27 replies to this topic

[Bibidiboo]

Speaking as a former communist, it is an unspeakably evil and completely unworkable system.

If you want a purely economic and objective refutation, you can't get much better than: http://mises.org/books/socialism.pdf

Which he said. Communism is a utopia where everybody shares everything and wants no leaders.

not gonna happen.. ever, but still a semigoodish idea or something or other

Edited by Bibidiboo, 05 April 2013 - 09:53 am.

[Tomill]

I see your ideology of failed social rejects, who try to justify there social awkwardness by denying society, saying true freedom is allowing the rich to do as they please without taking into accoutn the negativ side effects. You don't like democracy because your a cunt, effectively. Your whole ideology is bullshit, just the dreams of spolit wankers like yourself who've read a bit of Friedman, and seen it as true because daddy's paid for you to ge tthrough life, and you've personally never needed state healthcare, because you're so fucking rich. I suggest you get a job and look at the real world. Your ideolgoy is baseless, relies on distorted history and post-hoc justificaitons and is not worth arguing against, because you just make sweeping bullshit statements which go agaisn thte facts and history and act as if its true.

Get off your ocmputer and into the real world, you spoilt rich cunts. I'm done here, ciao.

Okay, wow.

You're right it can get out of hand, but surely that comes down to short tempered and overly invested people, rather than the subject in hand. Children have starved to death because their parents were playing WoW for example, doesn't mean that WoW or other games shouldn't be played.

I sort of glad that guy left the guild before I joined if he was like that in a hypothetical debate. Everyone else seems very level headed and rational atm (Once GW2 is out I'm sure it will all go crazy).

[Tally]

It's a perfectly harmless debate. Unless there's people here who have strong views, in which case, just tell me and I will stop.

I was in no way trying to suggest that we shouldn't have debates like this on these forums, just that I was going to stay out of them, at least for the time being.

Edit: I guess I should elaborate a little. I personally feel that making a case for any political or economic system is an extreamly complex and intricate process, one which I couldn't do justice to in a series of short forum posts. I doubt I will be able to change any of your minds on what you see as the most disariable system even if I were to take the time (and resulting huge wall of texts) to do the issue full justice. I suppose I could use links to therotical texts to back my arguments, but then, that information is alredy out there for thouse of you who are interested enough to want to take the time to read it.

Given the above I don't feel it's likely to either be productive, or particully representative of the whole of my or anyone else's economic and political opinion, to debate these kind of issues in short posts like this, perticullay in the case of less mainsteam theory which many people have very little preivious understanding of.

Again, this is very much just my own feeling on it, I'm not trying to suggest that these threads shouldn't be here, or that people shouldn't use them, just that I personally don't feel I can do justice to what I belive in this format, and that selling myself short would be counter productive.

Edit2: If any of you are interested in the ideas of anarchist-communism the wikipedia article isn't a bad place to start (though it barely scratches the surface) http://en.wikipedia....chist_communism

Edited by FellaFeller, 23 May 2012 - 11:48 am.

[mixe]

in capitalism men exploit men and in communism its the other way round   

[MAlandM]

in capitalism men exploit men and in communism its the other way round   

 

women exploit women? or animals exploit animals (if by "men" you meant the human race)?

[ZeCooL]

women exploit women? or animals exploit animals (if by "men" you meant the human race)

Man ------> Man .  Now do it the other way around.  Man<--------Man.

 

Mixe was expressing his opinion that both systems are (or can be) abusive towards certain groups in the society.

[Whakapapa]

Yes, but the thing most people miss is that communism is necessarily a dictatorship. Non-dictatorial communism is a contradiction in terms because communism means a 100% planned economy - which means someone is planning it (whether it's a committee, a single dictator, the workers, or the majority doesn't matter). A purely voluntary system of communism would in fact be capitalism - because capitalism is defined as a system of purely voluntary interaction.

That's where you go wrong of communism. If we are to debate the extremes of these philosophical theories, we have to take point in the idea of them and not the practical execution of them. The idea of communism is; no state, no leaders, no class, no countries, no rivalry. There are no practical guidelines on how to make a society like that but the idea is what is produced and decided is for the good of all society. Who the decider is or what classifies as good for all of the society, remains unknown. The dictatorship that you speak of is merely the transitional stage from one type of society to the next. In pure communism there is no planned economy because there is no need for economy. Goods get produced as they are needed and those who need it receive it. This is a utopia. It is impossible to imagine such a society ever coming to be since we're so far from it. But the idea of it is beautiful, if unrealistic, most especially because it requires the entire world to embrace communism at practically the same time.

 

Communism can never be considered capitalistic since capitalism in its classic understanding, is based on trade, private property and maintaining an economy. Communism disregards private property since everyone will have what they need and have no use for owning more than they need, and thus no need for trade or a stable economy.

 

 

 

 

In regards to the question posed by MAlandM if we hold to one or the other, then I'm a socialist liberalist.

