[Debate] True Capitalism vs True communism

[10th]

But the issue is capitalism what we are talking about is the actual capitalism.

Meaning, if they don't like your race, they can deny you for work. They wanna pay you 1 dollar.. their choice.


No what lenin tried to do was not in true communism, he tried to force the system. Cuba isn't really even a communist country at all, we just labeled it communist, because of its affiliations with russia.

Yea china is pretty capitalist. But we call it communist.

I see, it makes sense then. Communism has a rep of being a bit too idealistic.

Edit, just read the op fully, ignore what i wrote before xD

My only concern of a pure capitalistic society is eventually one say a corp would become too powerful, and hence it would be in its best interest to dominate brutally and thus creating industry wide monopoly.

Good thread btw

 

[KingHashirama]

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

hmm i assume you are saying that "saying communism hasn't existed is bs, because people have been trying to achieve it, and they all killed innocent people".

^^^^ But that just goes back to what i said.. what we are fed about communism, isn't even the truth. Someone can go have a genocide right now and claim they are trying to do capitalism. Doesn't mean its capitalism.


I believe Lennin himself already said he can't achieve actual communism by Karl Marx

I see, it makes sense then. So I suppose true communism is very much possible then in your opinion? How would a successful society go about it and implementing it? Communism has a rep of being a bit too idealistic.

My only concern of a pure capitalistic society is eventually one say a corp would become too powerful, and hence it would be in its best interest to dominate brutally and thus creating industry wide monopoly.

Good thread btw

@Bold, yup basically a true economic dictatorship. And thats why the governments had to set in the economy of their countries in the first place.

In my opinion, communism can't exist. Because we will have people who want to be "out of the society" or aka "rebels", because its cool. It requires mutual understanding, respect, love. So overall, i'm more for a society that is ran by morals that would be in true communism, while sustaining a mix of capitalist and socialist economy.

 

[Shanks]

I see, it makes sense then. So I suppose true communism is very much possible then in your opinion? How would a successful society go about it and implementing it? Communism has a rep of being a bit too idealistic.

My only concern of a pure capitalistic society is eventually one say a corp would become too powerful, and hence it would be in its best interest to dominate brutally and thus creating industry wide monopoly.

Good thread btw

You must be registered for see images

 

[KingHashirama]

You must be registered for see images

capitalism ended in failure also. Try again. Most of our presidents have never ran a country before.. guess what.. they still run it. It doesn't take a business man to think what is best our the society he lives in.

We live in a world where a single individual could own a 3rd world country, where people are starving, << And this is happening while we have government interfering with the economy.


Thread isn't about the fake capitalism you are talking about.. (which is actually socialism + capitalism, aka mixed economy).

Ps: Even idiots can bring good ideas to the world.

 

[10th]

hmm i assume you are saying that "saying communism hasn't existed is bs, because people have been trying to achieve it, and they all killed innocent people".

^^^^ But that just goes back to what i said.. what we are fed about communism, isn't even the truth. Someone can go have a genocide right now and claim they are trying to do capitalism. Doesn't mean its capitalism.


I believe Lennin himself already said he can't achieve actual communism by Karl Marx



@Bold, yup basically a true economic dictatorship. And thats why the governments had to set in the economy of their countries in the first place.

In my opinion, communism can't exist. Because we will have people who want to be "out of the society" or aka "rebels", because its cool. It requires mutual understanding, respect, love. So overall, i'm more for a society that is ran by morals that would be in true communism, while sustaining a mix of capitalist and socialist economy.

Yep, essentially is great at first but then it betrays it's very concept because it's in its very nature. Reminds me of how true anarchy can never exist for too long because eventually there would be group that would form an area for protection and such and then eventually a new government would be enacted.

That sounds about ideal and I apologies as you said in the op true communism wouldn't work as well.
Is there a current country that you believe is or is close to your economic view point so far?

 

[Shanks]

capitalism ended in failure also. Try again. Most of our presidents have never ran a country before.. guess what.. they still run it. It doesn't take a business man to think what is best our the society he lives in.

We live in a world where a single individual could own a 3rd world country, where people are starving, << And this is happening while we have government interfering with the economy.


Thread isn't about the fake capitalism you are talking about.. (which is actually socialism + capitalism, aka mixed economy).

Ps: Even idiots can bring good ideas to the world.

Show me a communist country who people have all equal right and Justice . China doesn't even come close i will say China is more of a captalist than communist their communism idealouge is fabrication idea.

I agree with some points Captalism cannot rule people this is where labour law comes in .

 

[Scooby Doo]

In the arch type of societies people were dependant on each other in their fight against nature, so they shared what they had, otherwise they would have died. Then, by time, technical improvement resulted in successfully defying nature, and with the appearance and accumulation of surplus, private property and classes appeared as well.

