Is capatilism bad or is communism just better?

[Dune Dx]

I was thinking Some of the principals of capatilism arnt that bad eg private ownership the right to run your own business but the ideals of communism are alot better I just wondered if you thought capatilism was completely rubbish or just obselete.

[DaCuBaN]

Heretic! :lol:

I don't think capitalism is rubbish, nor do I consider it obsolete. I believe it very much so has a place in society as mankind is not yet ready for socialism.

Or at least I'm yet to see any evidence that supports that we are.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Its a stage that should create the right conditions for socialism.

It has also done a lot of positive things in terms of developing mankind, some freedoms are associated with it.

However it is an inherently evil system based on oppression so the bad putweighs the good.

[John Galt]

Neither.

[Frederick_Engles]

capitalism is completly wrong in all aspects

[Guest1]

It had its time, history always progresses leftwards. So it's not that it's necessarily bad, it is better than Feudalism, but that's gone so the next logical progression is worker's control. However, becuase it is the current enemy of progress, it has become the "bad" in this equation. Though I don't like to use moral qualifications here.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:42 PM
capitalism is completly wrong in all aspects
Incorrect.


MOD EDIT

If you are not willing to expound beyond a one word post, then don't bother.

[Nyder]

Communism is a seductive ideology, but it is very narrow minded and can't possibly work. I have never seen any workable, practical way that communism has been shown to actually be achieved. All of the past and present communism-inspired dictators had to use fear and violence to try and make it work. They failed. Every communist-inspired country has been an economic failure.

All I keep hearing on this site is the oft-spouted rhetoric about the 'revolution of the mind'. Now how the hell is that going to work? Marx's theory that man's nature is based on his economic condition was just a theory, not a scientific fact.

From what I see, capitalism is winning and communism, socialism and statism is losing because capitalism works and collectivism doesn't.

[Osman Ghazi]

From what I see, capitalism is winning and communism, socialism and statism is losing because capitalism works and collectivism doesn't.


I'm sure that in the late 1700's people said "From what I see, fuedalism is winning and capitalism, liberalism and democracy is losing because fuedalism works and capitalism doesn't."

History proved them wrong and it will do the same to you. Do you hinestly believe that what we have is the end-all be-all of human societies? Dream on, dreamer.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 9 2004, 01:14 PM
I'm sure that in the late 1700's people said "From what I see, fuedalism is winning and capitalism, liberalism and democracy is losing because fuedalism works and capitalism doesn't."


Feudalism didn't "work" and nobody "invented" capitalism, as Nyder's sig explains : "Capitalism is not an "ism." It is closer to being the opposite of an "ism," because it is simply the freedom of ordinary people to make whatever economic transactions they can mutually agree to."


History proved them wrong and it will do the same to you. Do you hinestly believe that what we have is the end-all be-all of human societies? Dream on, dreamer.

Just like the predictions back in the 60's that in the year 2000, we'd all be speaking "Esperanto".

[DaCuBaN]

Capitalism is not an "ism." It is closer to being the opposite of an "ism," because it is simply the freedom of ordinary people to make whatever economic transactions they can mutually agree to

... regardless of the effect it may render upon any other parties who do not mutually agree to aforementioned transaction.


Feudalism didn't "work"

:blink:

Considering we had it in the UK for almost 600 years, are you being serious ?
If evidence of functionality is derived from the actual practice of the ideology then it certainly did work. This doesn't make it a good thing, and the same can be said for 'capitalism'


Just like the predictions back in the 60's that in the year 2000, we'd all be speaking "Esperanto".

There's hope yet :ph34r: :lol:

[Professor Moneybags]

... regardless of the effect it may render upon any other parties who do not mutually agree to aforementioned transaction.

If the transaction doesn't involve the use of force against them, then it's none of their business.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 10 2004, 03:09 AM
If the transaction doesn't involve the use of force against them, then it's none of their business.
Transactions under Capitalism are all about force and coercion, so even if it doesn't involve use of force against them, it is their duty to break up slavery.

[Osman Ghazi]

If the transaction doesn't involve the use of force against them, then it's none of their business.

