Look, don't just state "humans are greedy" as fact. You have to provide some kind of evidence here because both sides disagree, and that's how a debate (or at least this section) is supposed to work.
im a free market dud
that being said to the guy aboooooooooove
China tried true Communism (OR SOME BACKWARDS CHINESE KNOCKOFF OF IT) and ended up mixing it with Capitalism in order to give incentives for workers to try harder.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not how you post in Mass Debate." - Megafan))[/highlight]
But then, China is probably one of the most hierarchical places you could possibly live on earth.
[QUOTE=Zally13;34859847]im a free market dud
that being said to the guy aboooooooooove
China tried true Communism (OR SOME BACKWARDS CHINESE KNOCKOFF OF IT) and ended up mixing it with Capitalism in order to give incentives for workers to try harder.[/QUOTE]
China never ever tried Marxist Communism. Proper Communism has [U]no state and complete freedom[/U] - pretty much the opposite of China.
The idea that Capitalism provides an incentive is, in my opinion, flawed. Sure it provides an incentive for companies to innovate and create new products. But if you are a Chinese worker working at Foxconn the only incentive you have for working is for staying alive. People have no choice but to work to stay alive - sure that is an incentive to work but it does not maximise someone's potential.
How do you define 'hard work' anyway?
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34783491]no, no, and no. you're thinking of kleptocracy.
[editline]20th February 2012[/editline]
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]
Not just economic reason, also due to the fact the Gorbachev tried to open the union so people could tell the leaders why people hated the union (If they told it before Gorbachev's time they would be killed) Then they learned about America and didn't want to be cut off to the whole world.
[editline]25th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megafan;34822952]Look, don't just state "humans are greedy" as fact. You have to provide some kind of evidence here because both sides disagree, and that's how a debate (or at least this section) is supposed to work.[/QUOTE]
Greedy is a personality that you either win over or lose to. It's the nemesis of Temperance.
[QUOTE=Mythman;34860807]China never ever tried Marxist Communism. Proper Communism has [U]no state and complete freedom[/U] - pretty much the opposite of China.
The idea that Capitalism provides an incentive is, in my opinion, flawed. Sure it provides an incentive for companies to innovate and create new products. But if you are a Chinese worker working at Foxconn the only incentive you have for working is for staying alive. People have no choice but to work to stay alive - sure that is an incentive to work but it does not maximise someone's potential.
How do you define 'hard work' anyway?[/QUOTE]
I define hard work as either physical strain in order to get a job done effectively OR innovative ideas to get a job done more effectively, cheaper, or better. That's not an incentive to work. That's a threat against not working. Instead of being rewarded for working, you're punished for not working.
And yeah, I agree with Marxism, I'm a pretty Anarchist person myself so I agree with many Marxist ideas.
[QUOTE=Zally13;34865286]I define hard work as either physical strain in order to get a job done effectively OR innovative ideas to get a job done more effectively, cheaper, or better. That's not an incentive to work. That's a threat against not working. Instead of being rewarded for working, you're punished for not working.
And yeah, I agree with Marxism, I'm a pretty Anarchist person myself so I agree with many Marxist ideas.[/QUOTE]
The main incentive to work in China isn't the fact that Capitalism provides a good incentive - its that you must work or else you will starve.
Would you class Philosophy as hard work? Would you class being a house husband/wife as hard work? Being a full-time carer for a relative is hard work?
This is the main gripe I have with Capitalism - it only rewards those who work hard within the system. Those that do not 'work hard' do not get much support.
[QUOTE=Mythman;34866180]The main incentive to work in China isn't the fact that Capitalism provides a good incentive - its that you must work or else you will starve.
Would you class Philosophy as hard work? Would you class being a house husband/wife as hard work? Being a full-time carer for a relative is hard work?
This is the main gripe I have with Capitalism - it only rewards those who work hard within the system. Those that do not 'work hard' do not get much support.[/QUOTE]
How is this necessarily a bad thing?
