Communism Encourages Capitalism

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

A friend of mine suggest this, and I am not sure how to refute it. If communism says capitalists are inferior, someone who wants to be capitalist is marginalized in a communist society. In this way, communism creates a hierarchy. There is the proletariat, and then there are inferior capitalists. Because of this hierarchy, selfish individuals will adopt capitalist beliefs.

Personally, I can only think of one counterargument. In a true communist society, a capitalist would achieve more for himself by working for the group. However, I have no proof that this is true.

Thoughts?

[which doctor]

If communism says capitalists are inferior, someone who wants to be capitalist is marginalized in a communist society.
Communism says that capitalism is inferior, but not capitalists. Capitalists are just greedy people who will probaly slowly disappear in a communist society.


In this way, communism creates a hierarchy. There is the proletariat, and then there are inferior capitalists. Because of this hierarchy, selfish individuals will adopt capitalist beliefs.
Communists will probaly gradually adapt to the prole lifestyle because they have no other choice. Early on capitalists will be looked down upon by the proles, but this will disappear as capitalists do. Communism benefits everyone, even capitalists. It gets rid of the stress that is inherent in capitalism.



Personally, I can only think of one counterargument. In a true communist society, a capitalist would achieve more for himself by working for the group. However, I have no proof that this is true.

None of us have proof. We are all just purely speculating because real communism has never been implemented. It's all hypothetical.

[Publius]

A friend of mine suggest this, and I am not sure how to refute it. If communism says capitalists are inferior, someone who wants to be capitalist is marginalized in a communist society. In this way, communism creates a hierarchy. There is the proletariat, and then there are inferior capitalists. Because of this hierarchy, selfish individuals will adopt capitalist beliefs.

Interesting opinion.

I think this is an example of communisms philosophy leading its 'scientific understanding of history' by the nose.

Communist PHILOSOPHY states that indeed all people will be fully equal, but I think we all realize this is impossible; your example clearly shows a flaw in the reasoning.

I think that an inevietable side-effect of communism (Or any other revolution) is the creation of an enemy class and a subsuquent subjugation of that class.

Marx would like to believe that as the 'conditions' for capitalism 'melt away' every trace of capitalism itself, including capitalists, would melt away as well, perhaps stemming from his dialectics.

But yes, capitalists and other 'enemies of the proleteriat' would certainly exist. In fact, they are necessary for ANY sort of communal behavior.

A group of people needs some tie; communism thus needs an enemy.

For communism to work (forgive my loose assertion) it has to be a constant struggle -- didn't chairman mao state this -- and thus, HAS to have a class to fight.

So essentially, its built on a dichotomy: Communism can only exist with a capitalist enemy to fight, but its goal is to rid the world of capitalism.

Basically, the only way communism can stay logically consistant with its canon is by stating that once capitalism ends (Dialectically) capitalism itself and all of its relics cease to exist.

Basically, people won't be selfish anymore.

I think this is utterly asinine. People (Some at least) will always be selfish and thus will always create a selfish class, which invalidates 'communist society'.

The result of selfish action and a 'proletarian' response to it is necessarily overt repression.

Communism is thus invariably totalitarian and class-based; a sort of caste system.

At least that's how I see it.




Personally, I can only think of one counterargument. In a true communist society, a capitalist would achieve more for himself by working for the group. However, I have no proof that this is true.


Even if he indeed could, he might (Due to understandable human ignorance) not see it that way.

Take for example, hoarding before or during a diaster.

No real shortage exists; everyone could easily purchase enough to survive during the crisis, but, becuase of selfishness, people will take far more than they need.

So it may by logically possible that these 'capitalists' would be better off working communally but they are unlikely to see it that way.

They'll take the first oppurtunity they percieve to better their own ends, even if its ultimately harmful to the group and thus to themselves.

Take for example, workers stealing tools in the Soviet Union.

Economic games have shown people to be selfish, even when being selfless is ultimately more beneficial to the player and indeed to all the players.

[Publius]

Communism says that capitalism is inferior, but not capitalists. Capitalists are just greedy people who will probaly slowly disappear in a communist society.

That's like saying "Nazism is inferior but aren't".

If you really hate capitalism, and as communist you are impelled to, than you really hate capitalists.

Don't be shy about it.

I hate communism and I hate communists (Their beliefs that is; they may be fine individuals).

Don't mince words.



Communists will probaly gradually adapt to the prole lifestyle because they have no other choice.

First, 'probably' doesn't do much to inspire me to accept your posit.

Secondly, doing something because you are 'forced to' is slavery.

Are you acknowledging that communism is slavery?



Early on capitalists will be looked down upon by the proles, but this will disappear as capitalists do.

But how can capitalists disappear without the conditions for them existing disappearing before them?

But those material conditions include 'classless' society.

