ForumsWEPRCommunism and Capitalism

126 32785
Drace
offline
Drace
3,900 posts
Peasant

I wanted to open up this topic again...
Hopefully I will get some thoughtful responses :-$
______

I think most people have the wrong view of communism.


The "equal pay" and the "you cant achieve anything" are not much to say. One whole thing of communists want to change is taking away the attention of people away from money. People are not born greedy. It is rather that we try to achieve. Who is to say people are born wanting to get more and more money? We just try to achieve goals. Look at Armorgames. The community here does not get anything over another, yet we are working our asses off trying to get AP. What we call greed comes from the process of people getting money, which usually involves "bad" behavior (The business world is cruel). Bill Gates, however rich, is not greedy.

Capitalism is like taking all of a persons freedoms away at birth and selling it to them when they can afford it it. You cant live without money. You rely on others for earning this money, but those who give it to you dont care of you. Employees are just concerned with getting their profit off you. The problem is, the road to getting a good job, housing, medical care, insurances, etc, are very though and cricket. There is no system for it. This is the freedom you supposedly have in capitalism! You are free to build your own road to happiness. Its like letting a baby do whatever he wants when it cant support itself. The mother should take of it. There is no system to get you settled. What communism does is create this system. No its not taking your freedom away, it is helping you by providing free education, health care, housing...

Its sad to see people say communists are evil, lol. Don't worry, we touch the existing evil with gloves on, it does not contaminate us.

  • 126 Replies
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,574 posts
Duke

Drace,

I feel like you didn't read my objections, save for those 2 sentences. Eliminating class struggle is pointless if 1) there aren't really these "classes" and 2) "class struggle" isn't the driving force of events in history.

Class struggle isn't an evil box - it's not even a box into which we can place people or ideas.

Also, having socialist programs does, by definition, make an economy less capitalist. This is not about ideology but merely definition and how we classify things.

Drace
offline
Drace
3,900 posts
Peasant

there aren't really these "classes"


There isn't?

Proletariat and the bourgeoisie class.
If you want say they are labels, but they DO exist.


* Labour (the proletariat or workers) includes anyone who earns their livelihood by selling their labor power and being paid a wage or salary for their labor time. They have little choice but to work for capital, since they typically have no independent way to survive.

* Capital (the bourgeoisie or capitalists) includes anyone who gets their income not from labor as much as from the surplus value they appropriate from the workers who create wealth. The income of the capitalists, therefore, is based on their exploitation of the workers (proletariat).


An income level or a job position does not really identify a group of people in any meaningful way.


It identifies a certain aspect of these people. By talking about the proletariat class, we are talking of those who are wage slaves, as to speak.

The difference between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is vast.

It is the proletariat, which is the majority, that has the likeliness of having struggles.

How is eliminating these classes pointless?
Sorry, Maybe I'm understanding you wrong.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,574 posts
Duke

The people within this class do not fit together in any meaningful way; their goals, beliefs, and motivations in life are not all determined by their income or job.
People from lower classes did not identify themselves as such and didn't identify with others in similar financial circumstances. Looking at events like the French and American Revolution we can clearly see events as a series of contingencies, not as a struggle between classes.
These terms are just like the term "Black" or "Hispanic." These people might have some very superficial similarities but nothing so meaningful to make this label anything more than just that - a label.

Again, eliminating the classes does not solve the problem of conflict and because people do not organize themselves in this manner in any kind polity, eliminating these classes would not achieve the goals which Marx and Engels set out to achieve.

Drace
offline
Drace
3,900 posts
Peasant

The classes may have differences but the problems are caused by the things in which they are similar. Ones motivations and goals may be different, but financial struggle keeps most away from those goals.

It is not quite that you are eliminating the classes but the capitals, which in turn, everyone becomes of the same level -- financially.

florglee2
offline
florglee2
1,784 posts
Peasant

My family has lived in Russia for thousands of years, and Russia gets alot of bad publicity due to it's involvement in Communism. The main thing about Communism is people can't quite grasp the concept of it, thus they revert to "It must be evil!" without any basis to say that on. Even though Russia gave up communism, they get called evil because of the warped translation many people have of the term.

Drace
offline
Drace
3,900 posts
Peasant

People refer to communism is evil all because of the history of it. The number killed, although the numbers have vast range from a few to A LOT, failed communist states, and oppression. Also failed understandings of what communism is.