Originally the wisest, most skilled and most fit ones were the most successful, they became the richest, they had the greatest influence and authority, so they became the leaders, and they had the biggest interest in maintaining their advantage, and that needed the protection of private property. Sustaining the differences needed force, and government appeared.

In modern times, to achieve communism again, force is needed too, which turned into excessive violence applied by the communist regimes. However, perfect competition and perfectly free market are rather mythical as well. I think whatever economy a country is running, is a policy issue, and a matter of societal compromise, that's why we see most countries using a mixed economy as a result of a fragile balance (whether capitalistic or socialistic elements are dominant in said country).

Theoritically speaking,pure communsim can't work, as people won't be interested in improvement. (We can see that even today: when people can make a living out of social aids, working hard becomes stinky). On the other hand, unregulated competition may lead to monopoly and distorted competition, at the end of which people are again not interested in improvement (the monopolists: because they'll get their money anyway; the workers: because they won't get more money either, anyway).

That's how I see it, at least.

 

[Prometheus Beta]

In all seriousness, something akin to "communism" does actually exist elsewhere in the animal kingdom, the social insects in particular. The great Biologist E.O. Wilson once quipped "Karl Marx was right, communism works. It's just that he had the wrong species": an ant colony seems to be the perfect instantiation of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", whether for the queen, soldier, worker etc. And therein I think also lies the reason as to why "true communism" has never, and in fact can never, exist for homo-sapiens; you see, unlike ants (and similar eusocial insects which need a queen to reproduce), human beings have the ability to reproduce individually, and our social behaviour must consequently, necessarily involve competition between individuals ( and all that that entails).

In all these debates about social, economic or political systems, there is an assumption that is taken for granted by most people: the idea that human behaviour is infinitely malleable (i.e. it is theoretically possible for any social arrangement to exist and for it to be sustainable). The problem is that this idea (the "blank slate") is increasingly at odds with what Biology seems to be saying of man: that there is such a thing as human nature (innate and evolved behavioural tendencies) and that it constrains our behaviour (at least on a population level).

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

Obviously captialism. you worker harder, you stand above everyone else. simple.
you obviously made this thread to disagree with people. And I think you knew that.

I didn't realize that it was harder for Kim Kardashian to make a *** tape than for someone to go through medical school to become a professional doctor.

 

[Scooby Doo]

and our social behaviour must consequently, necessarily involve competition between individuals ( and all that that entails).

While I agree with that (and I hope noone will take my post as supporting communism over capitalism), I'd like to add that cooperation is also part of human nature: that's why we live in societies after all. Many scholars say that our success as a species lies in cooperation, and I think this cannot be reduced simply to business trading (I'm not saying you implied that, I'm just unfolding my chain of thoughts [inb4 misunderstandings]).

A sense of justice is also inherent in human nature, and that often implicates a call for equality. At least, equal chances. (See 'access to justice', for instance, or equal rights movements).

Envy is also part of human nature, so the 'poor' ones will always demand redistribution.

Any system that takes either component out of the equation, is bound to fail, imo.

 

[KingHashirama]

Show me a communist country who people have all equal right and Justice . China doesn't even come close i will say China is more of a captalist than communist their communism idealouge is fabrication idea.

I agree with some points Captalism cannot rule people this is where labour law comes in .

@Bold, like I said in the OP, true communism is near impossible.. so how can i show you.

We are discussing the ideas..not if a country has implemented it. Capitalism was implemented and it failed hard. But communism is near impossible to implement because of the individual sacrifice it requires.

 

[KingHashirama]

Yep, essentially is great at first but then it betrays it's very concept because it's in its very nature. Reminds me of how true anarchy can never exist for too long because eventually there would be group that would form an area for protection and such and then eventually a new government would be enacted.

That sounds about ideal and I apologies as you said in the op true communism wouldn't work as well.
Is there a current country that you believe is or is close to your economic view point so far?

with anarachy, it can atleast be started. ;p.

Communism, it just can't even be started.


In today's world america seems to be the only one close to my view point on economy, by close i mean about 50% only. Fault in America is its society ... there is no sense of culture. There is only sense of unity when someone f*cks america up via an attack. And people seem to think that, that type of unity is what makes america strong. However, that in itself is a fallacy, what makes america strong is simply the advanced technology we have (lord knows the horrible things we have done to attain it.). But this is one of the reasons why america's economy is holding up. But the 50% that's close to my ideal is the "poster boy" idea of competition and the limited free enterprise and the ability to go for new stuff.

How about yourself? What country is close to your viewpoint?

In the arch type of societies people were dependant on each other in their fight against nature, so they shared what they had, otherwise they would have died. Then, by time, technical improvement resulted in successfully defying nature, and with the appearance and accumulation of surplus, private property and classes appeared as well.

