• Capatalism and Communism. (Which is best?)
    481 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Crimor;34387970]Neither, social democracy is the best, just look over here at Scandinavia.[/QUOTE] While it is good for our times, it does not mean it is the end-all be-all for governance. I'm sure the feudal lords of old thought Feudalism was the best, but that changed, didn't it?
Both suck in their own ways. Socialism is a nice mix.
Communism is a utopian ideal. Humans, as many know, are inherently greedy and will take as they see fit. Ergo, communism can't work to its fullest potential. You see it fall apart, namely, in larger countries. In small communities it works well, so long as everyone knows and likes one another.
As a European, a German to be more certain, I have much clearer view on both Capitalism and Communism because my nation was fucked and used by both (and also fucked the most by that Hitler basterd and his Natsees). I tell you American-Mc Carthys that this answer to the question is: A bit of both. But never underestimate the enviromental-saving part, because to nature and the eco-system both Capitalism and Socialism/Communism are deadly.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34387874]Sounds to me like you're just paraphrasing Putin. “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.”[/QUOTE] Huh. Strange coincidence. I'd honestly no idea that Putin said it.
Here's an interesting thought: capitalism is utopian. Easily a great deal more utopian than communism/socialism/anarchism (any -ism that conforms to the idea of free association and statelessness). Here's why. Capitalism is propped up by the state. Corporations, and the excesses of capitalism that basically everyone agrees is vile and disgusting, simply wouldn't exist without the state's support. The state's interference in our association with each other by enforcing taxation, minimum wage, bailing out private organisations with public money, etc, they do nothing but prop these vile institutions up (does anyone actually support stuff like the bailing out of banks, wage slavery, unfair wages in developing countries, etc?). Now imagine a stateless society. We're free to associate with every man equally because there's no monopoly over the use of force (which isn't to say we aren't at liberty to the private use of force, but who'd you rather get beaten up by? the lone bully or the police?). Huge excesses of power/wealth wouldn't exist because we'd be free to strike up our own deals and sell our labour for whatever price we want (this part is FUCKING INTEGRAL TO MY ARGUMENT: if you think communism is about wage equality you're a fucking ignorant douchebag and you're doing nothing but destroying the credibility of a theory). State-backed capitalism is utopian because it pretends that letting all of the bullies gang up on everyone isn't a recipe for a fucking disaster. If you thought the worst of human nature, you [I]still[/I] have every reason to be an anarchist. At least in anarchy the douchebags would be privitised and couldn't get their mates in the state to shake us down to bail them out (don't make the mistake of thinking the state isn't stealing from us. if I don't pay my taxes I'm forceably thrown in jail. it's theft on every fucking account of theft that exists.) [editline]25th January 2012[/editline] the state is analogous to kidnapping someone and expecting him to pay you for feeding him
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;34384478]True Communism doesn't work, the "modified" communism doesn't work, name a nation that is better off than any of the capitalist countries. the Debate should be Socailism vs Capitalism[/QUOTE] There are no and never will be any communist nations. That just doesn't make sense. Look up what communism means, why don't you? [editline]25th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=coolsteve;34384364]Communism goes against human nature.[/QUOTE] really? that explains why tribes, the "natural" organization of humans, is communist.