The Black Book of Communism, which perhaps it the most famous anti-communist book, only talks about the repressions, and makes no comparisons to capitalism at all. It estimates to over a 100 million dead. But like I say, communism is only an idea, its those who played around with it wrong that are at fault.

In response to the book, a few writers of French wrote The Black Book of Capitalism. I'd like to read that book...

florglee2
offline
florglee2
1,784 posts
Peasant

The Black Book is a prime example of people mindlessly slandering something they can't understand.

Drace
offline
Drace
3,900 posts
Peasant

I have seen and understood today's societies struggles and mistakes. Communism is my way of fixing it.

If its not communism that can do this, then I shall find another way. Until I live to infinity years and establish that capitalism is the best we can get, then I will stop showing hatred to it.

My chances are well.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,060 posts
Farmer

First of all, Drace, when you make an opening arguement can you try to be more nuetral. It helps allow people to gain their own idea. You never mentioned the plust of Capitalism. If you are going to make a this vs that thread, your opening statement should be nuetral, your own opinions being mentioned in a paragraph after the nuetral paragraph.

Anyways, that is not realy important (but it does help set &quotroper" bounderies).

Communism is more of an idea, a theory. It is the idea that people can all live within around the same income and socail standings. The theory is noble but in fact it has a flaw. It always ends up that a small percentage of people end up with 90% of the country's money and everyone else live in poverty. It is not that people in communist countries are not greedy, but because they are too busy trying to live day by day than to try and make it bigger and better.

Capitalism shares wealth to those who earn it. Sadly in today's society we have sleezy tallentless sellout singers and many other over-rated people who don't do squat that gain millions as most middle class people hardly get by, working and paying high taxes to pay for villains in prisons, the poor who live off the government an refuse to work, and taxes that we can easilly question what the money is realy going into.

Of course, with capitalism, we have more opertunity. Anybody can make it big if they know how. Communism is a good concept but it is a failed concept. Hitler might have been part of the communist party but his intentions was to have Germany become rich while the rest of the world stood waist deep in poverty.

âWhoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.â
-Vladimir Putin
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,060 posts
Farmer

"Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain."
-Vladimir Putin
necromancer
offline
necromancer
750 posts
Shepherd

I think most people have the wrong view of communism.


This made me laugh seeing as you don't better explain communism, you don't justify it, and you misconstrue capitalism.

The "equal pay" and the "you cant achieve anything" are not much to say.


I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with this statement; however, in a capitalist society equal pay is the choice of the employer, if he pays the better workers more it incentivizes production which increases both his wealth and the wealth of the workers; in a communist society, everyone is given an equal allotment of wealth, this provides a disincentive to production as those who are more skilled get no benefit, as such a communist society has a lower GDP.

One whole thing of communists want to change is taking away the attention of people away from money.


I think you mean wealth instead of money; money is paper, wealth is the combination of money and material goods. Wealth is created by production of goods. For example, land is the base wealth, it has more value depending on location, but it has more value when developed; if one extracts the iron ore from the land to sell it, they now have more wealth than if they just possessed the land; the refined steel requiring more production has a larger amount of wealth in it; finally, the car you produce with the steel is worth the most wealth, with the money it took to purchase the car, you could have purchased several acres of the land the iron was extracted from.
Enough with semantics, you state that the want of wealth is wrong, without providing a reason as to why. Enlightened selfishness, acting in your own favor without harming another, is useful to both yourself and society. Lets say I inherit a million dollars, if I started a business, I would employ people, giving them the ability to create wealth of their own. Maybe I place it in a high-yield savings account, the bank loans my money out to create a profit for themselves, the person who receives the loan uses it to purchase a car, which allows them to profit from a taxi service they create, eventually repaying the loan and allowing them to put food on their families table; I eventually withdraw the money to retire, I pay the retirement center who hires lower-income people to clean the rooms and cook the meals, all-in-all, a net gain for everyone.

People are not born greedy.


Because when a toddler takes a toy from another toddler it isn't greed...
it is selfishness.

It is rather that we try to achieve. Who is to say people are born wanting to get more and more money? We just try to achieve goals.


We want wealth, we want vacations, a nice house, etc. Trying to achieve such goals through legitimate means is enlightened selfishness.

Look at Armorgames. The community here does not get anything over another, yet we are working our asses off trying to get AP. What we call greed comes from the process of people getting money, which usually involves "bad" behavior (The business world is cruel). Bill Gates, however rich, is not greedy.