As an ex-Communist thinker, I have some input. The key mechanism of Communistic systems is the reliance on centralized economic schemes. On paper, Communism is a great idea because it allows standardized systems contributing to the public good to be contributed to by those with qualified merit. Because all systems would be monopolized by a centralizing entity, everything would be standardized and the whole of a Communistic country or society would reap benefits off of innovations or technologies spurred in one small portion of the society/country. No such thing as losers in such a society. If someone comes up with something almost as good as something else, but not good enough, their idea shouldn't be used; but it should fill up a text book to give others knowledge of the attempt and the person behind the failed idea won't be cast aside to face failure by the 'dictatorship of nature' (as opposed to businesses developing a failed idea and trying to market it as something it isn't just to make up for loss of time/money).
The problem is that we believe exploitation can only come from those not looking to serve the public good. Exploitation is not a factor solely derived from private interest. Exploitation can come from anywhere, due to incompetence or malevolence. In order for one to be a Communist, one has to have an optimistic mindset and a belief in the benevolence of government or whatever other entity (i.e: God, Sentient Artificial Intelligence, Aliens, Trans-Human Council of Elders) is in charge of the centralization scheme.
More often than not, however, we see these types of entities fail us in time of greatest need. Whether it's the flaw in human decision making (whether by sole dictators, a group of representatives in power, or even by plain mob rule) which prevents government from being useful, the lack of a sincere and felt presence in the case of God, the case of invading and conquering alien beings, the ever-growing fear of human obsoletion and termination from a strong AI presence, or the inclusive nature of human 'enhancement' which will by default create an inherent hierarchy of inequality within society. Either way, there are six ways from Sunday that 'benevolent' centralization schemes can end up fucking us over in the end, not even beginning to mention the idea of mafias, crime syndicates, and conspirators influencing the pillars of centralization for their own benefit. All in all, the Universe has a funny habit of telling us a great big "No."
At this moment of time, I feel patience and natural human evolution (not stimulated genetic engineering) is the one and true only way for the 'natural dictatorship' to benefit us (nature vs nature); not anything we try and manipulate or control or bureaucratize with human decision-making. That is all.
[QUOTE=Zally13;34889446]How is this necessarily a bad thing?[/QUOTE]
It all depends on what you define as hard work. I consider it a bad thing that Capitalism doesn't reward all the hard work that people put in.
Students don't earn money for working hard in their studies. Looking after a terminally ill relative does not earn you money.
Conversely, if your parents own a company and give you a job there does it mean you have worked hard to get there?
EDIT: My point was that people who work hard but do not participate in the Capitalist system receive no support. Charities do brilliant work yet they rely upon the the altruism of benefactors.
How should people be rewarded for looking after their ill relatives? It certainly shouldn't be through taxation. As for your parents owning a company, they should be welcome to hire whoever they want; it's only them who are at a loss if they arbitrarily hire a bad worker. Of course, I'd disagree with capitalism in as much as they "own" the company as private property is a foul invention, but the point still stands.
We shouldn't have an economic system that reflects hard work; it should reflect voluntary transactions alone. We should be free to associate with whoever we want. I have no stake in your terminally ill relatives so why should I be responsible for benefiting their carers?
I disagree with a few of capitalism's main tenets (i.e. private property) but not for the reasons you provide; it should be nobody's duty (in the sense of a legal obligation) to provide for anyone else.
[QUOTE=RaptillaMajor;34889980]The key mechanism of Communistic systems is the reliance on centralized economic schemes.[/QUOTE]
Now ya see, this is where you go wrong. Because the only communist thinkers who supported that were the Soviet Union's Bolsheviks and other 'right-communists', and certain brands of socialists- it is not descriptive nor generally supported by non-Bolsheviks, and was not the mainstream before 1921.