This seems like a contradiction.



Communism benefits everyone, even capitalists.

Tendentious.

But even if it is true, people will still try and be selfish.

What is actaully true, and what people percieve to be true is often discordant.



It gets rid of the stress that is inherent in capitalism.

Inherent in humanity.



None of us have proof. We are all just purely speculating because real communism has never been implemented. It's all hypothetical.

A frank admonission.

[Jadan ja]

If communism says capitalists are inferior, someone who wants to be capitalist is marginalized in a communist society.

Someone who wants to be a slaveowner is placed in jail in capitalist society.


In this way, communism creates a hierarchy. There is the proletariat, and then there are inferior capitalists.

Capitalists are people who own capital and take interest and profit. They dont exist in socialism or communism.


Personally, I can only think of one counterargument

This "argument" is based on the obvious misunderstanding of terms, so you cant have a counterargument.

So, I will try to rephrase this argument to make sense. Under socialism, some people will want to be capitalists.

The problem with this argument is more than obvious, since it will be impossible just as being a slveowner is, legally, impossible in capitalism.

[which doctor]

If you really hate capitalism, and as communist you are impelled to, than you really hate capitalists.

Don't be shy about it.

I hate communism and I hate communists (Their beliefs that is; they may be fine individuals).

Don't mince words.
I hate capitalism, the belief of capitalists, but not the actual people. I think they have potential to become normal people in a communist society. As long as they are able to shed their old, outdated beliefs in exchange for communism.



First, 'probably' doesn't do much to inspire me to accept your posit.
I should have used "most likely", but as I said it is all hypothetical.



Secondly, doing something because you are 'forced to' is slavery.
No one is forced to do anything. They could always run away to their own little capitalist paradise, but it would be easier and better to just go along with communism.



Are you acknowledging that communism is slavery?
No.


But how can capitalists disappear without the conditions for them existing disappearing before them?

But those material conditions include 'classless' society.

This seems like a contradiction.

Where is the contradiction? When the workers begin to rule, the ones with capitalist ideologies will be shunned for their previous crimes against humanity. Of course it is classless, but people will still dislike others, especially in the beginning because it will not be a communist society in the beginning.



Tendentious.

But even if it is true, people will still try and be selfish.

What is actaully true, and what people percieve to be true is often discordant.
Are you basing this on human nature? The human nature that doesn't exist. People are simply products of their environments.



Inherent in humanity.
Inherent in humanity as we know it, but not as we have yet to know it.



A frank admonission.
The truth, I can't back up most of what I just said. I have just ran these situations through my mind and have made predictions. They have also ran through the minds of many others, and they have also come up with similar results as I have.

[Jadan ja]

Communist PHILOSOPHY states that indeed all people will be fully equal, but I think we all realize this is impossible; your example clearly shows a flaw in the reasoning.

What "fully equal" means?

The equality in a communist society is "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needs." (Socialism is "according to his work.") The other important equality is political equality.

If someone wants to disturb these equlities (by becoming a capitalist or becoming a dicatator), of course he will be prevented to. I really dont see any hierarchy developing. Hierarchy is prevented to develop.


I think that an inevietable side-effect of communism (Or any other revolution) is the creation of an enemy class and a subsuquent subjugation of that class.

Revolution CREATES enemy class???????? (Did the bourgeois revolution create enemy class?) Where did you read this?

Revolution happens BECAUSE society developes classes which are in conflict. Revolution overthrows a ruling class and creates a new society which then developes classes (which are again in conflict).


For communism to work (forgive my loose assertion) it has to be a constant struggle -- didn't chairman mao state this -- and thus, HAS to have a class to fight.

I think you are confusing socialism and communism. Communism is by definiton a society without class strugle (that is why it cannot be changed into another system).


I think this is utterly asinine. People (Some at least) will always be selfish and thus will always create a selfish class, which invalidates 'communist society'.

Some people will always want to be slaveowners, but capitalism does not allow them that since the people dont want to give up freedoms gained in a bourgeois revolution. Communst (and socialist) society will prevent "selfish people" in the same way.


The result of selfish action and a 'proletarian' response to it is necessarily overt repression.

Communism is thus invariably totalitarian and class-based; a sort of caste system.

I am not sure did I understand you correctly, but I think that you are trying to say that there will be people in a communist society that would want more than what are they given in a communist society (according to their needs). Those selfish
people would try to create capitalist hierarchy. Others (you cant talk about "proleterian" response since the bourgeoise and proleterian class did not develop yet, you are trying to prove that they would) would respond by repression and totalitarianism would develop.

Did I understand you correctly?

