic to follow the german state-capitalist model until the revolution could get outside assistance from revolution in the advanced capitalist countries. His affinity for a Russian state capitalism is well noted. [quote]What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state capitalism at the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control that the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism in Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is not out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our salvation. [/quote] [url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm[/url] Mao followed a policy of 'new democracy' which entailed collaboration of all classes, peasants, bourgeoisie, and proletarians included, under a system of party-led state capitalism, which never really ended: [quote]The present-day capitalist economy in China is a capitalist economy which for the most part is under the control of the People's Government and which is linked with the state-owned socialist economy in various forms and supervised by the workers. It is not an ordinary but a particular kind of capitalist economy, namely, a state-capitalist economy of a new type. It exists not chiefly to make profits for the capitalists but to meet the needs of the people and the state. True, a share of the profits produced by the workers goes to the capitalists, but that is only a small part, about one quarter, of the total. The remaining three quarters are produced for the workers (in the form of the welfare fund), for the state (in the form of income tax) and for expanding productive capacity (a small part of which produces profits for the capitalists). Therefore, this state-capitalist economy of a new type takes on a socialist character to a very great extent and benefits the workers and the state. [/quote] [url]http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_30.htm[/url] [quote]China's economy must develop along the path of the "regulation of capital" and the "equalization of landownership", and must never be "privately owned by the few"; we must never permit the few capitalists and landlords to "dominate the livelihood of the people"; we must never establish a capitalist society of the European-American type or allow the old semi-feudal society to survive. Whoever dares to go counter to this line of advance will certainly not succeed but will run into a brick wall. [/quote] [quote]Although such a revolution in a colonial and semi-colonial country is still fundamentally bourgeois-democratic in its social character during its first stage or first step, and although its objective mission is to clear the path for the development of capitalism, it is no longer a revolution of the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a capitalist society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship. It belongs to the new type of revolution led by the proletariat with the aim, in the first stage, of establishing a new-democratic society and a state under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes.[/quote] [quote]In China, it is perfectly clear that whoever can lead the people in overthrowing imperialism and the forces of feudalism can win the people’s confidence, because these two, and especially imperialism, are the mortal enemies of the people. Today, whoever can lead the people in driving out Japanese imperialism and introducing democratic government will be the saviours of the people. History has proved that the Chinese bourgeoisie cannot fulfil this responsibility, which inevitably falls upon the shoulders of the proletariat. Therefore, the proletariat, the peasantry, the intelligentsia and the other sections of the petty bourgeoisie undoubtedly constitute the basic forces determining China’s fate. These classes, some already awakened and others in the process of awakening, will necessarily become the basic components of the state and governmental structure in the democratic republic of China, with the proletariat as the leading force. The Chinese democratic republic which we desire to establish now must be a democratic republic under the joint dictatorship of all anti-imperialist and anti-feudal people led by the proletariat, that is, a new-democratic republic, a republic of the genuinely revolutionary new Three People’s Principles with their Three Great Policies.[/quote] [url]http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm[/url] Both believed they were approaching their countries unique conditions from a revolutionary perspective, that they had to pick the pieces and complete the tasks involved in a transition to the capitalist stage of history. In their parts of the world, national capitalists weren't as vehemently anti-feudal and keen on struggling against the modern empires for the sake of their own, and were otherwise too complacent with the backwardsness of their country. This is contrary to the european bourgeoisie, whose revolutions were explosive and shook feudalism and its royalists down to the core. For the 'Marxist-Leninists', the dominant school of marxism at the time, the industrial proletariat (a minority) and the peasantry (the majority) must ally to develop their country by building capitalism and defending such advances from the interference of the world imperialists at the time. In that respect they were successful, however some individuals, like Stalin, started taking to calling this system 'socialism'. That is the bureaucratic, degenerated, and anti-marxist character of 20th century socialism. [quote]It's a complete double standard.[/quote] It can only appear as so to someone that understands neither communist theory nor the reality of the capitalist system. [quote]In our modern world we've drifted so far from what Capitalism is suppose to be it can be hardly called Capitalism. The state has been getting progressively more involved in the economy, and that's why what we have today is not Capitalism.[/quote] Entirely arbitrary. That's like claiming we abandoned feudalism when nobles started distancing themselves from the pope, or the holy roman empire wasn't feudal because the emperor lacked power/smaller nobles had too much power.
They both suck [IMG]http://urbnfutr.theurbn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/jacque-fresco.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Talkbox;34777948]They both suck [/QUOTE] Indeed they do, which is why it is necessary to have a mix of Socialism (Communism) and Capitalism. Neither system is a 'holy grail' that solves our economic problems.
[QUOTE=Mythman;34783383]Indeed they do, which is why it is necessary to have a mix of Socialism (Communism) and Capitalism. Neither system is a 'holy grail' that solves our economic problems.[/QUOTE] Socialism is not Communism, why did you put one in parenthesis behind the other?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34600165]No, it's capitalism that makes leaders rich and everyone else poor.[/QUOTE] no, no, and no. you're thinking of kleptocracy. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;34772291]Capitalist society wouldn't work very well if it ignored its biggest constituent.[/QUOTE] this is why libertarianism is popular, because it brings the state down to a level of power that is insignificant for corporations/bankers/oligarchs to use as a medium for their agenda. remember, competition is their biggest fear. what better way to eliminate it than by official law of the nation? the USSR collapsed completely due to economic reasons. anyone that says otherwise hasn't a clue.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34783461]Socialism is not Communism, why did you put one in parenthesis behind the other?[/QUOTE] I know it is not. The point I was trying to get across is we need a mixture of Socialism and Capitalism in order for an economy to work with the minimal amount of negative externalities. I merely put Communism in brackets because Communism is a type of Socialism. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Hayburner;34783491] this is why libertarianism is popular, because it brings the state down to a level of power that is insignificant for corporations/bankers/oligarchs to use as a medium for their agenda. remember, competition is their biggest fear. what better way to eliminate it than by official law of the nation? the USSR collapsed completely due to economic reasons. anyone that says otherwise hasn't a clue.[/QUOTE] So the USSR did not collapse due to the lack of political freedoms because it was a dictatorship? Anyway, as you state it is in a companies interest to prevent competition from emerging. But to say that low government regulation would increase competition is not valid. Companies will seek to minimise competition no matter whether they are subject to regulation or not. Without 'fair trading' regulation you can be sure that there would be a lot more monopolies in the market.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.