[QUOTE=wanksta11;34411952]Thing is you can't have a perfect communist system in a world where other countrys are capitalistic.[/QUOTE]
Exactly! Thank you, someone finally understands that! The world's capitalistic systems must be replaced by socialism before any attempt at true communism is made. Socialism is on it's way in, as there is a growing and overwhelming number of socialist youth, myself included.
Can someone expand upon that because I don't quite understand the rational behind the statement.
[QUOTE=Surma;34405897]
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.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. There's a whole lot of other reasons though, but this one might be the biggest.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34394923]Which will then of course be ignored completely, as sensationalist trash.
[editline]25th January 2012[/editline]
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]
Fucking Red-Fascist. You can't be German and be a Communist.
I have more respect for the self-declared "Anti-German" leftists who
also accept that fact, then those Marxist-Socialist Red-Fascists
who hail Lenin, Stalin and Kim Jong Aristocrats...
LOL I just brought it up because he was a fat old parlon-socialist who
himself had anti-jewish tendencies. Look it up:
Karl Marx - Zur Judenfrage
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question[/URL]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This isn't how you debate." - rilez))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Pepin;34418641]Can someone expand upon that because I don't quite understand the rational behind the statement.[/QUOTE]
Because communists and capitalists have opposing interests that necessarily lead them to conflict, like how monarchists. feared and despised outbreaks of republicanism because it destablized them. That and having a section of the world's resources cut off from the international working class means there is less wealth being produced to be enjoyed by all. Also, enclaves of capitalism are, and have been historically, safehouses for the expropriated bourgeoisie and any capital they escaped with and are launching points for counter revolution.
It just boils down to irreconciliable class antagonisms that transcend the national scale and becomes a world wide struggle.
[QUOTE=Xperia;34373001]Alittle bit of both. It's called Socialism.[/QUOTE]
Here's a story of why Socialism won't work...
There was this college professor that taught some social studies class, he had never failed a single student except for the last semester, the entire class failed. When asked about this he explained that it was because they had tried an experiment. The class had been in an uproar trying to argue over Socialism or Capitalism, so the professor stepped in and decided it was easier to show them than explain to them why Socialism won't work. He decided that he would exchange money with grades, something easier to relate to in a student world. Instead of giving each person their earned grade, they would average the entire class and everyone would get the same grade. Now this worked well the first time, everyone got a nice solid 'B' on the test, the kids who studied hard and worked hard felt rather poorly of their grade, the kids who didn't study or even try were very pleased. The next time a test came about the top students decided they didn't want to have to work so hard and were going to go along for the ride as well, the average grade dropped to a 'C'. By the end of the semester the grades of the students were all an 'F' as none of the students bothered to even try to succeed.
By this story we learn something, Socialism gives reward for the lazy and removes the rewards for those who try to succeed, it is therefore easily concluded that without a strict controlling government to keep people working, the Socialist state would simply fall into poverty and be destroyed.
Also by this conclusion we can draw that Socialist and Communist methods work very well in third world countries that can sport a oppressive and controlling government while a first world country that has freedoms and rights cannot as the people will not stand for such governments.
[QUOTE=Pepin;34418641]Can someone expand upon that because I don't quite understand the rational behind the statement.[/QUOTE]
well communism is a type of anarchism, and anarchism would be impossible with capitalist countries still around (actually, any countries most likely). Well, at least that's my perspective.
[editline]27th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=The one that is;34423768]Here's a story of why Socialism won't work...
There was this college professor that taught some social studies class, he had never failed a single student except for the last semester, the entire class failed. When asked about this he explained that it was because they had tried an experiment. The class had been in an uproar trying to argue over Socialism or Capitalism, so the professor stepped in and decided it was easier to show them than explain to them why Socialism won't work. He decided that he would exchange money with grades, something easier to relate to in a student world. Instead of giving each person their earned grade, they would average the entire class and everyone would get the same grade. Now this worked well the first time, everyone got a nice solid 'B' on the test, the kids who studied hard and worked hard felt rather poorly of their grade, the kids who didn't study or even try were very pleased. The next time a test came about the top students decided they didn't want to have to work so hard and were going to go along for the ride as well, the average grade dropped to a 'C'. By the end of the semester the grades of the students were all an 'F' as none of the students bothered to even try to succeed.
