Capitalism versus Communism Thread.

Post Reply New Topic

Capitalist Running Dogs?

As for cavemen [a slightly outmoded and probably politically incorrect term], I hear they have begun to excavate the Lascaux Stock Exchange. Cave Bear Pelt futures down six points.

That is a false dichotomy. As someone mentioned earlier, look at some of the states in Europe (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, probably some others). Also, communism is political as well as economic--it implies that you are living in a single-party state. It is quite possible (in theory--I don't think that anyone's ever tried this) to live in a place with a multi-party democracy but state owned economy.

Also, there are few to no pure capitalist states. Even in your beloved USA there are trade regulations (hey, can't trade with Cuba!), labour laws, government subsidies, a few state owned enterprises etc. So it's not lassez-faire capitalism but certainly not Communism or Socialism. In Canada we go a bit farther still because we have universal healthcare and a lot utilities and other things are state owned (power companies, lottery, one of the major broadcasters, some of the rail system...). But we aren't socialist either.

You yourself states that Cuba is erring away from Communism (which isn't entirely true from what I know--I know a high-up member of the Canadian Communist Party [it's obscure but exists, believe me] once visited it and said that it wasn't "revisionist" like they thought) defeats your point. It would be displaying a mixed system if that is the case, and is neither pure capitalism nor pure communism.

We are strangely more capitalist in some ways. Our corporate taxes are actually lower and you're right about the US having global trade regulations. That's why I can get a TAR-21 or Chinese M14 here but ya can't get those in the states.

True. We can thank dear old Harper for that. As far as I know, all of the other parties want to raise the tax rate.

The most capitalist place on Earth is Hong Kong and they never, ever became fascist.

ruveyn

Well which 'cavemen' do you refer to? As someone with a particular interest in history/sociology/anthropology/primatology and related subjects I feel quite confident in postulating that just about any species of proto-human you choose lived incredibly socialisticaly as well as maintaining heirarchy.
Heirarchal behaviour in primates establishes a multitude of nessasary functions, it does not mean a constant socialy destructive state of competition similar to that resulting from modern capitalistic systems. Rather it ensures social stability and that premium genetic material replicates itself for the communal good - not the individual!
This was in fact the status quo for the greatest period of human development and can still be observed in most species of primates and apes and indeed in many human societies. Aberations usualy only occur during times of extreme stress.

Deviation from this basic model of 'mutual aid/mutual dependence' is a recent aberation that has only been made possible in modern times and accentuated by the industrial revolution. It is my belief that this aberation is a social evolutionary dead end and that this will be borne out in time. This modern preoccupation with/belief that humans are inherently in constant competition with each other is proving again and again to be counterproductive and against demonstrably 'natural' patterns accross multitudes of different species, even as I write the majority of the human race is engaged in civil industry and trade and not at war or engaged in hostile takeovers or seeking the next cheap labour source.

Lastly, the classic diachotomy between pure communism and pure capitalism is no longer relevant as most governments and societies across the planet are engaged in various systems that utilise aspects of both and if being done well are infinately adaptable to the needs and limitations of their people and environment. eg, Sweden, Cuba, Venezuela, China.....

Marx was bang on in much of his ecconomic thinking given that he was basing his vision on two industrial nations and peoples, the Brittish and the Germans, he was wrong about almost everything else and his theories with regard socialism being imposed on a primarily fuedal and pastoral Russian populace was not appropriate and therefore doomed to failure, this does not mean it may not have worked quite well in a democracy of team players like the Brittish at that time.

Adam Smith was also correct in some ways, however his correctness assumed that everyone with capital shared his ethical and moral beliefs [a subject he also wrote an important tome on]. He did not allow for cultural variation and ecconomis sociopathy as exhibited by the quite literaly souless modern corporation. Add also that he is generally selectively miss quoted by the disciples of Friedman and you get some of the problems of today.

peace j [edited for spelling and grammar]

Sarcasm is wasted on the acerbic.

Socialism has been the largest killing machine of any variety in human history. Whether in the form of Fascism, Nazism,(National Socialism) or Communism(International Socialism), the numbers are daunting. Shall we put it at a quarter trillion people sacrificed at the alter of Socialism? More? Why it is just being taught in grade school as just another political and economic theory is beyond me, especially communism teachers and professors tend to just give a pass to.

It's milder forms, have been a great benefit to western civilization, but only where it is contained and capitalism is superior. Both socialist and capitalist societies that employ Socialism are having problems ensuring it's sustainability.

Historically, the US has been - since WWII - at 35% Public economy, UK at 40%(the middle child between the two systems), and most EU states range between 40% and 45%. The Soviet Union at its height never reached 70% public economy. So I think it is safe to say that 35% is Capitalism's sweet spot, and 45% is socialism's sweet spot. You can still the benefits of the other person's system while enjoying the benefits of your own system - all the while enjoying a decent standard of living.

When people diss functioning Capitalism with a decent standard of living, they are dissing the 30-40% public economies of the world. When you diss functioning socialism with a decent standard of living, you are referring to the 40-50% public economies of the world. When you are talking about nazism, fascism, or communism, you are talking about 50%+ public economies of the world. The size of the state is important to the discussion. Totalitarian impulses as displayed by the Nazi's, Musolini, and the Soviet Union are hard to avoid once you pass that 50% threshold (they can be had much sooner, but are unavoidable when you reach this level).




EDIT: 50-80% Private and 50-20% Public are safe grounds to go by.It is difficult to go past those percentages and still maintain a high quality of life, maintain a decent level of human rights, and preserve some level of Equality and Liberty. Although, do note, that the closer you gravitate towards socialism or capitalism from the center of the percentages given, the further you are gravitating from the ideal, and the more likely that people will be hurt and have their rights trampled on by the governing body or state. Beyond 50% public ownership, the individual is too small, and the state too large to ensure that. Too little public ownership, and individuals who own the means of production, wealth, and power run everything at the expense of other human beings, especially considering that as a whole, we are social, and tribal in our genetic makeup.