So if I gave your boss say $100 bucks to fire you, by your logic, would that be none of your business?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Jun 10 2004, 06:56 PM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Jun 10 2004, 06:56 PM)
Professor [email protected] 10 2004, 03:09 AM
If the transaction doesn't involve the use of force against them, then it's none of their business.
Transactions under Capitalism are all about force and coercion, so even if it doesn't involve use of force against them, it is their duty to break up slavery. [/b]
Wow, what an eye-opener. So if I buy a bread I am either coerced in doing so or forcing you who is 4000 km from me....... :blink:

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 12:38 PM
Communism is a seductive ideology, but it is very narrow minded and can't possibly work. I have never seen any workable, practical way that communism has been shown to actually be achieved. All of the past and present communism-inspired dictators had to use fear and violence to try and make it work. They failed. Every communist-inspired country has been an economic failure.
I like the way you insist on using the example of the USSR to discredit communism as totalitarian but then when you want to talk about economic success you agree that it wasn't communist.

[monkeydust]

I can see where you're coming from Dune, though I don't really agree.

Capitalism, at face value, does seem 'OK', in some respects. However, the reality of capitalism, which we have actually seen is far from satisfactory.

Capitalism does not proportionately reward according to merit, or effort. I know many who have worked hard all their lives, yet yielded little in terms of wealth. Many people simply get 'lucky'. Moreover, it seems a tendency for a select few to hoard absolutely vast sums of wealth, so much that they coudln't use it all if they tried (possibly).

I also consider the free market, at least unregulated to have a number of flaws, if the capitalists wish me to elaborate here then I will do so, otherwise I'll assume that they accept such arguments, as they've heard them before.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 08:23 PM
I also consider the free market, at least unregulated to have a number of flaws, if the capitalists wish me to elaborate here then I will do so, otherwise I'll assume that they accept such arguments, as they've heard them before.
Of course not. Which one do you want: non-rivalry, negative externalities, sunk costs, monopolies?

Even if these flaws would really exist and could not be solved, then regulating them would have other repercussions.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 04:01 PM
Wow, what an eye-opener. So if I buy a bread I am either coerced in doing so or forcing you who is 4000 km from me....... :blink:
No, but you have to give your labour away at a loss in order to get the money to buy that bread, which is wage slavery. Thus, it is my duty, no matter how far away I am, to smash slavery and give you the full product of your labour.

[monkeydust]

Of course not. Which one do you want: non-rivalry, negative externalities, sunk costs, monopolies?


Or rather, which one don't I want. They're all such valid criticisms.

What about consumer sovereignty being an illusion, due to (as you mention) the tendency for monopolies, as well as the effect of advertising maniulating consumer appetites and desires?

Or how about the markets inability to respond to 'social costs'? These are costs of productive activity which affect society in general but are disregarded by the firm that makes them because they are external , they do not show up on its balance sheet.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:42 PM
capitalism is completly wrong in all aspects
Then turn off your computer and never get on the internet again.

They are products of capitalism, and as you said, Capitalism is completely wrong in all aspects. This obviously includes any products of capitalism, such as personal computers and the internet, right?

Bye Bye

[DaCuBaN]

They are products of capitalism, and as you said, Capitalism is completely wrong in all aspects. This obviously includes any products of capitalism, such as personal computers and the internet, right?

Saying that capitalism is wrong in all aspects is false, but it does leave a lot to be desired in my opinion., but that was not what I wish to address.

I've come across you throwing around the 'capitalism is good for technological advancement' argument before, and still refuse to accept this. Laissez Faire capitalism is if fact terrible for research purposes: Funding is fickle as the wind, nothing that does not have any financial benefit from it's production will get made, and so on.

This is completely aside from the fact that capitalism can, for the purposes of profit, hold back certain technologies: Take TFT vs CRT as an example - the former is actually less expensive to manufacture than the latter, but as the capital has already been invested in the latter, companies aren't making the switch - despite the fact it's a simpler and cheaper manufacturing process - simply to maximise their profits.

[Nas]

Communism was meant to fix the flaws of Capitalism, Communism is meant to be better than Capitalism

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 10 2004, 09:21 PM
No, but you have to give your labour away at a loss in order to get the money to buy that bread, which is wage slavery. Thus, it is my duty, no matter how far away I am, to smash slavery and give you the full product of your labour.
I am glad someone is looking after me. But I rather have my mom telling me to eat more fruit than you forcing me into poverty based on a obsolete theory.


Or rather, which one don't I want. They're all such valid criticisms

Not all would agree with you.


What about consumer sovereignty being an illusion, due to (as you mention) the tendency for monopolies, as well as the effect of advertising maniulating consumer appetites and desires?

There is no tendency for monopolies. Btw I don't see why you would see this as a disadvantage since a monopoly in a capitalist world suffers the same problems as a collectively owned company in the socialist world.

Not so long ago we had a consumer strike in the Netherlands which forced a company to alter its course, so I'd guess consumer sovereignty still exists.