By this story we learn something, Socialism gives reward for the lazy and removes the rewards for those who try to succeed, it is therefore easily concluded that without a strict controlling government to keep people working, the Socialist state would simply fall into poverty and be destroyed.
Also by this conclusion we can draw that Socialist and Communist methods work very well in third world countries that can sport a oppressive and controlling government while a first world country that has freedoms and rights cannot as the people will not stand for such governments.[/QUOTE]
That is a horrible example. If that professor was real, he doesn't know anything about communism, or socialism. SOCIALISM IS NOT ABOUT WAGE EQUALITY. Those who work hard in a socialist country will still get payed more. The only difference is that all business's are community-owned, meaning money is not wasted paying CEO's that do almost nothing. Socialists countries would also usually have welfare to prevent anyone from starving, or going without a home. This does not mean they would take money from the hard workers.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34424564]well communism is a type of anarchism, and anarchism would be impossible with capitalist countries still around (actually, any countries most likely). Well, at least that's my perspective.[/QUOTE]
The response doesn't make sense as capitalism is not a function of a state. The entire idea of a free market is based around a market operating without any force. I understand the idea that the state currently backs up markets such as big banks, but this is not a function of capitalism as it requires force.
[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]
quoting this for truth.
[editline]28th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pepin;34434047]The response doesn't make sense as capitalism is not a function of a state. The entire idea of a free market is based around a market operating without any force. I understand the idea that the state currently backs up markets such as big banks, but this is not a function of capitalism as it requires force.[/QUOTE]
"We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
nice dude
[QUOTE=Pepin;34434047]The response doesn't make sense as capitalism is not a function of a state. The entire idea of a free market is based around a market operating without any force. I understand the idea that the state currently backs up markets such as big banks, but this is not a function of capitalism as it requires force.[/QUOTE]
What you're referring to, genuine laissez-faire capitalism, is not at all the type of capitalism your every day person has in mind. Capitalism is probably most commonly referring to corporate capitalism, the form we most resemble at the moment. Corporate capitalism is [I]very much[/I] a state endorsed pursuit.
[QUOTE=Pepin;34434047]The response doesn't make sense as capitalism is not a function of a state. The entire idea of a free market is based around a market operating without any force. I understand the idea that the state currently backs up markets such as big banks, but this is not a function of capitalism as it requires force.[/QUOTE]
I don't fully understand the whole idea of capitalism making socialism impossible either. I was just assuming they meant capitalist countries, since I believe stateless capitalism and communism could mix fine.
Hooverist capitalism is a little bit better than Communism because you don't have to have a prick dictator in order to make people go to work; they do so if they can on their own. But the problem with both is that they concentrate power too much in small groups of individuals, or one individual. Communism give the government way too much power and Hooverist capitalism gives millionaires too much power and allows them to be corrupt. Although, despite the track record that many corporations have, I wouldn't want to live in a world without them. I am a... capitalistic socialist if you will.
[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;34436061]Hooverist capitalism is a little bit better than Communism because you don't have to have a prick dictator in order to make people go to work; they do so if they can on their own. But the problem with both is that they concentrate power too much in small groups of individuals, or one individual. Communism give the government way too much power and Hooverist capitalism gives millionaires too much power and allows them to be corrupt. Although, despite the track record that many corporations have, I wouldn't want to live in a world without them. I am a... capitalistic socialist if you will.[/QUOTE]
except the prick dictator is replaced by a prick CEO. And communism doesn't need dictators to run; in it's purest sense, it can't be dictatorial.
[QUOTE=Pepin;34434047]The response doesn't make sense as capitalism is not a function of a state. The entire idea of a free market is based around a market operating without any force. I understand the idea that the state currently backs up markets such as big banks, but this is not a function of capitalism as it requires force.[/QUOTE]
Capitalism cannot function without a state, anarcho-capitalists do not actually dismantle the state. They smash the nation-state and relegate its duties to the individual. This may clash with the anarchism in anarcho-capitalism, but its still very preferable for the 'rugged individualist' type.