It (centralization) can be puled off, but not through a Marxist system, because, as Bakunin was keen to point out, the state would enact to continue its existence and work in favor of its self-interest. Marx was only half on board with the centralism issue- communism's final phase would see a decentralized anarchism, while the socialist transition phase was left undefined, though Marx did argue at times in favor of a centralized state (getting lots of flack from Bakunin. Bakunin's critiques of Marxism are good reads, although I think he goes a bit overboard on some issues). Lenin was the one who made that popular through the theories of the Vanguard Party and the Workers' State- it was an unpopular belief on the left but gained acceptance from 1917 until 1921. In 1921, opposition in Russia to the centralized state peaked and the Kronstadt Sailors (the very same (well, mostly) who participated in both the February Revolutions and October Revolutions) attempted a rebellion but failed because of the empowered centralized state. Two states that were "free" leftist, Soviet Hungary and the Free Territory in Ukraine, were both rejected as workers' states by the Bolsheviks, in no small part because both enacted horizontal industry and worker control of industry over Vanguardist version of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Lenin and Stalin both abused this greatly, and Trotsky and Bukharin gained from it, although both of the latter seemed to in part realize their mistakes too late (Trotsky was actually a major voice in Russia against a strong, centralized and controlling state for a while before the revolutions).
My point here is that the abuses of the centralized state are not characteristic of communist, socialist, and left anarchist theory as a whole and was the exception, not the rule. We only see it as such because of the prominence of the degenerative workers' state in history and the silencing of critics through state terrorism (unfortunately defended by Trotsky in 1920) by both fascism/revolutionary fascism and Bolshevism in Europe, where most leftist thinkers resided during the heyday of leftism, and persecution in the capitalist west at the same time.
Basically, if folks stepped out of the USSR-zone and looked at the less-commonly known leftists and read critiques and additions and commentary on leftist philosophy and policy at the time when it was the most applicable and the most accepted, you'll see that there's many different perspectives, with the dominant ones including the rejection of strong centralism, Vanguardism, Bolshevism, and state terrorism that lead to the degenerative workers' state. Hell, even the most-known critique (the critique of the degenerative workers' state) of that system was coined by Trotsky, another communist.
The people who say that communism, socialism, or leftism relies on a centralized means of production and a heavily centralized state often haven't read past Marx and Lenin, and even then have often not experienced critiques and commentary on those by other leftists, both now and then.
[editline]28th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34891300]
We shouldn't have an economic system that reflects hard work; it should reflect voluntary transactions alone. We should be free to associate with whoever we want. I have no stake in your terminally ill relatives so why should I be responsible for benefiting their carers?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I'm not in total agreement, but I'm wondering, just for the sake of curiosity, what you'd say to a anarchist-like economic system with horizontal employment and cooperative/worker-controlled/democratic/soviet industry.
This type of economy tends to see the employer as an unnatural parasite, but bases the ownership and decision making through democracy of those involved in the business or industry. It's still based around free association, and still a competitive free market, but it removes the private property aspect of the market.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34919754']Marx was only half on board with the centralism issue- communism's final phase would see a decentralized anarchism...[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I don't consider Anarchy a leftist policy, and Anarcho-Communism is just a new wave rethink of Anarchy.
The whole 'process' of a true Communist transition talked about by Marx is simply to let society experience a wave of out of control human decision making until everyone finally finds out that controlling things that can't be controlled (especially controlling others' wills and intent) is what leads to problems.
[QUOTE=RaptillaMajor;34920074]Sorry, but I don't consider Anarchy a leftist policy, and Anarcho-Communism is just a rethinking of Anarchy.[/QUOTE]
Aaaaand this is wrong also.
There's an extremely strong connection between early anarchism and Marxism. In fact, Marxism, 'socialism' and 'communism' of the pre-Marxist definition, and anarchism right up until the 1890s until that split that you're talking about (which, as most serious leftist thinkers know [i]started in no small part with Bakunin, who by today's standards would be an anarcho-communist[/i]) were indistinguishable. They were all clumped under the same banner of revolutionary socialism, and it wasn't until the 1890s that people started separating them seriously. Yea, sure, there were factions- the First International's famous Bakunin-Marx split, and Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme, but both sides had their roots in the successes of the Paris Commune.
Black-Flag anarchism as we know it today (I assume you're talking about individualist anarchism, synonymous with today's black-flag anarchism, which has pushed anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, council communism, and libertarian socialism to the minorities) is notably different, and not what I was talking about. That form of anarchism was a very small minority of anarchists until the 1920s, and even then anarcho-communism was the variety most identified with when someone said "anarchism".