[QUOTE=SystemGS;34391340]Communism is a utopian ideal. Humans, as many know, are inherently greedy and will take as they see fit. Ergo, communism can't work to its fullest potential. You see it fall apart, namely, in larger countries. In small communities it works well, so long as everyone knows and likes one another.[/QUOTE] Yes, humans are inherently greedy, except when they aren't. That is to say, they are not inherently greedy. [editline]25th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kellerbewohner;34392017]As a European, a German to be more certain, I have much clearer view on both Capitalism and [B]Communism because my nation was fucked and used by both[/B] (and also fucked the most by that Hitler basterd and his Natsees). I tell you American-Mc Carthys that this answer to the question is: A bit of both. But never underestimate the enviromental-saving part, because to nature and the eco-system both Capitalism and Socialism/Communism are deadly.[/QUOTE] False. Germany is not and has never been Communist.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34392656]Yes, humans are inherently greedy, except when they aren't. That is to say, they are not inherently greedy. [editline]25th January 2012[/editline] False. Germany is not and has never been Communist.[/QUOTE] I believe he means East Germany. And yes that wasn't communist, but most people say communism when they mean socialism, and say socialism when they mean mixed market.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34392457]There are no and never will be any communist nations. That just doesn't make sense. Look up what communism means, why don't you? [editline]25th January 2012[/editline] really? that explains why tribes, the "natural" organization of humans, is communist.[/QUOTE] And that's why there will never be communism. Nations will forge to continental states rather then the state will extinct for that ridicolous madness the anti-german marx had unleashed on to this world. As a German I hate Marx. He was a traitor ruining his fatherland with his fucked deconstructive work while he was in Britain since years and living his life as a normal "borgeouise" because of recitating his way through the parlors. Thats why we Germans call him a "Salonsozialist" - a parlor-socialist. Not leading the people with his ideas, he only did that for the good living. Fat jewish bastard. Nothing antisemite, but he was in fact a jew. Who really believes in communism can be compared with those shitheads who want to establish the global califate for allah and crush the old order.
Sigh. There's so so so many confusions in people's conception of basically all the decent political theories. I wish there was some way of actually getting it across to people en masse. I'd like to one day write some kind of book or something to explore philosophical/political book that's obscenely accessible and easy and free.
[QUOTE=Kellerbewohner;34392741]And that's why there will never be communism. Nations will forge to continental states rather then the state will extinct for that ridicolous madness the anti-german marx had unleashed on to this world. As a German I hate Marx. He was a traitor ruining his fatherland with his fucked deconstructive work while he was in Britain since years and living his life as a normal "borgeouise" because of recitating his way through the parlors. Thats why we Germans call him a "Salonsozialist" - a parlor-socialist. Not leading the people with his ideas, he only did that for the good living. Fat jewish bastard. Nothing antisemite, but he was in fact a jew. Who really believes in communism can be compared with those shitheads who want to establish the global califate for allah and crush the old order.[/QUOTE] honestly, all this shit about germany and hating marx 'as a german' makes you sound like a bigoted nationalist. isn't that a serbian (or something) war hero in your avatar? [editline]25th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kellerbewohner;34392017]As a European, a German to be more certain, I have much clearer view on both Capitalism and Communism because my nation was fucked and used by both[/QUOTE] you are a nationalist, aren't you?
[QUOTE=Karlos;34392846]honestly, all this shit about germany and hating marx 'as a german' makes you sound like a bigoted nationalist. isn't that a serbian (or something) war hero in your avatar? [editline]25th January 2012[/editline] you are a nationalist, aren't you?[/QUOTE] You got it, Captain Obvious. And I will die for my nation possibly. Civil war to get rid of the leftist menace is not pure fiction here in Europe if the people do not get rid of the actual leftist government in most states. I absolutely admire hungarys or even frances healthy national-strength and there cultural-awareness. I would go that far to that the only people who where killed by the Nazis out of real reason where the leftist enemies of the state and fatherland. I hope for a strong united Europe under French-German leadership to encounter future. I absolutely despise the leftist tactics of cultural-weakening through miss-migration, but with Frontex we'll keep that neo-bolshevik-cannon-fodder from Africa out.
Lol fash, enjoy your antifa beatings. Now do us all a favor and get out of this thread.
[QUOTE=Conscript;34393880]Lol fash, enjoy your antifa beatings. Now do us all a favor and get out of this thread.[/QUOTE] I am anti-communist, not a Nazi. By the way: I looked up that "knuckle dragger" insult of yours, racist.
[QUOTE=Kellerbewohner;34393968]I am anti-communist, not a Nazi. By the way: I looked up that "knuckle dragger" insult of yours, racist.[/QUOTE] The poster who called communists 'sub-human' is criticizing others for supposedly being racist?