There always has to be something to protect private property. Non-aggression principles fall to pieces in the face of class conflict of interests.
Yes, capitalism is not a state function or a product of the state, the state can even take its own path to an extent (until they're outside of liberal capitalism), but the modern national state is a well-oiled capitalist machine that manages the affairs of national capital. It suppresses class struggle, makes welfarist concessions to the working class (funded by capital, but ultimately in its interest), and defends national capital from aggression of other states.
You could say the modern state is part of the development of advanced and consolidated capitalism.
This the reasoning for working class communist anarchism, and IMO, the only true anarchism.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34436565]except the prick dictator is replaced by a prick CEO. And communism doesn't need dictators to run; in it's purest sense, it can't be dictatorial.[/QUOTE]
While out of technicality, a communist country shouldn't have a dictator, a tyrannical (yes, I know us Americans use that word too often), the people have no incentive to work other than out of the goodness of their hearts. And many people will work, but it has a similar problem to capitalism in that it relies too much on people doing the right thing. There are prick CEO's who have way too much god damn power, but not quite as much as a dictator. This is why I believe that corporations should exist, but be regulated.
[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;34436714]While out of technicality, a communist country shouldn't have a dictator, a tyrannical (yes, I know us Americans use that word too often), the people have no incentive to work other than out of the goodness of their hearts. And many people will work, but it has a similar problem to capitalism in that it relies too much on people doing the right thing. There are prick CEO's who have way too much god damn power, but not quite as much as a dictator. This is why I believe that corporations should exist, but be regulated.[/QUOTE]
but they would work for the same reason we work: to get payed, to get food.
Communism is not feasible so Capitalism wins.
Simple as that.
[QUOTE=Conscript;34436579]Capitalism cannot function without a state, anarcho-capitalists do not actually dismantle the state. They smash the nation-state and relegate its duties to the indiviual. This may clash with the anarchism in anarcho-capitalism, but its still very preferable for the 'rugged individualist' type.[/quote]
I can't really understand the logic here because you are just making claims. Essentially the claim is that market based economies are created by the central power of force, which is intuitively incorrect and historically incorrect. There is no state power in a anarcho-capitalistic society as there is no legitimate mechanism of force. The power of state force would be abandoned as opposed to transferred.
[QUOTE=Conscript;34436579]There always has to be something to protect private property. Non-aggression principles fall to pieces in the face of class conflict of interests.[/quote]
You need to expand upon this as I'd have to assume far too much to make any sort of response. Furthermore, if I did make a response I'd also have to make up the evidence I'd imagine you'd use to back up your claims.
[QUOTE=Conscript;34436579]Yes, capitalism is not a state function or a product of the state, the state can even take its own path to an extent (until they're outside of liberal capitalism), but the modern national state is a well-oiled capitalist machine that manages the affairs of national capital. It suppresses class struggle, makes welfarist concessions to the working class (funded by capital, but ultimately in its interest), and defends national capital from aggression of other states.[/quote]
We can both agree on the illegitimacy of the state, but it is important to realize that this discussion will work best if we use similar definitions. Capitalism cannot involve force as it can only describe voluntary transactions. Anything involving force cannot describe capitalism. You seem to be defining capitalism as the means of requiring capital through force.
[QUOTE=Conscript;34436579]You could say the modern state is part of the development of advanced and consolidated capitalism. [/QUOTE]
I would say it doesn't make sense to associate the state with capitalism as the state is force. It would be like saying mugging someone of their possessions is just the same as acquiring them through voluntary transactions.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34438976]Communism is not feasible so Capitalism wins.
Simple as that.[/QUOTE]
man, the logic and reasoning behind that are quite outstanding! Thank you for the in depth explanation of how communism is not feasible.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34438976]Communism is not feasible so Capitalism wins.
Simple as that.[/QUOTE]
Well now that you put like that, it's so clear!
I'll let all the Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists know they can pack it in.