In Marxism and thinkers parallel to Marx, communism (and I don't mean the entirety of Marxism, as you seemed to mean when you referred to it as communism above) was strictly decentralized and identical to at-the-time anarchism (anarcho-communism, council communism, etc, see list above).
You can see multiple references to this fact by Marx, Bakunin (who right out says it in Critique of the Marxist Theory of the State), and later thinkers like Goldman and Bukharin.
Also, you misused the word anarchy. Anarchy is a state of organization, not a political philosophy. You're thinking anarchism.
(PS, if you need some physical evidence, the [url=http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/index.htm]Marxist archive contains the most complete selection of works by Bakunin[/url]. Ask yourself why the Marxist archive would carry the works of the father of anarchism, if what I'm saying is incorrect?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34920292']Aaaaand this is wrong also.
There's an extremely strong connection between early anarchism and Marxism. In fact, Marxism, 'socialism' and 'communism' of the pre-Marxist definition, and anarchism right up until the 1890s until that split that you're talking about (which, as most serious leftist thinkers know [i]started in no small part with Bakunin, who by today's standards would be an anarcho-communist[/i]) were indistinguishable. They were all clumped under the same banner of revolutionary socialism, and it wasn't until the 1890s that people started separating them seriously. Yea, sure, there were factions- the First International's famous Bakunin-Marx split, and Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme, but both sides had their roots in the successes of the Paris Commune.
Black-Flag anarchism as we know it today (I assume you're talking about individualist anarchism, synonymous with today's black-flag anarchism, which has pushed anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, council communism, and libertarian socialism to the minorities) is notably different, and not what I was talking about. That form of anarchism was a very small minority of anarchists until the 1920s, and even then anarcho-communism was the variety most identified with when someone said "anarchism".
In Marxism and thinkers parallel to Marx, communism (and I don't mean the entirety of Marxism, as you seemed to mean when you referred to it as communism above) was strictly decentralized and identical to at-the-time anarchism (anarcho-communism, council communism, etc, see list above).
You can see multiple references to this fact by Marx, Bakunin (who right out says it in Critique of the Marxist Theory of the State), and later thinkers like Goldman and Bukharin.
Also, you misused the word anarchy. Anarchy is a state of organization, not a political philosophy. You're thinking anarchism.
(PS, if you need some physical evidence, the [url=http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/index.htm]Marxist archive contains the most complete selection of works by Bakunin[/url]. Ask yourself why the Marxist archive would carry the works of the father of anarchism, if what I'm saying is incorrect?[/QUOTE]
If you're meaning that the different forms of 'anarchism' are somehow different from traditional 'anarchy', you have to realize that man is a social creature. Never in history has what you called 'individualist anarchy' ever existed, at least in terms of life. It might be good to make distinguishments, I agree, but the idea is far from new or leftist, which is the main problem I'm having.
[QUOTE=RaptillaMajor;34920475]If you're meaning that the different forms of 'anarchism' are somehow different from traditional 'anarchy', you have to realize that man is a social creature. Never in history has what you call 'traditional anarchy' ever existed, thus any form of practical anarchy in the past was not individualist. It might be good to make distinguishments, I agree, but the idea is far from new or leftist, which is the main problem I'm having.[/QUOTE]
I'm not arguing any of that, other than this: Anarchism is a leftist philosophy and spawned directly form the socialism and revolutionary socialism of the early 17th century. You claimed that anarchism was not a leftist philosophy- it is.
And now I'm going to argue that. It did enact itself. Communism/left anarchism existed in the Free Territory, portions of the early Soviet Union/Russian Republic, the Paris Commune, and in parts of Republican Spain- all very briefly. I'm surprised you don't know this, if you were once a communist or similar- even the most basic reader of Marx knows his praise and commentary on the Paris Commune.
I'm not arguing for individualist anarchism, or that it was ever carried out. I never said that. I said the opposite- traditional anarchism is anarcho-communism, not the other way around. I'm confused as to if you're actually reading my posts or not, because not only are you agreeing with me as a counter, but you seem to be missing the explanations and not speaking of them at all.