facepunch double standards in action
I said fascist, not nazi. Freudian slip? Or just another right wing hooligan's stupid musings?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34392769]Sigh. There's so so so many confusions in people's conception of basically all the decent political theories. I wish there was some way of actually getting it across to people en masse. I'd like to one day write some kind of book or something to explore philosophical/political book that's obscenely accessible and easy and free.[/QUOTE] Which will then of course be ignored completely, as sensationalist trash. [editline]25th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kellerbewohner;34392741]And that's why there will never be communism. Nations will forge to continental states rather then the state will extinct for that ridicolous madness the anti-german marx had unleashed on to this world. As a German I hate Marx. He was a traitor ruining his fatherland with his fucked deconstructive work while he was in Britain since years and living his life as a normal "borgeouise" because of recitating his way through the parlors. Thats why we Germans call him a "Salonsozialist" - a parlor-socialist. Not leading the people with his ideas, he only did that for the good living. Fat jewish bastard. Nothing antisemite, but he was in fact a jew. Who really believes in communism can be compared with those shitheads who want to establish the global califate for allah and crush the old order.[/QUOTE] How do you know states will grow stronger? if people no longer want states, then states will absolve. And stop acting like all Germans are the same, they don't all hate Marx, and he was not anti-German. He may have head his heads in the cloud (that is up for debate) but he was good intentioned. And don't try and say you aren't anti-Semitic, you obviously are. If you weren't, you wouldn't have even brought his jewish-ness up.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34392769]Sigh. There's so so so many confusions in people's conception of basically all the decent political theories. I wish there was some way of actually getting it across to people en masse. I'd like to one day write some kind of book or something to explore philosophical/political book that's obscenely accessible and easy and free.[/QUOTE] Are you implying that people would actually read books? They would know about politics if they did. 80% of this thread is just confusion. Could people stop praising capitalism when it works only for the 3 richest poles of the world too? Of course it gets them rich, that's the whole point of capitalism. There are some pretty shitty capitalists country as well as autocracies. Capitalism doesn't always work, but apparently it seems to work more or less in some places. History has proved that communism doesn't always work, that doesn't mean it will never work. Besides saying communism is an utopia is obvious, capitalism is an utopia as well, ideologies embody utopias. They're applied and adapted to a social context to try and make them work. Maybe it's just that nobody has found a way to make communism work as of today. Stop spitting on things you don't know about, I don't support communism personally; And I can say that because I know exactly what I'm talking about (and it's not hard knowing, just read a few ~~books~~), instead of throwing shit like "those shitheads who want to establish global califate for allah and crush the old order"
Define "good" (since you can say that "better" is the one with more "good" I thought it to be efficient to go right for what I currently perceive to be the "root"). [editline]26th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Onirik;34396947]Could people stop praising capitalism when it works only for the 3 richest poles of the world too? Of course it gets them rich, that's the whole point of capitalism. There are some pretty shitty capitalists country as well as autocracies. Capitalism doesn't always work, but apparently it seems to work more or less in some places. History has proved that communism doesn't always work, that doesn't mean it will never work.[/QUOTE] Capitalism works in those places [i]because[/i] it doesn't in the other places. Also, above sentence, I'm not countering, I'm extending.
I believe it depends on the size of the country. Small = Communism, Big = Capitalism. I prefer Capitalism, but every system has a life cycle just like a humans life. Innocent as an infant, mid-life crises, and then it ages until it eventually dies.