Or how about the markets inability to respond to 'social costs'? These are costs of productive activity which affect society in general but are disregarded by the firm that makes them because they are external , they do not show up on its balance sheet.

Why do you claim that the market is unable to respond to negative externalities? Ever heard of the Coase-theorem?

[monkeydust]

Not all would agree with you.


I know, and I invite them to disagree as they wish.

I certainly consider argument and rational debate in OI to be favourable to the endless insults of "brainwashed cappie" or "stupid commie", which I believe are all too common here.


There is no tendency for monopolies.

I'm not so sure.

It's certainly often favourable for companies to form cartels, based on mutual interest, thus gaining a monopoly of sorts (though of course not entirely). Moreover, once a near monopoly is achieved (i.e. with micorosoft) the efficiency and quality of products produced is able to diminish accordingly.



Btw I don't see why you would see this as a disadvantage since a monopoly in a capitalist world suffers the same problems as a collectively owned company in the socialist world.


I never said anything about a planned economy.

Many modern socialists have, almost by necessity, been forced to embrace the market. Such people recognise the strenghts of the market, though realise that it is a good servant, but a bad master.

More common on this board are people who advocate the demolition of state apparatus altogether, and an 'economy' basedon goods for 'use', rather than commodities for 'exchange'.



Not so long ago we had a consumer strike in the Netherlands which forced a company to alter its course, so I'd guess consumer sovereignty still exists.

I'm not saying that you can't demonstrate a few examples of consumers taking matters into "their own hands". Though that hardly demonstrates how consumer sovereignty exists everywhere to a full extent.

I believe that such things as advertising may, to an extent, manipulate consumer interests and desires. And may, furthermore, undermine any potential competition.



Why do you claim that the market is unable to respond to negative externalities?

In a completely 'free market', what is the incentive to build something of 'value' to society, that does not yield profit, such as a lighthouse?


Ever heard of the Coase-theorem?



Yes.

Unfortuantely, for those who believe in it, the coase-theorem simply would not work in the "real world".

For example, can someone privately own air, and thus compel a company polluting it to pay the price?

Besides what if the polluter owns the land he is polluting, is this still acceptable, and will he still have an incentive to end such pollution. Many farmers today own all their land, yet are ever willing to damage it with perstisides, so long as crops grow as quickly and efficently as possible.

[Hoppe]

It's certainly often favourable for companies to form cartels, based on mutual interest, thus gaining a monopoly of sorts (though of course not entirely). Moreover, once a near monopoly is achieved (i.e. with micorosoft) the efficiency and quality of products produced is able to diminish accordingly.

But in a totally free market, you'd have to form cartels with every company on that market and you have to find a way to force others not to enter.

And people are free to use other operating systems. Unfortunately, Linux is hard to master if you don't have many knowledge of computers. So, "in the eyes" of many consumers Microsoft has a monopoly, but in real not.


I never said anything about a planned economy.

Many modern socialists have, almost by necessity, been forced to embrace the market. Such people recognise the strenghts of the market, though realise that it is a good servant, but a bad master.

True, but I wasn't referring to planned economies. What I meant is that by abolishing the market (which also happens with a capitalist monopoly) you have the same problrems.


I'm not saying that you can't demonstrate a few examples of consumers taking matters into "their own hands". Though that hardly demonstrates how consumer sovereignty exists everywhere to a full extent.

I think this clearly demonstrates my point. Though in everyday life you won't see or hear about consumer strikes, it happens everyday, even if you decide to buy Pepsi instead of Coca Cola.


In a completely 'free market', what is the incentive to build something of 'value' to society, that does not yield profit, such as a lighthouse?


Of course, lighthouses were build in the free market, see again Coase. I can hardly think of any product or service which hasn't been provided for by the market.


Besides what if the polluter owns the land he is polluting, is this still acceptable, and will he still have an incentive to end such pollution. Many farmers today own all their land, yet are ever willing to damage it with perstisides, so long as crops grow as quickly and efficently as possible.

Now, reality shows that when land is privately owned the output will increase but in a sustainable way. If you pollute your land in such an extent that you have to wait years till you can grow crops again, you have a serious problem. So farmers will use their land in a sustainable way to maximize longterm output. And you cannot sell heavily polluted land.

I agree that air is a bit more difficult but so is water. However the UK landowners have property rights over parts of streams that run acroos their land. Fisherman in the US claimed ownership over coastalwaters, the amount of fish in the sea increased dramatically untill the federal government put a stop to it.