[QUOTE=Torjuz;34372379]Before every American goes ahead and says Capitalism...
Think of it as a theoretical battle. Don't bring in "Vietnam was bad" or something.
See on each system in theoretical way, and not the follows that happens when we brought them to life.
[B]Examples[/B]
Communism gave workers free jobs,school and medicines = Good
The work routines might be bad because of low investment = Bad
Capitalism takes money for medical help and schools = Bad
The schools and medical help is much better since they earn money by people using them = Good
Go ahead and don't flame. See both in perspectives.[/QUOTE]
IIRC China is the only communist county growing, and all the others(except maybe Cuba) have shit economies.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34920571']I'm not arguing any of that, other than this: Anarchism is a leftist philosophy and spawned directly form the socialism and revolutionary socialism of the early 17th century. You claimed that anarchism was not a leftist philosophy- it is.
And now I'm going to argue that. It did enact itself. Communism/left anarchism existed in the Free Territory, portions of the early Soviet Union/Russian Republic, the Paris Commune, and in parts of Republican Spain- all very briefly. I'm surprised you don't know this, if you were once a communist or similar- even the most basic reader of Marx knows his praise and commentary on the Paris Commune.
I'm not arguing for individualist anarchism, or that it was ever carried out. I never said that. I said the opposite- traditional anarchism is anarcho-communism, not the other way around. I'm confused as to if you're actually reading my posts or not, because not only are you agreeing with me as a counter, but you seem to be missing the explanations and not speaking of them at all.[/QUOTE]
I'd still say the policy is not leftist, despite the idea being thought up under leftist conditions. I'm complaining about the label of the idea as 'leftist', as I have great trouble labeling ideas under one banner over another. I prefer the humble route of letting ideas express themselves without needing to be placed under a specific light. There is no solid definition for left and right, other than opinionated bias. I'd rather not subject great ideas to simple minded word associations, as paradigms like left-right labelling divide humanity. Anarchism can be viewed as a right policy simply because of its abherance to natural law, which I referenced as the 'natural dictatorship'. Though I agree I'm probably a hypocrite in other areas, which is another reason I distrust human decision making.
[QUOTE=RaptillaMajor;34920941]I'd still say the policy is not leftist, despite the idea being thought up under leftist conditions. I'm complaining about the label of the idea as 'leftist', as I have great trouble labeling ideas under one banner over another. I prefer the humble route of letting ideas express themselves without needing to be placed under a specific light. There is no solid definition for left and right, other than opinionated bias. I'd rather not subject great ideas to such a system, as paradigms like left-right labelling divide humanity. Anarchism can be viewed as a right policy simply because of its abherance to natural law, which I referenced as the 'natural dictatorship'.[/QUOTE]
Yes, sure, for individualist and black-flag anarchism. But for leftist anarchism, like the list I've stated previous, it is clearly a left philosophy as much as communism.
Arguing it shouldn't be labeled as either right or left is semantics and serves only to be ignorant of the history and relation, as well as the philosophy, behind the ideology. Regardless of if you label it as such, traditional anarchism is leftist and spawned as such. It's not a division, it's a measure.
[editline]28th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=gk99;34920787]IIRC China is the only communist county growing, and all the others(except maybe Cuba) have shit economies.[/QUOTE]
Considering how there's only 5 nations that identify as communist now, that's like saying that only 2/5 of communist countries have growing economies. Kind of silly, since it's such a small amount.
And that's technically not even right- Cuba, China, Laos, and Vietnam are all growing. So that's 4/5.
If you count the states that identify as Marxist (which I believe are Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador), all are increasing in GDP.
Korea is the only one that's doing shit out of the bunch. All of them are shit countries, really, but that's not due to communism itself, it's due to Vanguardism and Leninist-Marxism.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34920985']Yes, sure, for individualist and black-flag anarchism. But for leftist anarchism, like the list I've stated previous, it is clearly a left philosophy as much as communism.