[QUOTE=TGKhaotik;34407356]I believe it depends on the size of the country. Small = Communism, Big = Capitalism. I prefer Capitalism, but every system has a life cycle just like a humans life. Innocent as an infant, mid-life crises, and then it ages until it eventually dies.[/QUOTE] why can't Communism work for a big country?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34407604]why can't Communism work for a big country?[/QUOTE] Because, communism isn't meant for nations. As I've explained in another thread, communism is stateless. And we are not at the stage where we can develop into communism. Marx believed in stages of development, that being: Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, in that order. And, we cannot achieve utopian communism until the world is rid of capitalism and systems replaced with socialism. Socialists don't hate capitalism, as we feel that it was a necessary stage to develop our ideals. That stage, however, is coming to an end. Perhaps, I can explain this once and for all, and prevent having to repeat myself. Communism is stateless, classless, and moneyless. Members contribute to society, and they are rewarded in return. Therefore, communism is meant to work in a society based around smaller settlements. If you want a true example of communism, you need to look at Native American tribes. And to further that, the Soviet Union was not communist, China is not communist, and North Korea is not communist. Because, as I and many others have said before in this board, "communist nation" is an oxymoron. For the third time, communism is stateless. Once again, more input on communism by everyone's favorite thirteen year old.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;34408364]Because, communism isn't meant for nations. As I've explained in another thread, communism is stateless. And we are not at the stage where we can develop into communism. Marx believed in stages of development, that being: Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, in that order. And, we cannot achieve utopian communism until the world is rid of capitalism and systems replaced with socialism. Socialists don't hate capitalism, as we feel that it was a necessary stage to develop our ideals. That stage, however, is coming to an end. Perhaps, I can explain this once and for all, and prevent having to repeat myself. Communism is stateless, classless, and moneyless. Members contribute to society, and they are rewarded in return. Therefore, communism is meant to work in a society based around smaller settlements. If you want a true example of communism, you need to look at Native American tribes. And to further that, the Soviet Union was not communist, China is not communist, and North Korea is not communist. Because, as I and many others have said before in this board, "communist nation" is an oxymoron. For the third time, communism is stateless. Once again, more input on communism by everyone's favorite thirteen year old.[/QUOTE] I know, I know. I was refering to socialism, but decided not to bug him about his incorrect terminology.
Since this thread has little anti-communism in it anymore, how about we ask the next golden question, what tendency? There's leninism's divisors (stalinists and trots), anarchism, and left communism. Then we have others that don't even fit in to one of the 3 like luxemburgism and deleonism. I used to be rather marxist-leninist but I've recent become interested in the 'ultra-left' as it was slandered. IMO critiques of the USSR and M-L done by authors like pannekoek, paul mattick, and ernest mandel are refreshingly marxist critiques of 20th century socialism. This contrasted for me with Stalin's 'economic problems of the USSR' which unfortunately didn't really demonstrate any marxist POV on economy imo.
[QUOTE=Torjuz;34375209]By bringing reforms to the table, Gorbachev made the Soviet Union more open for people to say their meanings and why the Union had problems so they maybe could fix those problems. Still, It was communism, and by opening for debates, the union led to people saying they don't want the communism, then leading the union to fail.[/QUOTE] No. It was never communist. The Soviet Union was a socialist state and Gorbachev enacted a series of reforms like Glasnost and Perestroika which did the following: made the government more transparent and reduced restrictions on what people could say. This led to a huge wave of discussions, think tanks, and counter groups. Most people wanted things to change but not the whole system to collapse downright as it did (because Yeltsin and a few others successfully overthrew the Soviet parliament). Also, the atrocities of Stalin and similar leaders were put on the spotlight.
The question is a bit ambiguous as to what best is. You can make arguments about standard of living, overall happiness, economic mobility, the extreme poor, and so on, but even more so, you have to ask best for whom and to what end is in mind. Personally I'd like most to live in a voluntarism society which of course means anarchy. I would be in support of anarcho-capitalism, but individuals choosing an alternate system would be fine and acceptable. If an individual is happiest in a communist society or something similar, and there is no force involved, then that is their best option. I'd be quite interested to see how different individuals associate and how they like living most.
[QUOTE=Mythman;34384690]'True' Communism has never been properly implemented so you can't say it doesn't work. Capitalism has never been properly implemented either - there has never been a fully Capitalist economy. Also human nature is not inherently greedy - Liberalism promotes this idea but other ideologies offer a different definition.[/QUOTE] 'true' communism will never be implemented you dolt. Just like 'true' anything will never be implemented as peoples on opinions on what 'true <x> ' is.
[QUOTE=Pepin;34410916]The question is a bit ambiguous as to what best is. You can make arguments about standard of living, overall happiness, economic mobility, the extreme poor, and so on, but even more so, you have to ask best for whom and to what end is in mind. Personally I'd like most to live in a voluntarism society which of course means anarchy. I would be in support of anarcho-capitalism, but individuals choosing an alternate system would be fine and acceptable. If an individual is happiest in a communist society or something similar, and there is no force involved, then that is their best option. I'd be quite interested to see how different individuals associate and how they like living most.[/QUOTE] exactly why I don't get all the social vs individualist anarchy arguments. Sure I have my preference, but both would obviously exist, because forcing someone to join one or the other would be against anarchist principles.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.