 

I don't consider capitalism a viable way of governing a state nor do I consider communism a viable way of governing a state. Capitalism doesn't work without a state providing public goods, guidelines and social services like education and healthcare. And communism doesn't work unless the entire world turns to communism at the same time - and somehow, someway, develope a common understanding of what is good for all.

Edited by Whakapapa, 03 April 2013 - 09:15 am.

[Darkademic]

That's where you go wrong of communism. If we are to debate the extremes of these philosophical theories, we have to take point in the idea of them and not the practical execution of them. The idea of communism is; no state, no leaders, no class, no countries, no rivalry. There are no practical guidelines on how to make a society like that but the idea is what is produced and decided is for the good of all society. Who the decider is or what classifies as good for all of the society, remains unknown. The dictatorship that you speak of is merely the transitional stage from one type of society to the next. In pure communism there is no planned economy because there is no need for economy. Goods get produced as they are needed and those who need it receive it. This is a utopia. It is impossible to imagine such a society ever coming to be since we're so far from it. But the idea of it is beautiful, if unrealistic, most especially because it requires the entire world to embrace communism at practically the same time.

 

Communism can never be considered capitalistic since capitalism in its classic understanding, is based on trade, private property and maintaining an economy. Communism disregards private property since everyone will have what they need and have no use for owning more than they need, and thus no need for trade or a stable economy.

 

 

 

 

In regards to the question posed by MAlandM if we hold to one or the other, then I'm a socialist liberalist.

 

I don't consider capitalism a viable way of governing a state nor do I consider communism a viable way of governing a state. Capitalism doesn't work without a state providing public goods, guidelines and social services like education and healthcare. And communism doesn't work unless the entire world turns to communism at the same time - and somehow, someway, develope a common understanding of what is good for all.

 

I don't think it's worth debating an idea which can never be put into practice. Communism without a dictatorship (the ideal form of communism) is a contradiction in terms. The idea that a dictatorship is only "the transitional stage" is again something that doesn't translate into reality. The distribution of goods according to "need" is still a type of economy, and such distribution (along with the prerequisite production) needs to be planned and organised by someone.

 

Capitalism isn't a way of governing a state, it is an economic system whereby all property is privately owned, and all interactions are purely voluntary. If you add the provision of public goods and social services then it's no longer capitalism. To suggest that a society can't work based on voluntary interaction is to suggest that people do not care about their fellow man -- in which case putting the state in control is an even worse solution since you'll end up with non-caring individuals with the legitimacy to use deadly force, as given to them by a nation of non-caring voters.

[CrazyCrow]

LoL , i can think of 100 better things to discuss !!

 

Here's an example http://imgur.com/tjwEn no politics here!!

[Whakapapa]

I don't think it's worth debating an idea which can never be put into practice. Communism without a dictatorship (the ideal form of communism) is a contradiction in terms. The idea that a dictatorship is only "the transitional stage" is again something that doesn't translate into reality. The distribution of goods according to "need" is still a type of economy, and such distribution (along with the prerequisite production) needs to be planned and organised by someone.

 

Capitalism isn't a way of governing a state, it is an economic system whereby all property is privately owned, and all interactions are purely voluntary. If you add the provision of public goods and social services then it's no longer capitalism. To suggest that a society can't work based on voluntary interaction is to suggest that people do not care about their fellow man -- in which case putting the state in control is an even worse solution since you'll end up with non-caring individuals with the legitimacy to use deadly force, as given to them by a nation of non-caring voters.

 

That was the topic of discussion as I understand it; which direction we prefer in philosophical terms. Communism cannot really be discussed since it is a utopian idea, and how it would work in practice remains an unknown. I'd still say its not really an economy since no money/other trading commodity changes hands. It would require a logistic planning for sure, but that to me is vastly different than planned economy. And again, when you raise these issues, it shows that Communism is a utopian idea. We can't try and put it into practice since we're "limited" by our current way of thinking about the world and society.

 

 

If we imagine a pure capitalist society; everything is privately owned, everyone is interested in making profits, or at the very minimum covering their expenses. This necessarily means every good and service will have a pricetag on it. It is not so much about caring for each other, since I'm sure many people care about their next, but the question remains; who will pay for the poor people's healthcare and education? Who will pay for building and maintaining roads between cities and countries? Who really decides who owns what and how will you govern fair and secure trade? How will you put out big fires or solve crimes? Can crime even exist since there is no common law everyone abides? In the end some form of organization that will govern these issues comes to be, and thus the state will be born. Why? Because it is the most effective and cost efficient thing to have. The state will then "enforce", or people submit to, non-voluntary interactions.

[mixe]

Capitalism isn't a way of governing a state, it is an economic system whereby all property is privately owned, 

 its always been about control of people and always will be . thing is people are easily manipulated when there poor/greedy  

[Monkeypooh]

still think yer missing the point ...its all about the 1% who own it all and how much freedom or illusion of freedom we have under the 1% rule...if u think Capitalism or communisium or any form of economic/rule offer a escape from the ELOI ...then all power to yer elbow