[themessiah]

your topic question means the same thing. there is no OR disjunctive as a result.

just say "Capitalism IS bad" OR "Communism IS better"

[elijahcraig]

I was thinking Some of the principals of capatilism arnt that bad eg private ownership the right to run your own business but the ideals of communism are alot better I just wondered if you thought capatilism was completely rubbish or just obselete.

Come on, why do you have a picture of Ernesto Guevara in your avatar if you are going to post nonsense like this?


I have never seen any workable, practical way that communism has been shown to actually be achieved. All of the past and present communism-inspired dictators had to use fear and violence to try and make it work. They failed. Every communist-inspired country has been an economic failure.

1. No one has ever claimed any past socialist nations to be communist.
2. There are no dictators in former socialist nations.
3. Failure was the result of revisionist implementation of state capitalist programs, always done gradually, and the result of imperialist invasion, economically or militarilly.


Marx's theory that man's nature is based on his economic condition was just a theory, not a scientific fact.


Science is all theory.


From what I see, capitalism is winning and communism, socialism and statism is losing because capitalism works and collectivism doesn't.

There are many socialist-inspired programs in capitalism which have only been implemented into capitalist nations in order to stop revolutions—this is the result of many struggles. This is also an illusion to be countered by hardline Marxism.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:39 AM
1. No one has ever claimed any past socialist nations to be communist.







You can debate endlessly whether a country was communist/socialist or not. So I use the term 'communist-inspired', which means that the rulers were communist-orientated (like North Korea, USSR and the People's Republic of China drew heavily on Marxist ideology).

The argument that communism has never existed and therefore must be good is a stupid argument that I have already addressed.


2. There are no dictators in former socialist nations.

Are you sure about that? And how do you define a dictator?


3. Failure was the result of revisionist implementation of state capitalist programs, always done gradually, and the result of imperialist invasion, economically or militarilly.

Bullshit, there was no 'invasion'. Former 'communist-inspired' and socialist nations found it hard succeed immediately after free market reforms because years of collectivism had totally wrecked their country economically and socially.


Science is all theory.

Then I suppose you think that the 'theory' that cells contain nuclei is inseperable from the theory that God exists. There is a little thing called evidence. Marx's theory has not been shown to apply to the real world.


There are many socialist-inspired programs in capitalism which have only been implemented into capitalist nations in order to stop revolutions—this is the result of many struggles. This is also an illusion to be countered by hardline Marxism.

So it's all a big conspiracy, is it?

[rebelgames]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 8 2004, 11:17 PM
Incorrect.


MOD EDIT

If you are not willing to expound beyond a one word post, then don't bother.
it's not incorrect it's just his idea

[monkeydust]

But in a totally free market, you'd have to form cartels with every company on that market and you have to find a way to force others not to enter.


No single business, corparation or cartel can "force" others not to enter the market.

Even Microsoft have some comparatively recent competition, in the form of Linux.

But practically speaking, any considerably large cartel, even if it could not outlaw competition altogether, would still have the economic clout to give itself something of a "head start", when a consumer considers which product to buy.

To use the above example again, Linux is arguably superior to Microsoft's Windows. However Microsoft's huge capacity to advertise, its ability to make 'Legitimate' deals, ensuring that Windows is pre-instaled on most computers and a number of cunning business ideas, such as releasing products for free until realistic competition is eliminated have, to a large extent, prevented the consumer from objectively deciding which product is "best" for its suited task in the computer software market.


The argument that communism has never existed and therefore must be good is a stupid argument that I have already addressed

Great, but that's not the argument that anybody here uses.

The argument actually states that as Communism has never existed, one cannot draw upon examples from previous Marxist-Leninist or Stalinist states to refute Communism's merits when practically applied.

[Rex_20XD6]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:42 PM
capitalism is completly wrong in all aspects
I wouldn't want capitalism because i dont want the government telling me to do everything they want me to. tell me if im wrong but communism is alot better! :rolleyes:

[Osman Ghazi]

capitalism is completly wrong in all aspects

An ignorant comment to say the least. As CI pointed out, capitalism created the computer. More importantly though, capitalism created the working class!

[Dune Dx]

Come on, why do you have a picture of Ernesto Guevara in your avatar if you are going to post nonsense like this?

because im lazy and cant be bothered to change it!
and i like this avatar the best

[Urban Rubble]

Capitalism isn't bad. Capitalism has brought us many wonderful things.

I believe Capitalism is a necessary step in the evolution of humankind. One day we will progress beyond it, it is inevitable. Communism ? Who knows ? I'd like to think so, but we cannot continue on like this for much longer.