[QUOTE=Pepin;34439108]I can't really understand the logic here because you are just making claims. Essentially the claim is that market based economies are created by the central power of force, which is intuitively incorrect and historically incorrect.[/quote]
That's not what I said at all. I said that a state is necessary for a capitalist society to function, not that its a product of the 'central power of force'. The two bring each other into reality, actually.
[QUOTE=Pepin;34439108]There is no state power in a anarcho-capitalistic society as there is no legitimate mechanism of force. The power of state force would be abandoned as opposed to transferred.[/quote]
A state has a monopoly on legitimate force in an area. Anarcho-capitalism would merely reapply this to all individuals who possess capital, and thus who own land. Private defense would simply replace official national defense. It would be a new feudalism.
[quote]You need to expand upon this as I'd have to assume far too much to make any sort of response. Furthermore, if I did make a response I'd also have to make up the evidence I'd imagine you'd use to back up your claims.[/quote]
There isn't anything to expand on. What's stopping workers from seizing a canned food factory, for example, you own and using it feed themselves in an anarcho-capitalist society? What's stopping hungry people from taking your products by force? Obviously something must be, and it's not going to be the working class or the hungry themselves, though they'll end up funding it, thus the state.
[quote]We can both agree on the illegitimacy of the state, but it is important to realize that this discussion will work best if we use similar definitions. Capitalism cannot involve force as it can only describe voluntary transactions. Anything involving force cannot describe capitalism. You seem to be defining capitalism as the means of requiring capital through force.[/quote]
That is entirely arbitrary. Capitalism is a system of privatized means of production run for a profit. Whether it consists of a bunch of small capitalists each respecting each other's property rights or an all-encompassing state, there is commodity production, accumulation of capital, exploitation of labor, and private property claims being enforced.
It is [i]not[/i] a set of principles to be implemented, as you view it. It is a consequence of having the means of production privately owned.
[quote]I would say it doesn't make sense to associate the state with capitalism as the state is force. It would be like saying mugging someone of their possessions is just the same as acquiring them through voluntary transactions.[/QUOTE]
The state is force? What the hell does that mean? The capitalist state, rather, is the culmination of the coercive tools used to protect and advance the interests of its constituent: private property. You make it sound like it's just a coercive asshole existing for the sake of it.
Capitalism is a material reality humans act accordingly in, not a bunch of morals. It is not to be decreed by you when you are satisfied with any voluntary aspects of it. Bismarck's state-dominated germany is just as capitalist as malaysia, or whatever that obscure asian country free marketeers hark to so much is called. Why? Because it is a [i]mode of production[/i] and [i]not a set of liberalism-inspired principles[/i]
[QUOTE=Pepin;34439108]We can both agree on the illegitimacy of the state, but it is important to realize that this discussion will work best if we use similar definitions. Capitalism cannot involve force as it can only describe voluntary transactions. Anything involving force cannot describe capitalism. You seem to be defining capitalism as the means of requiring capital through force.[/QUOTE]
This is where the dispute is. You're talking purely about laissez-faire capitalism, whereas there's other forms of capitalism that do rely on state coercion. I'm of the position that enforcement of private property (as it's known today) is illegitimate and requires illegitimate coercion, but that's a different story.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34439249]Well now that you put like that, it's so clear!
I'll let all the Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists know they can pack it in.[/QUOTE]
This thread is only about Communism and Capitalism. Out of the two, Capitalism obviously wins because Communism always inevitably leads to dictatorship
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34451022]This thread is only about Communism and Capitalism. Out of the two, Capitalism obviously wins because Communism always inevitably leads to dictatorship[/QUOTE]
Capitalism inevitably leads to huge excesses of power and is immoral even in principle. Even if communism actually did invariably lead to dictatorship (which, if enacted properly and not by paranoid cunts), at least its principles aren't absolutely fucked.
[QUOTE=Conscript;34439935]That's not what I said at all. I said that a state is necessary for a capitalist society to function, not that its a product of the 'central power of force'. The two bring each other into reality, actually.[/quote]
You made a claim, where is the evidence to back it up? You haven't provided a reason why a state is necessary, and if you have, you aren't conveying the reason in a way that is easily interpreted by someone who isn't familiar with your use of terms and thinking.