Arguing it shouldn't be labeled as either right or left is semantics and serves only to be ignorant of the history and relation, as well as the philosophy, behind the ideology. Regardless of if you label it as such, traditional anarchism is leftist and spawned as such. It's not a division, it's a measure.[/QUOTE]
An interpretive measure which encourages division. Humans have notoriously associative minds, and it'd be great if swell ideas had more of a chance to pervade such minds if there were no associations to those ideas that would act as deterrents.
[QUOTE=RaptillaMajor;34921111]An interpretive measure which encourages division. Humans have notoriously associative minds, and it'd be great if swell ideas had more of a chance to pervade such minds if there were no associations to those ideas that would act as deterrents.[/QUOTE]
It's silly, though, to try not to identify something with a measure on a political spectrum. That's like saying we shouldn't be measuring anything at all, or naming anything, or labeling anything. It's not a matter of division, it's a matter of measurement and position on topics and issues, and that's all there is to it. I am left-wing. They are right-wing. If there was no method of labeling or measuring our positions, we'd be indistinguishable in out beliefs. And that's a lie, because there's a clear difference between an anarchist, communist, or socialist and a conservative, fascist, or classical libertarian.
Might as well just get rid of names now, too. We're all humans. Us on the internet? All users. I'm not [Seed Eater] and you aren't RaptillaMajor, we're "users". Rhinos and cats? Animals. Venus and Uranus? Only planets, nothing more to it than that, no reason to measure or distinguish between them.
Your philosophy is as silly as your understanding of leftist thought.
Pardon if I come off as harsh, or am using a strawman, I'm a materialist.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34921213']It's silly, though, to try not to identify something with a measure on a political spectrum. That's like saying we shouldn't be measuring anything at all, or naming anything, or labeling anything. It's not a matter of division, it's a matter of measurement and position on topics and issues, and that's all there is to it. I am left-wing. They are right-wing. If there was no method of labeling or measuring our positions, we'd be indistinguishable in out beliefs. And that's a lie, because there's a clear difference between an anarchist, communist, or socialist and a conservative, fascist, or classical libertarian.
Might as well just get rid of names now, too. We're all humans. Us on the internet? All users. I'm not [Seed Eater] and you aren't RaptillaMajor, we're "users". Rhinos and cats? Animals. Venus and Uranus? Only planets, nothing more to it than that, no reason to measure or distinguish between them.
Your philosophy is as silly as your understanding of leftist thought.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying to do away with associative thought, at least unless and until we evolve/change. We should, however, take caution in presentation over notorious and sensitive issues. Someone on the right could find peace with a great idea someone on the left would if they didn't have any pre-misconceptions over that idea, simply by looking at its content rather than its label. It might be nit-picky for most things, I agree, but as I've implied: nit-pickiness tends to counts on sensitive issues.
[QUOTE=RaptillaMajor;34921274]I'm not saying to do away with associative thought, at least unless and until we evolve/change. We should, however, take caution in presentation over notorious and sensitive issues. Someone on the right could find peace with a great idea someone on the left would if they didn't have any pre-misconceptions over that idea, simply by looking at its content rather than its label. It might be nit-picky for most things, I agree, but as I've implied: nit-pickiness tends to counts on sensitive issues.[/QUOTE]
Ah, but those folks on the left and right agree on things and have their on portions on the political spectrum. They're accounted for and measured. That's what the measure is there for. Chances are if they're ignoring an idea from the left or the right that they would normally agree with simply because of the label, then that's part of their politics just as much as agreeing with it, and not the fault or in any way due to a label or measure.
Regardless, this is now off track and has nothing to do with the issue.
Let's see: Capitalism or Communism, which is best? Well, one works and creates a functional society and one doesn't. Hmm. Capitalism?
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is NOT how to post in Mass Debate" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Slight;34922121]Let's see: Capitalism or Communism, which is best? Well, one works and creates a functional society and one doesn't. Hmm. Capitalism?[/QUOTE]
"Hey guys I don't know anything about communism besides what my eight-grade social studies class taught me."
If you call a system whereby someone must voluntarily subvert themselves to a property-owner in order to receive the necessities to live "functioning", especially in a system that promotes greed, self-promotion, and exploitation, then I don't agree with you.
If you prefer one with free association between labor and government, voluntary markets based on true participatory concepts, and a limited state, then that's communism.
