cobmojo

Communism Is NOT government control it is the antithesis of government.

MosbyMarion

Math+Sci=Asian: The first line of your post describes Consumerism. Capitalism works until somebody gets a monopoly. Then it breaks. Marxism works until somebody realises that they still get paid whether they work or not. Then it breaks. Both systems lead to survival of the unethical. Ah well, anyone have any better ideas?

chickenfight!

Technically speaking, when you talk about capitalism vs. marxism, you are talking about a state of nature versus a state of un-nature. Pure capitalism is, quite frankly, the way that humanity would behave in the wild; pure survival-of-the-fittest competition, and utter freedom. Marxism, on the other hand, attempts to subjugate everything to the cold calculation of human control, ignoring personal circumstances to obtain purely 'equal' results. Neither one is very good (though I'd say that Marxism is definitely more dangerous, due to that whole 'dictator of the proletariat' clause), so I'd say that the best possible system is a healthy middle ground. Controlled capitalism, in other words.

kaxane

If selfishness is inherent, why are the most primitive societies egalitarian? Hunter gatherer societies and societies that practice horticulture (pre-agriculture societies) share. Everyone participates in the gathering and if someone comes up short, they share with that person. Even if someone refuses to work, the people who actually worked for resources will share with him. When agriculture is introduced into a society you begin to see selfishness. If we're inherently selfish, why did we form family units and why do we live together? Our development depended on living in groups and cooperating.

Capitalism created the corporation. Corporations are inherently monstrous because they put people who may or may not be good and force them to make the highest profits possible. This results in environmental devastation, sweatshops, the privatization of basic resources like water, etc. Capitalism has created a want within us to have more and more luxury items and the best. It takes advantage of poor countries. It fails during economic recessions like now.

cobmojo

"echnically speaking, when you talk about capitalism vs. marxism, you are talking about a state of nature versus a state of un-nature. Pure capitalism is, quite frankly, the way that humanity would behave in the wild; pure survival-of-the-fittest competition, and utter freedom. Marxism, on the other hand, attempts to subjugate everything to the cold calculation of human control, ignoring personal circumstances to obtain purely 'equal' results."

You're setting Communism in a capitalist context. That is not communism.

iloveagoodbrew

So how many here are actually educated in economics/politics/philosophy? Just curious.

egolikestomach

everyone took philosophy 101!

cobmojo

I'm now a grad student for sociology

chickenfight!

"you're setting communism in a capitalistic context"

cobmojo please elaborate

cobmojo

"echnically speaking, when you talk about capitalism vs. Marxism, you are talking about a state of nature versus a state of un-nature. Pure capitalism is, quite frankly, the way that humanity would behave in the wild; pure survival-of-the-fittest competition, and utter freedom."
Here they describe capitalism by showing the scarcity of resources. People fight for resources and that builds classes and competition.


"Marxism, on the other hand, attempts to subjugate everything to the cold calculation of human control, ignoring personal circumstances to obtain purely 'equal' results."

Here they use the same paradigm. What people don't understand (and neither did Lenin) was that the abolition of scarcity is the precondition for Communism. In Communism there will be no control over the means of production and that means more freedom not less. Yet, in the above paragraph they set communism in a capitalist context making it seem controlling (like the soviet union) when that is the antithesis of Marxism.

RyanH93

capitalism is better than marxism in almost all respects

silence_kit

great in theory but doesnt work in practice

--every idiot ever

chickenfight!

then explain, silence_kit, so that we 'idiots' can understand

cobmojo

"capitalism is better than Marxism in almost all respects"
Why? can you explain?


silent_kit, I also want to understand.

GoingGalt

Hello, so I was reading some posts (I generally do not wander far from the Service Academy section) but I found this interesting debate. I thought I would join.

"In Communism there will be no control over the means of production and that means more freedom not less."

Communism relates to the means of production controlled by common ownership. Common ownership, in a political sense, refers to ownership by the collective rather individual. Communism doesn't reflect individual liberty; instead private ownership is a mirror to liberty. Private ownership also doesn't require for the the individual owner to become the 'sole' owner of that specific property or means of production.

"If we're inherently selfish, why did we form family units and why do we live together? Our development depended on living in groups and cooperating."

Ah, this is a great question. Selfishness doesn't mean that we care not for other human life, well-being, happiness, etc. In fact, Adam Smith himself (I will paraphrase) stated that self-interested human beings need the happiness of others to better themselves. If we all worked to better ourselves through the destruction of everyone else, well, I doubt we would be having this discussion. We form family units and other groups through relationships and as a means to survive. To justsurvive. This is seen from a "jungle" or wild point of view. If we wish to accumulate wealth we must act on our own terms, again this does not mean through the destruction of others. I don't mean this in a way to sound 'anarchic', for government (or a conjoined group) does have it's place in some cases. Though, the theory of anarchy or lawlessness is interesting.

There is a few problems that need to be corrected here:

"Capitalism created the corporation. Corporations are inherently monstrous because they put people who may or may not be good and force them to make the highest profits possible."

No, profits are essential to an economy. They're an economic indicator that reveals what an economy most needs at a one time. If a company or corporation is generating high profits, it's because the consumer is purchasing goods and services at low prices (this is in a without-government involvement scenario).

"This results in environmental devastation, sweatshops, the privatization of basic resources like water, etc."

No, YOU create environmental devastation, YOU create sweatshops, and the last part is null, I will explain.

First, you and I control the demand curve, thus we 'control' supply (not in all actuality because a producer can create anything he wishes within his/her resources). Milton Friedman put it simply (paraphrase), as the consumer we buy what the producers create, therefore if a product ruins the environment due to it's production, we must not buy the product if we wish to save the environment.

You don't have to purchase water. You don't have to purchase food. You don't even have to purchase oxygen.

"Capitalism has created a want within us to have more and more luxury items and the best."

Yes, because people wish to better themselves and technologically advance themselves while also advancing society.

"It takes advantage of poor countries."

Europe doesn't take advantage of poor countries? Why is that country poor? What is wrong with taking advantage of resources?

"It fails during economic recessions like now."

If you weren't opposed to the means of private production, I would say you sound like a Keynesian. No, Capitalism didn't "fail." A recession is not the same as "failure." Neither is an expansionary period "success."

"Capitalism works until somebody gets a monopoly. Then it breaks. Marxism works until somebody realises that they still get paid whether they work or not. Then it breaks. Both systems lead to survival of the unethical. Ah well, anyone have any better ideas?"

Monopolies are created two ways: government and success. When a company becomes a monopoly through success, it doesn't mean Capitalism ceases to succeed. In fact, it quite proves that Capitalism is working more than ever. When you have a successful monopoly, you have low prices and high profits. These high profits will signal to producers to shift capital to that market in order to compete with the monopoly. With enough capital shifted to that market, the monopoly may or may not become successful in preventing competition; while this struggle is taking place, consumers are happy winning with lower prices. If a monopoly decides to raise prices on consumers (seeing that they're a consumers only choice in that market) then this will be a signal for producers of easy competition. A producer will move into the market and set his prices lower than the "monopoly's" thus keeping prices down.

Capitalism is essentially the most ethical economic system of all. No one plans it, no one had to write a book about how it will operate, it's based on human behavior, it generates wealth for every individual willing to take advantage, it has single handily raised society out of poverty, and it's a contributor to peace. Capitalism doesn't create war. The government creates war. Let this distinction be known.