[QUOTE=Conscript;34439935]A state has a monopoly on legitimate force in an area. Anarcho-capitalism would merely reapply this to all individuals who possess capital, and thus who own land. Private defense would simply replace official national defense. It would be a new feudalism.[/quote]
The use of force could only be initiated in retaliation to force. If someone punches you, you are allowed to retaliate with force. The State typically never uses force according the the non-aggression principle.
Private defense and law is pretty interesting and would be an incredible system. There is a lot about the possible systems that might emerge, the most popular being insurance companies. They would have full incentive not to use violence and to ensure that their customers as safe.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw[/media]
[QUOTE=Conscript;34439935]There isn't anything to expand on. What's stopping workers from seizing a canned food factory, for example, you own and using it feed themselves in an anarcho-capitalist society? What's stopping hungry people from taking your products by force? Obviously something must be, and it's not going to be the working class or the hungry themselves, though they'll end up funding it, thus the state.[/quote]
You're equating a system of private security with the state. It doesn't make all that much sense to do. If you're trying to say that a function that the state previously had (security) will be done by private insurance companies, then that is true, but it doesn't at all imply a state. It is a faulty syllogism.
[QUOTE=Conscript;34439935]That is entirely arbitrary. Capitalism is a system of privatized means of production run for a profit. Whether it consists of a bunch of small capitalists each respecting each other's property rights or an all-encompassing state, there is commodity production, accumulation of capital, exploitation of labor, and private property claims being enforced.
It is [i]not[/i] a set of principles to be implemented, as you view it. It is a consequence of having the means of production privately owned.[/quote]
Though your definition is accurate, it is important to include the idea of voluntary transactions. It is a term that describes how the free market operates, and force isn't something that is associated with the free market. Again, you are using a faulty syllogism in assuming that two things are the same because they have some similarities.
[QUOTE=Conscript;34439935]The state is force? What the hell does that mean? The capitalist state, rather, is the culmination of the coercive tools used to protect and advance the interests of its constituent: private property. You make it sound like it's just a coercive asshole existing for the sake of it.
Capitalism is a material reality humans act accordingly in, not a bunch of morals. It is not to be decreed by you when you are satisfied with any voluntary aspects of it. Bismarck's state-dominated germany is just as capitalist as malaysia, or whatever that obscure asian country free marketeers hark to so much is called. Why? Because it is a [i]mode of production[/i] and [i]not a set of liberalism-inspired principles[/i][/QUOTE]
This discussion isn't going to go anywhere if it is going to be about semantically based. It would be like if you told me what communism was, and then I told you what it was, and then there is some pointless back and forth just trying to define a term.
You seem a bit sensational and it might help to become a little less so because it would be easier to have a discussion that way.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34444032]This is where the dispute is. You're talking purely about laissez-faire capitalism, whereas there's other forms of capitalism that do rely on state coercion.[/quote]
Right, and though we disagree, at least we understand that it makes most sense to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34451022]This thread is only about Communism and Capitalism. Out of the two, Capitalism obviously wins because Communism always inevitably leads to dictatorship[/QUOTE]
always? It has only happened a few times, and most were following in the footsteps of Russia.
Capitalism, markets thrive.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34455884]always? It has only happened a few times, and most were following in the footsteps of Russia.[/QUOTE]
It's happened every single time communism has been tried at a scale larger than a single city
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34456893]It's happened every single time communism has been tried at a scale larger than a single city[/QUOTE]
If by 'every single time', you mean the veritable handful of times it's been tried at the state level. Hardly compares to the amount of chances Capitalism has had in different areas of the world, not to mention the fact that any attempt at true Communism past about 1920 was stamped out either by a Soviet fist (hegemony over satellite states in Eastern Europe) or a US fist (containment policy).
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34456893]It's happened every single time communism has been tried at a scale larger than a single city[/QUOTE]
That's because they all followed in Stalin's footsteps, so of course they became like Russia. And even then, communism has only occurred a few times. That's like saying all republics become dictatorships because the Roman republic did.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.