Originally the wisest, most skilled and most fit ones were the most successful, they became the richest, they had the greatest influence and authority, so they became the leaders, and they had the biggest interest in maintaining their advantage, and that needed the protection of private property. Sustaining the differences needed force, and government appeared.

In modern times, to achieve communism again, force is needed too, which turned into excessive violence applied by the communist regimes. However, perfect competition and perfectly free market are rather mythical as well. I think whatever economy a country is running, is a policy issue, and a matter of societal compromise, that's why we see most countries using a mixed economy as a result of a fragile balance (whether capitalistic or socialistic elements are dominant in said country).

Theoritically speaking,pure communsim can't work, as people won't be interested in improvement. (We can see that even today: when people can make a living out of social aids, working hard becomes stinky). On the other hand, unregulated competition may lead to monopoly and distorted competition, at the end of which people are again not interested in improvement (the monopolists: because they'll get their money anyway; the workers: because they won't get more money either, anyway).

That's how I see it, at least.

Well i think what you are talking about in the bold is only one of the ways humanity has tried to achieve communism. Just like capitalism can be forced via violence against governments.

 

[Scooby Doo]

true communism is near impossible.

That's why it's called a utopia and better stay on the pages of history books

We are discussing the ideas..

People- even people who are more intelligent/educated than you, I, or anyone here- have been discussing the ideas for hundreds/thousands of years, and the result is mixed economies. I don't think that much more can be added than 'neither work out in pure form'. The idea of 'everyone shall be equal in every aspect' ignores the individual differences in people, while capitalism ignores that free market is not really free, as entering the market requires information, information is costly, so the competitors already in play will always have an advantage. Also, no market can receive an endless number of competitors. And there are natural monopolies as well, which means an asymmetry, that needs to be balanced. Free market doesn't mean fair market, so that concept ignores the inner need of humans for fairness.

Of course that's just my opinion, you don't have to agree...

 

[Prometheus Beta]

While I agree with that (and I hope noone will take my post as supporting communism over capitalism), I'd like to add that cooperation is also part of human nature: that's why we live in societies after all. Many scholars say that our success as a species lies in cooperation, and I think this cannot be reduced simply to business trading (I'm not saying you implied that, I'm just unfolding my chain of thoughts [inb4 misunderstandings]).

A sense of justice is also inherent in human nature, and that often implicates a call for equality. At least, equal chances. (See 'access to justice', for instance, or equal rights movements).

Envy is also part of human nature, so the 'poor' ones will always demand redistribution.

Any system that takes either component out of the equation, is bound to fail, imo.

Oh no you are correct, that was a gross oversimplification (if I had to add all the qualifications to my posts on things from a biological perspective Id have to write a book, and Im not so sure I could write that even if I wanted to). You are right that cooperative behaviour is as much a part of the behaviour of social animals, and not just humans in fact, as is competition.

Actually much of the recent biological research and interest in sociality (including human social behaviour) has been done because of the long-standing problem of behaviour in the animal world that goes even beyond cooperation: why is it that there are animals whose members sometimes help other individuals even at a significant cost to themselves, or to put it more simply, how can altruistic behaviour exist in a Darwinian world?

I was not trying to create a dichotomy between competition and cooperation, even in the biological world those two things actually exist on a spectrum: at one end you have species like sharks (which live completely solitary lives, engage in cannibalism and even of their own offspring) and at the other end, there are eusocial insects with soldier casts that casually engage in suicidal attacks (autothysis) to protect their nests. Homo-sapiens would probably fall somewhere around the middle of this spectrum, I think.

With human beings talking about behaviour from a biological perspective is especially problematic because our intelligence does indeed give us a unique ability (at least as far as we can tell) in the animal world: the ability to solve novel problems in the unique environment. There is no doubt that human beings have an exceptional capacity for behavioural flexibility, and the scientific trend in recent times has been to increasingly take this into account. Currently, what is imo the most promising framework for tackling the special case of the behaviour of homo-sapiens is what is now called dual-inheritance theory (or sometimes gene-culture coevolution theory) which in fact treats culture (patterns of behaviour that cannot be explained by biology alone) as a separate system that interacts with traditional genetic-evolution.

Virtually all human societies, including all the hunter-gatherer groups anthropologists have recorded, have had and have some moral code (a sense of "justice") that pretty much invariably includes things like prohibition of exploitation as well cooperative labour and all that. So yes, those things you mentioned are a part of human nature. Unfortunately, no human society that I am aware of has ever been free of things like exploitation either (why do you think universal moral sentiments against it exist in the first place?). This is why "social Darwinism", like communism, is also something that usually doesn't work in the real world (because human beings, when not in life/death predicaments, in general tend to be "moral").

The ultimate point I am trying to make here I guess is that utopias have never, don't and probably will never exist. My initial point might have been better framed as: utopian ideas like "true communism" do not and cannot work in the real world.

PS: For the record, I personally am a centrist in my own economic views and prefer a blend of "capitalism" and "socialism".

