Similarities: Communism and Capitalism

[w1kz]

The two ideologies carry many differences, but I was just wanted to hear different opinions on what people think the similarities are?

Any help would be appriciated

[bcbm]

I think both assume that the Enlightenment idea of "progress" is something to be upheld and followed. The same would probably apply to other Enlightenment ideals such as liberty, rationality and science.

[JasonJ]

In many ways we are talking oranges and apples here. If we are referring to Communism as a system of government, then it must be assumed that in a real world situation that the collective will need to raise monies to perform the necessary acts of governance as well as supply the needs of the governed. We cannot assume, in this day and age that any country would be self-sufficient and not need to exchange goods and services with a foreign entity. It is therefore important to understand that in some form or another the state will need something, capital, to exchange for the needs that the collective cannot provide for itself internally without this exchange of what we consider currency.

In short, all states must have some reserve of capital. Following Marx's interpretation of capital...that capital is the accumulation of excess value of labor, to paraphrase helps to make sense of what I am driving at here. So it is imperative for us to understand the terminology here. The notion of capital accumulation in itself is not bad, just as rat poison is not bad; as long as it is used in the proper context for the greater good of those affected by such usage. The accumulation of capital only becomes bad when it is accumulated in the hands of private individuals in the context of providing personal priviledge over one's fellow countrymen. It is unfortunate that we, as a species, are cursed with the English model of Capitalism as defined and perfected by American industry. It would be nice to imagine a world where greed and competition were not the deciding factors as to who lives and dies, who gets fed and who starves, and why everyone else has to lose for one to 'win'.

The accumulation of capital could conceivibly be used for the benefit of all if human competition could ever be successfully resolved. When we stop to imagine how existence could be should we end our struggles for attainment of goals that are counterproductive to our fellow man; one can begin to imagine great things. We could find that we really don't need to work all day and all night to produce the things we need for our subsistence. We could find ourselves with ample time for the enlightenment we all seek to find.

But once again, I guess I find myself talking apples and oranges. For Capitalism is not a system of government as is the collectivist ideology of Communism. Capitalism is but a tool of attainment toward a goal, a tool which unfortunately lends itself more readily to another system of government commonly referred to as Fascism.

[KGB5097]

Im my opinion, Capitalism tries to build society from the top down, while Communism/Socialism advocates building from the bottem up.

In the end were both looking for a fully build (Perfect) society where alll are taken care up, theres just lots and lots of exploitation on the capitalist road to this goal....

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:07 AM
If we are referring to Communism as a system of government,
We're not, communism has no government.

[danny android]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Dec 13 2005, 03:55 PM--> (Additives Free @ Dec 13 2005, 03:55 PM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 03:07 AM
If we are referring to Communism as a system of government,
We're not, communism has no government. [/b]
Not necesarrily. Communism is statless and classless. But you will always need something to deal with criminals and what not, so you will always need some kind of government to uphold somekind of safety in society.

[I'd Rather Be Drinking]

I don't think communism accepts the Enlightenment. Enlightenment rationality was a set of ideas that came about with the rise to power of the bourgeoisie, and communism would undermine these ideas and bring out the moments of truth in them at the same time.

Same goes for the idea of "progress". Progress within capitalism is a response to working class struggles. Proles form a fighting unity and attack capital, if the attack is unsuccessful, capitalism restructures itself to dissolve the proletarian subject. It continues at a new stage--that's progress and development.

Same goes for science. It will be abolished as a separate field, but the basic moments of truth will be maintained.

JasonJ is right that states imply capital (and capital implies a state). I'm against capitalism though... so I'm also against the state.

But to answer the question, what do capitalism and communism have in common? Mainly their opposition to older forms of society. Such as monarchy, absolute religion, fuedalism, or the old clan based societies, etc...

[LSD]

I don't think communism accepts the Enlightenment.

Of course it "accepts" it. From its very inseption, communism was an attempt to expand upon enlightement rationality, not "undermine" it.

The enlightenment introduced concepts of individualism, equality, and anti-traditionalism. In more ways than one it marked the end of feudalist legitmacy, albeit not of feudalism itself.

Enlightenment thinking isn't "perfect" and is very much a product of its time, but it's flaws are in its conservatism, not its liberalism. The gains of the enlightenment must not only be "accepted", they must be furthered. The concepts which enlightement thinkers were afraid to challange (property, privalege, race, gender etc..) must be confronted, but those confrontations which did occur should not be "reversed".

The other side of the enlightenment is superstitious feudalism. I see no appeal in that.


Same goes for science. It will be abolished as a separate field, but the basic moments of truth will be maintained.

"moments of truth" strikes me as a rather vague and idealist term.

The field of science won't be as bureacratic as it is today, but I see no practical way that it can be "abolished".

Science can only be done by those who understand its principles and have a working knowledge of the subject matter. This takes time, education, and specialization.

[I'd Rather Be Drinking]

Communism is not just a matter of furthering enlightenment. That's like saying communism is just about democratizing capitalism. Enlightenment, like capitalism, has it's conservative and it's liberal elements. Both of these will have to be undermined by communism. The conservative who calls for repression, and the liberal who upholds "individual rights" are the two sides of the same coin.

Of course I'm not for reversing the enlightenment. That's ridiculous. I'm for undermining and preserving the moments of truth. Sure "moments of truth" may be a bit vague, but it's not idealistic. It's a term used by some Marxists to talk about how the synthesis in a dialectic preserves the "good things" about the original terms.

More concretely, I argued that the "good thing" about Enlightenment is that it undermined ideas of absolute divine right to rule, and absolute religion. In this, enlightement and communism agree. I would argue on the other hand that the kinds of human freedom that enlightenment talks about are ultimately capitalist.

I think you do a disservice to communism to see it as simply furthering enlightenment. Communism is more new and different than that.

When I say science will be "abolished" as a specialized area, I'm not saying that some people won't know more about one thing than another. I'm saying that the category "scientist" is a capitalist category that will no longer exist--like the category "artist". I emphasize this because there is a dangerous history among people calling themselves "communists" to see scientific and technological development as simply a "good thing". I think this is a point of view completely in contradiction to communism.

to quote Guy Debord:

"What closely links Marx’s theory with scientific thought is the rational understanding of the forces which really operate in society. But Marx’s theory is fundamentally beyond scientific thought, and it preserves scientific thought only by superseding it: what is in question is an understanding of struggle, and not of law."