Lets see what happens in capitalist society when someone is not happy with what is he given by the market for his labour (or products of his labour). That selfish person will also try to create hierarchy, hierarchy that existed in ancient times. In that hierarchy the person who is able to steal most, gets most. Capitalism, however, is a system of different hierarchy (who is given the most on the market, gets most), so thers respond by defending themselves from that selfish individual. Is this totalitarianism?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 13 2006, 11:27 PM
A friend of mine suggest this, and I am not sure how to refute it. If communism says capitalists are inferior, someone who wants to be capitalist is marginalized in a communist society. In this way, communism creates a hierarchy. There is the proletariat, and then there are inferior capitalists. Because of this hierarchy, selfish individuals will adopt capitalist beliefs.
The one thing that we know for certain about communism is that it will be a classless. Therefore there will be no capitalists.

All this capitalism crap will be dealt with in socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[boyden militiamen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 01:50 AM

A friend of mine suggest this, and I am not sure how to refute it. If communism says capitalists are inferior, someone who wants to be capitalist is marginalized in a communist society. In this way, communism creates a hierarchy. There is the proletariat, and then there are inferior capitalists. Because of this hierarchy, selfish individuals will adopt capitalist beliefs.

Interesting opinion.

I think this is an example of communisms philosophy leading its 'scientific understanding of history' by the nose.

Communist PHILOSOPHY states that indeed all people will be fully equal, but I think we all realize this is impossible; your example clearly shows a flaw in the reasoning.

I think that an inevietable side-effect of communism (Or any other revolution) is the creation of an enemy class and a subsuquent subjugation of that class.

Marx would like to believe that as the 'conditions' for capitalism 'melt away' every trace of capitalism itself, including capitalists, would melt away as well, perhaps stemming from his dialectics.

But yes, capitalists and other 'enemies of the proleteriat' would certainly exist. In fact, they are necessary for ANY sort of communal behavior.

A group of people needs some tie; communism thus needs an enemy.

For communism to work (forgive my loose assertion) it has to be a constant struggle -- didn't chairman mao state this -- and thus, HAS to have a class to fight.

So essentially, its built on a dichotomy: Communism can only exist with a capitalist enemy to fight, but its goal is to rid the world of capitalism.

Basically, the only way communism can stay logically consistant with its canon is by stating that once capitalism ends (Dialectically) capitalism itself and all of its relics cease to exist.

Basically, people won't be selfish anymore.

I think this is utterly asinine. People (Some at least) will always be selfish and thus will always create a selfish class, which invalidates 'communist society'.

The result of selfish action and a 'proletarian' response to it is necessarily overt repression.

Communism is thus invariably totalitarian and class-based; a sort of caste system.

At least that's how I see it.




Personally, I can only think of one counterargument. In a true communist society, a capitalist would achieve more for himself by working for the group. However, I have no proof that this is true.


Even if he indeed could, he might (Due to understandable human ignorance) not see it that way.

Take for example, hoarding before or during a diaster.

No real shortage exists; everyone could easily purchase enough to survive during the crisis, but, becuase of selfishness, people will take far more than they need.

So it may by logically possible that these 'capitalists' would be better off working communally but they are unlikely to see it that way.

They'll take the first oppurtunity they percieve to better their own ends, even if its ultimately harmful to the group and thus to themselves.

Take for example, workers stealing tools in the Soviet Union.

Economic games have shown people to be selfish, even when being selfless is ultimately more beneficial to the player and indeed to all the players.
in order for a capitalist to be succesfull he needs consumers, but in a communist society the numbers of those that would be willing to support such an ideology would not be, the capitalist pig would thereforenot recieve enough income to further his self righteous and greedy ways and would have to continue his business as a just and practical one, or to submit to society and work hand in hand with his comrades for the benefit of the world.

[Hegemonicretribution]

A capitalist cannot exist in communist society, because the statement "there are no capitalists in communism" is an analytic truth. That is that it is true by virtue of its own meaning.

Now, supposing that a "capitalist" had been frozen, and was transported into communist society. They may well be impressed with the standard of living, and economic output, but think, "How can I improve my situation above others?"

The answers to this will differ depending on your conception f communism, but here are a few: They offer to exchange something (imagine they bring it with them from current time) assuming that a communist works for them. This would simply no longer make sense. That is to say that the object in question is attributed to one person, and could be attributed to another pending a contract involving work.

How can this trade be made if there is no concept of private property. I am not talking about restriction of rights here, I am talking about a concept that no longer makes sense. Just as we may not comprehend some seemingly counter-productive primitive practice.


Actually I don't think I really need go on, I could offer more demonstrations of how this is impossible by virtue of meaning.

[Red Leader]

But even if it is true, people will still try and be selfish.

What is actaully true, and what people percieve to be true is often discordant.

In what way? Why is it that people always jump to that conclusion, that humans will automatically do the most selfish thing. Ever since there has been some sort of monetary system around there has been no proof for this. Nobody has really seen how humans would act if given the option to live life free of incentives.