 

[Scooby Doo]

Spoiler

Oh no you are correct, that was a gross oversimplification (if I had to add all the qualifications to my posts on things from a biological perspective Id have to write a book, and Im not so sure I could write that even if I wanted to). You are right that cooperative behaviour is as much a part of the behaviour of social animals, and not just humans in fact, as is competition.

Actually much of the recent biological research and interest in sociality (including human social behaviour) has been done because of the long-standing problem of behaviour in the animal world that goes even beyond cooperation: why is it that there are animals whose members sometimes help other individuals even at a significant cost to themselves, or to put it more simply, how can altruistic behaviour exist in a Darwinian world?

I was not trying to create a dichotomy between competition and cooperation, even in the biological world those two things actually exist on a spectrum: at one end you have species like sharks (which live completely solitary lives, engage in cannibalism and even of their own offspring) and at the other end, there are eusocial insects with soldier casts that casually engage in suicidal attacks (autothysis) to protect their nests. Homo-sapiens would probably fall somewhere around the middle of this spectrum, I think.

With human beings talking about behaviour from a biological perspective is especially problematic because our intelligence does indeed give us a unique ability (at least as far as we can tell) in the animal world: the ability to solve novel problems in the unique environment. There is no doubt that human beings have an exceptional capacity for behavioural flexibility, and the scientific trend in recent times has been to increasingly take this into account. Currently, what is imo the most promising framework for tackling the special case of the behaviour of homo-sapiens is what is now called dual-inheritance theory (or sometimes gene-culture coevolution theory) which in fact treats culture (patterns of behaviour that cannot be explained by biology alone) as a separate system that interacts with traditional genetic-evolution.

Virtually all human societies, including all the hunter-gatherer groups anthropologists have recorded, have had and have some moral code (a sense of "justice") that pretty much invariably includes things like prohibition of exploitation as well cooperative labour and all that. So yes, those things you mentioned are a part of human nature. Unfortunately, no human society that I am aware of has ever been free of things like exploitation either (why do you think universal moral sentiments against it exist in the first place?). This is why "social Darwinism", like communism, is also something that usually doesn't work in the real world (because human beings, when not in life/death predicaments, in general tend to be "moral").

The ultimate point I am trying to make here I guess is that utopias have never, don't and probably will never exist. My initial point might have been better framed as: utopian ideas like "true communism" do not and cannot work in the real world.

PS: For the record, I personally am a centrist in my own economic views and prefer a blend of "capitalism" and "socialism".

Well, kind of same here

(I've read the rest of your post as well, but tbh I'm lazy to add anything, and anyway, I can't disagree )

 

[Kenotthib]

I vote neither. They both are full of flaws.

 

[Anorien16]

No thats not communism.

But since the idiot will not be working properly.. and there are many idiots in the world like that. then the system itself can never even happen. Its impossible to even start the system without having a common understanding between the people.

@Bold: That is exactly why Communism is impossible .... People work to reach a desired end, if that range is reduced and made same as everyone there would be a serious lack of motivation and incentive. (It may be good for people like artists, authors, thinkers but not for daily labor people)

 

[KingHashirama]

@Bold: That is exactly why Communism is impossible .... People work to reach a desired end, if that range is reduced and made same as everyone there would be a serious lack of motivation and incentive. (It may be good for people like artists, authors, thinkers but not for daily labor people)

well it depends on the goals of society.

We have people making more money with having *** than actually being educated.... we have people who make money by just sitting on their asses via hacking and so on. We have people making millions of dollars for playing a sport, while people who save lives (like doctors) make about 10% of that or maybe even less.


In order for communism to be possible in our society , we'd have to change it to something better. But I agree with ya, that is one of the reasons why communism can't ever exist.

 

[Wabbit]

- Why do we spread lies of Russia/cuba/china ever being communist countries? While knowing there is no communist country to have ever existed on this planet.
Because gommunists are evil and capitalists are goody goody people...It is propaganda. Government often do such things achieve their political goals. Some government are at shit instead of solving their problem or to get people support they point at someone else though thing about Russia/China started from cold war but it is similar.



what democracy gives you..killing evil commies

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

- What is your take on true capitalism vs true communism? Pro capitalism? or pro communism?
- Would the society be better by mixing both of them, or following 1 specific idea?
- What are the issues with real communism?
Ever heard some one say "Only death is communist".
- what are the issues with real capitalism?

I dont know but I know one thing,laws and land are as good as its people.
I like capitalism,you work you way to top but being poor *** myself I have seen corruption and madness,all the advantages the rich have over me,how they can crush any of my class with their influence. In communist country when something wrong happens people have to shut up,here people ignore because they are in comfort.

 

[BlacLord™]

Neither are truly desirable, even in their "truest" forms.

Also, true communism is an oxymoron.