peaceful coexistence of communism and capitalism

[danyboy27]

i know that basicly, communism dont like capitalism, and the contrary, and that soviet leader tried to coexist peacefully with capitalism and its failed, but i wonder, would it be possible?

To me, the problem is not the system itself, i mean, take russia for exemple, they moved from a socialist way of thinking to an capitalist way and they still piss o ff their neigbor, go into other folks internal affair etc.

if the us would go socialist/communist, it would still be the same in term of foreign policy, of course some enemies would change..or not, same overspending in military, but with more money put into the social system.

What people seem to see has capitalism destroying socialist/communism movement is nothing but hegemony of superpower, an egemony that would still be there, no matter wich system run it.

i think capitalist and socialist/communism countries can get along, i really believe that, even tho it seem strange to say that at first.

[Dean]

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism" to paraphrase Marx.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Markets can co-exist inside of socialism, but capitalism implies a specific market system where the state (or a "privatized" state) forces private contracts onto others in defense of abstract notions of private property. Capitalism is authoritarian. It cannot coexist with socialism anymore than fascism or feudalism could; there will be conflict over key issues of resource utilization. For example anarcho-capitalists would argue that minarchism is preferable to actual anarchism if it didn't meet their qualifiers, because under anarchism social anarchists (socialists) would not stand for their private corporations and would do everything they could to wreck the property, much like they would a re-emerging state.

Spet, since you've shown yourself to be a thoughtful individual, look into market socialists like Proudhon and Tucker and see why capitalism is bulk.

[danyboy27]

Markets can co-exist inside of socialism, but capitalism implies a specific market system where the state (or a "privatized" state) forces private contracts onto others in defense of abstract notions of private property. Capitalism is authoritarian. It cannot coexist with socialism anymore than fascism or feudalism could; there will be conflict over key issues of resource utilization. For example anarcho-capitalists would argue that minarchism is preferable to actual anarchism if it didn't meet their qualifiers, because under anarchism social anarchists (socialists) would not stand for their private corporations and would do everything they could to wreck the property, much like they would a re-emerging state.

Spet, since you've shown yourself to be a thoughtful individual, look into market socialists like Proudhon and Tucker and see why capitalism is bulk.


i dont really agree with your definition of what a capitalist country is.
capitalism exist in various shape, from the full blown capitalist country to a state that allow capitalism but regulate it and still somehow care about social services.

the french are socialist/capitalist right? But that never stopped them to make deal with countries with differents ideologies, they sold military and civilian technology to lybia, Iraq and a shitload of african country that had a different views of the things, and many other european countries did that too.

the problem is not economical, its all about the hardliner, hardliner from the left think think the capitalists are scum, so they dont work with them, and hardliner from the right think the same thing, and since often the hardliner rules both side, its mean that for the pragmatic and moderate, there is no room left.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The French government and economy are capitalist with a strong welfare system in place. A large segment of the French population may be socialist, but that only translates into concessions like very relaxing working conditions (comparatively) and great health care.

France has never been socialist, although it has come close post-WW2.


capitalism exist in various shape, from the full blown capitalist country to a state that allow capitalism but regulate it and still somehow care about social services.We're actually in agreement. That's capitalism.


the problem is not economical, its all about the hardliner, hardliner from the left think think the capitalists are scum, so they dont work with them, and hardliner from the right think the same thing, and since often the hardliner rules both side, its mean that for the pragmatic and moderate, there is no room left.There's a difference between a capitalist and a capitalist apologist.

I don't have a problem "trading" with a capitalist economy, but you must realize that - historically - capitalist countries have used "trading" to infiltrate the country and pump money into opposition parties and even destabilize the country's currency. For example the US funds terrorists against Cuba and also political opposition. When Cuba responds, the media calls it authoritarian - but in the US it's illegal for a foreign country to fund a domestic political party, so why the hypocrisy?

[XII Bones IIX]

According to my specific political alignment it would be hypothetically and literally impossible for a Capitalist system to survive with a Communist system. You may be able to have people who understand each other and give a rip but the systems are polar opposites.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Capitalism and Communism are opposing ideologies so I don't think they can co-exist. This may seem far-fetched, but that's like saying Jews and Nazis can co-exist. If Communism and Capitalism were together in the same society, technically it wouldn't be Communism. It would be some entirely different corrupted system. There may be Capitalism in a Socialist society, but one definition of socialism is a "transition stage between communism and capitalism". That is one reason why Socialism differs from Communism.

(I probably sound like a retard right now. XD)

[R_P_A_S]

i know that basicly, communism dont like capitalism, and the contrary, and that soviet leader tried to coexist peacefully with capitalism and its failed, but i wonder, would it be possible?

To me, the problem is not the system itself, i mean, take russia for exemple, they moved from a socialist way of thinking to an capitalist way and they still piss o ff their neigbor, go into other folks internal affair etc.

if the us would go socialist/communist, it would still be the same in term of foreign policy, of course some enemies would change..or not, same overspending in military, but with more money put into the social system.

What people seem to see has capitalism destroying socialist/communism movement is nothing but hegemony of superpower, an egemony that would still be there, no matter wich system run it.

i think capitalist and socialist/communism countries can get along, i really believe that, even tho it seem strange to say that at first.

Im not the brightest guy on the forum... but if you keep reading on communism, just read more marx and understand it more and what the struggle is all about.. you will look back at this post and laugh at your self. Like I have on many of mine.. when i first thought what "communism" was.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Main land China is communist while Hong Kong(the wealthiest place in china) is capitlist. Main land China get a lot of wealth from Hong Kong.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Communist oppose the idea that people should be allowed to trade freely amongst each other and they also oppose that no one should be wealthy if there exist poor people. Communist also hate life.