If you're doing that thing that people uneducated on the most basic concepts of leftist political philosophy do where they look at the history of the Marxist state since 1917, point, and say, "Look at this failure!", then you're using a tired and dried argument that's been debated and debunked several times in this thread alone that simply proves that you know little about the topic at hand.
Both are perfect systems, and, when applied correctly, are perfect. The problem is undoubtedly human, with the main human problem being corruption.
The question is, which system is more resistant to human corruption and is most able to self-correct? Is there another political system that does this better?
[QUOTE=Splooosh;34923100]Both are perfect systems, and, when applied correctly, are perfect. The problem is undoubtedly human, with the main human problem being corruption.
The question is, which system is more resistant to human corruption and is most able to self-correct? Is there another political system that does this better?[/QUOTE]
I don't believe that saying they're perfect systems is correct if they're susceptible to corruption. However I do agree with the whole "which system is more resistant to human corruption" idea. I think that true Capitalism is a neat idea that turns greed into a driving force to turn the cogs of economics, and works pretty well.
I believe humans, for the most part, want to do what is best for them. This is not wrong, but merely how nature seems to be. The strongest, smartest, most adaptable (Darwin, I guess) thrive compared to the rest. To take a type of governance that fosters this while not destroying the lower people seems to be required.
I'm not entirely sure on what that would be.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater]Well, I'm not in total agreement, but I'm wondering, just for the sake of curiosity, what you'd say to a anarchist-like economic system with horizontal employment and cooperative/worker-controlled/democratic/soviet industry.
This type of economy tends to see the employer as an unnatural parasite, but bases the ownership and decision making through democracy of those involved in the business or industry. It's still based around free association, and still a competitive free market, but it removes the private property aspect of the market.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly the kind of economy I had in mind. :)
I've been listening to a good amount of Soviet military anthems on Youtube, and in the comments section all I've seen video after video is "hail communism!" this and "fuck capitalism all hail the cccp!" that. It simply strikes me as amazing that the people on these videos that romanticize the Soviet Union know almost nothing about the actual history of what comprised the USSR, or why it fell apart.
Hell, even I'm not entirely sure why it fell apart. Why did they focus so much on military industrialization after the second World War? Why didn't they focus more on growing their internal economy and developing their social sciences and political system? It's as if their strategy of "intense militarization as a method of defense" is what brought them to their knees.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;34956388]After WW2, The West had made it very clear it will not continue to be as friendly towards the USSR as it was during the war by supplying it with massive amounts of supplies and resources.
The fact that the Soviet Union (rightfully, if you ask me*) annexed massive amounts of German land infuriated Churchill, who actually informed Roosevelt of what was going on since he was completely oblivious somehow. Everyone wanted a piece of Berlin, and the fact that the Soviets swiftly and brutally took it all for themselves set the tone for after peace was declared. That's why the SU decided to take up arms to even further defend itself against much bigger opponents than Germany. The hostility just grew from there.
*The reason I believe that the SU deserved the entirety (or at least, 90%) of Germany is the fact that they were the ones that took the biggest amount of casualties, and were by far the greatest contributors to the defeat of Germany. The United States clearly didn't even give a fuck about what was going on in Europe until Pearl Harbor - and even then, only joined the war at a much later stage when all the real fighting was happening at the Eastern Front. The fact that there are Americans who actually believe they 'saved Europe' or 'liberated' anything is appalling to me, but irrelevant.
When it comes to the UK, I suppose they deserved a portion of Germany as well, considering their commendable achievements in curbing the Afrika Korps and providing little support in air operations in Europe.
One could argue that the carpet bombardment of civilian factories by the US and UK to be a decisive factor in crippling German production, and it might be so, but even if they hadn't done it, it would only be a matter of time until the Soviets did. So maybe the war wouldn't be over by 1945 but drag a little onwards into '6 and '7. But Soviet victory was guaranteed regardless of Western intervention or the establishment of a second front.[/QUOTE]
And what of the large-scale Allied operations in Italy? Or in German-occupied France? To say that the Americans were not doing anything of note in Europe during the war is preposterous.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.