Really, deep down, I believe humans have the capability of looking out for each other when all other factors like money and capital disapear. And even now, when money is seemingly the only reason to work, the richist fucks in the world, who can support themselves for hundreds of years off of thier excess wealth CONTINUE TO WORK. Why? Because humans like to do shit.

And when all incentive to work is taken away, and humans are just working to survive and live and have fun and whatever, greed will be replaced with compasion. Obviously people will still want things, I admit it there is no gowing around the fact that people want shit. However this becomes more possible when money is taken out of the picture and people are more willing to help people and give shit up for other people, simply out of generosity.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Jadan [email protected] 14 2006, 04:51 AM










What "fully equal" means?

The equality in a communist society is "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needs." (Socialism is "according to his work.") The other important equality is political equality.

As if 'needs' or 'ability' can ever be meaningfully defined.



If someone wants to disturb these equlities (by becoming a capitalist or becoming a dicatator), of course he will be prevented to. I really dont see any hierarchy developing. Hierarchy is prevented to develop.

This is of course assuming it ends.

Naive.


Revolution CREATES enemy class???????? (Did the bourgeois revolution create enemy class?)

The proletariat.



Where did you read this?

I heard from Mao and Trotsky; the bit about a 'constant revolution'.

It seems apparent that this means there will always be an enemy, indeed that there always HAS to be an enemy.



Revolution happens BECAUSE society developes classes which are in conflict. Revolution overthrows a ruling class and creates a new society which then developes classes (which are again in conflict).

Exactly.

That revolution is precluded on classes and will invariably create them.



I think you are confusing socialism and communism. Communism is by definiton a society without class strugle (that is why it cannot be changed into another system).


I'm not confusing anything; I'm pointing at the the former invalidates the latter.


Some people will always want to be slaveowners, but capitalism does not allow them that since the people dont want to give up freedoms gained in a bourgeois revolution. Communst (and socialist) society will prevent "selfish people" in the same way.

As if you 'system' can prevent anything.

Social systems don't anything on their own, only the people inside the system do. If those people are the ones I see around me, communism is doomed.

If people really were good and magananimous, liberal democracy would work perfectly.

Any system would work perfectly if its people were perfect. That much is obvious.


I am not sure did I understand you correctly, but I think that you are trying to say that there will be people in a communist society that would want more than what are they given in a communist society (according to their needs). Those selfish
people would try to create capitalist hierarchy. Others (you cant talk about "proleterian" response since the bourgeoise and proleterian class did not develop yet, you are trying to prove that they would) would respond by repression and totalitarianism would develop.

I'm saying that the ruling class will always want to lord over someone else.

It will always happen.

If the proles are the ruling class, they'll invent a class to hate.

Since 'capitalism' (Free trade) can never really be abolished, they will portray capitalists as enemies and oppress them.



Lets see what happens in capitalist society when someone is not happy with what is he given by the market for his labour (or products of his labour). That selfish person will also try to create hierarchy, hierarchy that existed in ancient times. In that hierarchy the person who is able to steal most, gets most. Capitalism, however, is a system of different hierarchy (who is given the most on the market, gets most), so thers respond by defending themselves from that selfish individual. Is this totalitarianism?

I'm not sure I entirely followed you here.

[Jadan ja]

QUOTE
Revolution CREATES enemy class???????? (Did the bourgeois revolution create enemy class?)



The proletariat.

Yes, it is possible to view it in that way. Bourgeois revolution leads to capitalism, which creates proleteriat, an enemy class of bourgeois class. But bourgeois revolution certainly did not create lords and the ruling class of feudalism (the enemy they fought in revolution). Why do you insist that socialist revolution would CREATE "selfish class" and capitalists? Arent they the enemy that socialism tries to eliminate (not create)?


I heard from Mao and Trotsky; the bit about a 'constant revolution'.

It seems apparent that this means there will always be an enemy, indeed that there always HAS to be an enemy.

I am not really familiar with Maoism, but arent they saying that class struggle continues under socialism (not communism), because they are reactionaries inside the party who wish to restore capitalism? Would not the elimination of party together with the state (transition to communism) also mean the elimination of those reactionaries?


I'm saying that the ruling class will always want to lord over someone else.

It will always happen.

If the proles are the ruling class, they'll invent a class to hate.

Since 'capitalism' (Free trade) can never really be abolished, they will portray capitalists as enemies and oppress them.

I think I already wrote this something like this:

If someone wants to be a slaveowner in capitalist society, others will prevent him (and portray him as an enemy and criminal). Is the ruling class of capitalism by placing thiefs in jail creating a "class to hate"? Since stealing can never really be abolished, people in capitalism will portray thiefs as enemies and oppress them?