This is from what I gather. If you feel that number should be expanded and can make the case that rights, decent liberty-equality balance struck, and a good quality of life still had by the general population.

Last edited by MarketAndChurch on 09 May 2011, 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I obtained my information from Glenn Beck and Fox News and conservative media.
The USA is close to being a Pure Capitalist nation it remains relatively unchanged since the great 19th century American Golden age.

Socialised Medicine is the beginning of Communism. The neo-conservatives are totally against any Socialism in the USA because they tell us it always leads to Communism. We all remember the horrors of the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War. Communism and National Socialism and too much state control are pure evil systems that do not work.

This is the most rediculous of assertions, Capitalism has killed plenty too and continues to even today, it's inefficencies and inequalities are the root cause of most of the poverty that causes all the povery related deaths. And of course the age of capitalist imperialism that colonised Africa, Asia, the Americas, Australasia....

peace j

A capitalist nation can have socialized welfare in it as well and remain a largely capitalist nation. I don't see things being at odds here.

Socialized Medicine has lead us to be a far more socialized country then most European nations. As I said above, our historical norm has been 35% of GDP was public, 65% private spending since WWII. George Bush and Barack Obama increased that exponentially over the last 10 years, and now we are at 44% public spending, and 56% private spending. You can't increase the size of Government that large, pass most "traditionally Socialist" nations in the EU, and not at least be pointed out that we are moving in a socialist direction. (Note that we we weren't always at 35% too, much of that has been military build up and continuous spending since WWII and FDR's social programs).

No matter which side of the isle you are on, I'm sure we all agree that at some point, too much state control is evil. The question is how much.

Please post video so I can view the source myself - not that I don't believe Glenn Beck said that... he is known to say stupid and often outright immoral things on air. I just don't like having someone summarized second hand.


EDIT: 50-80% Private and 50-20% Public are safe grounds to go by.It is difficult to go past those percentages and still maintain a high quality of life, maintain a decent level of human rights, and preserve some level of Equality and Liberty. Although, do note, that the closer you gravitate towards socialism or capitalism from the center of the percentages given, the further you are gravitating from the ideal, and the more likely that people will be hurt and have their rights trampled on by the governing body or state. Beyond 50% public ownership, the individual is too small, and the state too large to ensure that. Too little public ownership, and individuals who own the means of production, wealth, and power run everything at the expense of other human beings, especially considering that as a whole, we are social, and tribal in our genetic makeup.

This is from what I gather. If you feel that number should be expanded and can make the case that rights, decent liberty-equality balance struck, and a good quality of life still had by the general population.

Last edited by MarketAndChurch on 09 May 2011, 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think both can be true... Capitalism has caused a lot of pain and death in this world, and Socialism has caused the most pain and death in this world. However, socialists are always changing their s***ty past to look golden. I thought you would call my assertions rediculous and then make the case as to why they are... I'd still like to know why you think so. To paraphrase the famous soviet line: "The future is certain(Revolution), It's the past that keeps on changing". More deaths have been caused by the left in the 20th century then in all conflicts prior to that in human history, combined. Majority of this caused by a sister-movement or sub-sect of socialism. All the rape, torture, murder, hangings, coercion, starvation, genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc. I mean a quarter to half a billion people...

Typical response is "No that didn't happen" or "you are lying" or "stfu" or "Nazis/Fascists were on the right..." I mean its pathetic that everyone else is supposed to swallow their less-then-ideal past and put up with it except for socialists who like to think that they begin beautifully and will go out in the same manner. I find it troubling that you all exempt yourselves from the crapy aspects of the human experience.

i find this thread ridicoulous,
none of the ideologies work on their own.
socialism is no more evil, wrong, inefficient or otherwise, than capitalism, they both have flaws and only through joining them can a sensible political atmosphere develop.
its the people involved that make the mistakes, not the ideology nor the ideas.

i live in a pretty socialist country and trust me, there is plenty of buisness oppertunities here as well.

Hierarchy is inherent in our nature yes. The difference between 'cavemen' and capitalists is that the caveman shared the resources within the group because his survival depended on mutual cooperation. Cavemen would be more like a co-op owned company... there is a hierarchy and some do get more rewards than others yet their efforts as a group has equal compensation: their quality of life is evenly raised among its members.

A capitalist caveman on the other hand would be completely different. The rewards increase exponentially the higher up in the hierarchy and the quality of life decreases exponentially as you go down the hierarchy. In this system the chieftain would cease to be the chieftain (and associated benefits of it) if those under him have their quality of life increased at the same rate his is. Capitalist systems demand a vast level of inequality to function and sustain itself.

Business leaders/Industrialists to keep on bringing in new coolies to be ripped off. They perpetuate the myth that there is a skills shortage because they want more cheap labour to feed the free market economy. The labour is virtually free with the low wages they pay all their migrant workers.

Skilled or unskilled: cheap labourers can be trained up quickly and they will accept lower wages and have the threat of being thrown out of the country hanging like a gauntlet over their heads. Domestic/local workers expect higher rates of pay and better working conditions.

It seems to me that most criticisms of socialism here are directed towards totalitarian states (by the way, despite the name the Nazis were not socialist--ownership remained concentrated in the hands of the rich and not distributed to the workers). And I agree that totalitarian states deserve criticism and lots of it. But what about when socialism is tried in a democratic system? It hasn't happened that often, and has been plagued with practical problems (such as being overthrown by the USA), but it has produced systems which are nothing like the USSR or Mainland China.