Armor points give you higher classes and armatars, which is what people are striving for, and does give you something over another. The process of obtaining wealth isn't "bad," competition is a healthy part of industry that lowers prices and increases quality, which is how the business world is thought of being cruel; it is difficult to beat the competition.

Capitalism is like taking all of a persons freedoms away at birth and selling it to them when they can afford it it.


Capitalism is freedom, freedom from the government interfering in your business and private matters, freedom to be yourself, freedom to do what you choose with your money. If you are trying to say that the poorer workers are unable to spend their money as they wish, they must instead pay for the bare necessities, you would also be wrong. A worker can slowly save up and wisely invest his hard-earned profits to gradually raise wealth. Also, he can gain on the job experience, more skilled workers better profit a company, so he would likewise be paid more, gradually working his way up the ladder until he has lifted himself from the bottom.

You cant live without money. You rely on others for earning this money, but those who give it to you don't care of you. Employers are just concerned with getting their profit off you.


Do you think I would care for the person whom I must split my earnings with in a communist society? No, in fact I would dislike their theft of the fruits of my labor. An intelligent employer cares for his workers, in a competitive job market, workers will seek those who treat them well and quit jobs where they are shown little respect. Also, workers are more productive in an environment where they are respected; I know of a place where they have an arcade, fitness center, and free haircuts exclusively for the employees. Employers concerned in getting a profit out of you would respect you, just as a retailer who wants to profit from the customers; example, I go the local Quiznos and they say, "Hello, welcome to Quiznos, may I take your order?" whereas at Subway *Scowl* "Whaddu yu want?" Guess which one I prefer going to.

The problem is, the road to getting a good job, housing, medical care, insurances, etc, are very though and cricket. There is no system for it. This is the freedom you supposedly have in capitalism!


Sorry, I've never heard of the term "though and cricket," I'll assume you mean tough or something like that. Anyways, it may be tough but almost every adult I know has done that. There is a system for all of them, to get a good job, get an education preferably with college, send applications, go to the most agreeable position; for housing, save up money or get a loan, hire a realtor, find the house you most like, buy it; etc. Also, you falsely assume without proof that the communist system is better, in all likelihood it wouldn't be better, with only one medical insurance group, education system etc. you have monopolies with no competition, competition forces businesses to be more efficient and consumer friendly. Would you rather go to the Department of motor vehicles where there are long lines and disinterested slow working employees or to Walmart, Target, Meijer's, K-Mart, Kwik-E-Mart etc. where they warmly welcome you as you enter, they have a quick and competent customer services department, employees willing to help you in the aisles, open up more check-out lines if they are too long, etc. The DMV is nowhere near as friendly or efficient. Finally, yes it is freedom, much greater than that of communism; you choose the school and the business you enter, you choose the house and realtor you use. Capitalism grants much greater freedom.

You are free to build your own road to happiness. Its like letting a baby do whatever he wants when it cant support itself. The mother should take of it. There is no system to get you settled. What communism does is create this system. No its not taking your freedom away, it is helping you by providing free education, health care, housing...


No you can't freely build your road to happiness, you are only allowed the wealth the government chooses to give you, also you don't choose the schools you want to got to, their is only one choice, you don't choose what (insert service or product here) you want, there is only one choice. The infant comparison isn't applicable, a baby can't take care of itself with rational decisions, an adult human can make rational decisions to lead his life as he wishes and support himself and his family. Yes, it takes your freedom away, you can't choose a more efficient, consumer friendly system, there is only one system. By providing it freely, you either don't pay the schoolteachers, unlikely, or you take the cost away from all of the citizens, removing their ability to freely use their money.

Its sad to see people say communists are evil


Communists aren't evil, however communists governments are, look how China and Russia treated their citizens, Stalin and Mao each had over 30 million people killed, philosophically, it also removes an agent's freedom to do what they want.
StraightJaketMan
offline
StraightJaketMan
620 posts
Peasant

I believe that if the U.S. government were to combine the ideals of both Communism and Capitalism, that there wouldn't be such a problem with the economy today. I believe that Marx had the right idea, but the way both the Russians and the Chinese went around it, they focused on the gains for themselves. If there were a leader who was more selfless, Communism could work in this country.

necromancer
offline
necromancer
750 posts
Shepherd

@StraightJaketMan- We already combined those ideals it's called a mixed economy, and it isn't working so well. The problem with communism is you can't ensure a selfless ruler, remember absolute power corrupts absolutely. Another interesting thing to note is that countries that through capitalism are wealthier (higher GDP), have less wealth disparity. I would highly suggest reading Healing Our World by Mary Ruwart.

Drace
offline
Drace
3,900 posts
Peasant

Hitler might have been part of the communist party but his intentions was to have Germany become rich while the rest of the world stood waist deep in poverty.


Hitler was a fascist, an anti-communist.

The process of obtaining wealth isn't "bad," competition is a healthy part of industry that lowers prices and increases quality


Wouldn't you rather have unification?

you are only allowed the wealth the government chooses to give you


Rather the wealth is determined by the means of production.

Do you think I would care for the person whom I must split my earnings with in a communist society?


You don't split your earnings...
You earn your earnings by doing labor. Its not like your forced to donate your belongings, lol.

The good produced are given to the state, from there to the people. You need those other people to survive, because one cannot survive independently. Other workers produce other goods which will come to you! Its an equal balance.

The different between in a commune and capitalist society is WHO gets off your labor. Capitals earn the profit for themselves, as where in a commune they are either sold for a richer government and things like food are given to the people.

No you can't freely build your road to happiness, you are only allowed the wealth the government chooses to give you, also you don't choose the schools you want to got to, their is only one choice, you don't choose what (insert service or product here) you want, there is only one choice.


The wealth you have is like I said determined by how well the state is doing. If the state has a gagillion dollars, your wage increases. This way it is fair, through bad times, everyone will be hurt the same, in good times, everyone will benefit equally.

About the services...

First of all, I'm not forced to do anything. I can kill myself at any time or just choose to watch TV all day.

What is the difference between one company to another? It is that one is richer then the other. One is more expensive then the other. To get that better service, you need to pay more.

As of the situation in a commune, the services are provided by the state. This means that they pay for them. For one, this means they are free. The quality is not so different in them you know. Competition does force one to better their service, but I for one cannot deal with the fake smiles.
And what is the difference with this service? Lets say we are talking about a PS2 or a PS3. PS3 is better of course, but if you never had a PS3 before, PS2 works just as fine. It delivers the same happiness.

Also, look at the highway system, it is run by the State. What if it were run by a capital? You'd have to pay tolls every 5 minutes and there would probably be advertisements. Companies go for profit. With all that profit they have, you can make a hell of a difference.

There is a system for all of them, to get a good job, get an education preferably with college, send applications, go to the most agreeable position; for housing, save up money or get a loan, hire a realtor, find the house you most like, buy it; etc.


Does that seem so easy?
What system? The public education sucks, college you have to pay for.

And before you buy a house you have to rent...

Why make people work to get to a position where they can start living when you can provide them it?

Also, you falsely assume without proof that the communist system is better, in all likelihood it wouldn't be better, with only one medical insurance group, education system etc. you have monopolies with no competition, competition forces businesses to be more efficient and consumer friendly.


All for money! With the money they make, you can get more then the efficiency competition creates.


And that book notes communists as evil. I feel so sad for those communists who used aggression. What a place they put the rest of us.

She says we should give to others out of love, but when will this happen? It will come out of living in a commune, I tell you. We need to endure a communist society until the trait is born.

Why would anyone defend that people are born greedy? You do not seem to want the better of the people, but just to defend capitalism.
Someone who is thought communism is good, will defend it. Same vice-versa...
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,060 posts
Farmer

I find it ironic how you explain that everyone only talks about the negative effects of communism and how everyoen is biassed agaisnt communism just because it was implanted into our brain that it is bad...

...yet you only talk about the negative effects of Capitalism.

You do not understand, you can not have a communist community because the only way you can obtain communism is by giving the majority of peopel very little money were they can hardly even survive and you give a big chunk of money to a few leaders who control using an army (unity forced upon by war).

Now it is a noble idea, have everyone live upon the same level of income, but if everyone has the same amount of money then there will be no one with enough money/power to control the people and greed WILL set in.

Ok, how about a few people (the leaders) have a lot of money and everyone else gain a decent portain (enough to live comfortably). Nobody is rich enough to suply a nation with wealth to liev comfortably without circulating money around (which would turn communism into capitalism, capitalism is caused from the circulation of money).

Communism is an idea, a noble idea, a failed idea, and only a moron would ever want communism to go into effect because for it to work properly, it would have to include everyoen being equilly poor as dirt with a few powerful leaders who have all the money. Money is power and you can not just give money away. If you give money away, you give away power and the ability to lead a country. Every country needs leaders to set bounderies and rules.

Showing 16-30 of 126