[Plagueround]

Main land China is communist while Hong Kong(the wealthiest place in china) is capitlist. Main land China get a lot of wealth from Hong Kong.

No matter how many times you say this, it isn't true, at least not in the way you're implying.
Not only did mainland China move toward capitalist reforms, but the two economies are treated as seperate and are not counted together; in fact much of Hong Kong's wealth comes from trade with the mainland. They view each other as international trading partners. The divide between the two countries is so pronounced that they even consider a flight between them international.
The only advantage Hong Kong gives mainland China is a pathway for foreign investment and resources, but it's not as if they're earning the money and handing it over to China so China can give greater GDP numbers.

[Dr Mindbender]

we already tried to run centralised economics and capitalism in tandem. The result was the cold war.

I dont think it is possible because capitalistic economies are able to utilise the markets to their advantage.

[danyboy27]

we already tried to run centralised economics and capitalism in tandem. The result was the cold war.

I dont think it is possible because capitalistic economies are able to utilise the markets to their advantage.

wasnt the cold war caused by the creazy leader on both side?
Stalin wasnt exactly what i call a factor of peaceful coexistance.

[Dr Mindbender]

Communist oppose the idea that people should be allowed to trade freely amongst each other and they also oppose that no one should be wealthy if there exist poor people.
No, communists are opposed to poverty and privilege in equal measure.

There wouldnt be any poor people because society would not be run under the economics of scarcity.



Communist also hate life.

You fail at life.

[Dr Mindbender]

wasnt the cold war caused by the creazy leader on both side?
Stalin wasnt exactly what i call a factor of peaceful coexistance.

I think the opposing ideology factor was a big catylst though.

Each side viewed the other as a threat so it's impossible to have peace under such an atmosphere of paranoia.

[RGacky3]

Thats like saying "peaceful coexistance between slave states and free states." Your missing the point, its not about our system against their system, Capitalism is a tyrannical slave system, therefore it does'nt matter if they can coexist, we have to fight Capitalism (and all over forms of tyranny and oppression) everywhere, is it possible for them to coexist? Probably, although Capitalists will (its always worked this way in the past) try their best to stop any form of Communism out of fear for their own power.

That being said, the USSR did a good job of destroying any form of communism in its territories (and there was quite a bit of it).

As long as Capitalism exists people are being oppressed and it should be opposed.

[Green Dragon]

I don't have a problem "trading" with a capitalist economy, but you must realize that - historically - capitalist countries have used "trading" to infiltrate the country and pump money into opposition parties and even destabilize the country's currency. For example the US funds terrorists against Cuba and also political opposition. When Cuba responds, the media calls it authoritarian - but in the US it's illegal for a foreign country to fund a domestic political party, so why the hypocrisy?



[/QUOTE]

So how does a socialist/communist community trade with a capitalist community WITHOUT being infiltrated by the agents of capitalism?

[danyboy27]

So how does a socialist/communist community trade with a capitalist community WITHOUT being infiltrated by the agents of capitalism? [/quote]

i think if a communist country pop one day he will have to face the fact that if its power grow, the usa , russia and china gonna play in its backyard, there is no ressentiment to have against them for that, its not like its possible to stop that one day, they always did that, always, has a smaller country you have to live witht that fact anyway, and find ingenious way to deal with the big bullies.

little western european countries never had any problem dealing with communist countries, beccause for them its buisness, and i think capitalists, instead of demonize communists should enphazise on the quality of their own system and promote them, and communists should do the same.

then again, the problem is and will always be the big creazy, beccause lets face in all system there is big creazy and sometimes its appealing to be on their side, but at the end it never pay, never.

[EvigLidelse]

Capitalism and Communism are opposing ideologies so I don't think they can co-exist. This may seem far-fetched, but that's like saying Jews and Nazis can co-exist. If Communism and Capitalism were together in the same society, technically it wouldn't be Communism. It would be some entirely different corrupted system. There may be Capitalism in a Socialist society, but one definition of socialism is a "transition stage between communism and capitalism". That is one reason why Socialism differs from Communism.

(I probably sound like a retard right now. XD)

Yes you do. Capitalism isn't an ideology, it's an economics system. And Nazis doesn't generally hate jews, that's just prejudice.

[danyboy27]

Yes you do. Capitalism isn't an ideology, it's an economics system. And Nazis doesn't generally hate jews, that's just prejudice.

nazi hate jews, but fascism itself dont have races or skin colors, its a model that can be borrowed by any nation of the world.

[EvigLidelse]

No, you're wrong. I've met some nazis, and none of them really have anything against jews since there are none in my country. The "problem" in Germany back in the thirties was the jews, whereas the "problem" here in Sweden are the muslim immigrants.

[danyboy27]

No, you're wrong. I've met some nazis, and none of them really have anything against jews since there are none in my country. The "problem" in Germany back in the thirties was the jews, whereas the "problem" here in Sweden are the muslim immigrants.

well, then maybe the guy was not a Nazi but a fascist, but at the end, what make fascism work for some people is the hate toward something, in the case of your fascist friend, its the hate toward muslim immigrants.

[EvigLidelse]

Nazism as an "ideology" isn't based on hating jews, even though it's based on creating a "problem" that doesn't exist, thus back in Germany Hitler used all the prejudice and conspiracies against jews. No one would blame the jews now since their clearly not a "problem" for anybody.

But let's drop the subject for now, PM me if you'd like to say anything more.

[Sentinel]

I've met some nazis, and none of them really have anything against jews since there are none in my country.You have to be joking? There are tons of famous and influential swedish people of jewish origin, for instance the Bonniers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnier_family) who own Dagens Nyheter, the largest news magasine in the country. Which of course fuels the nazi's claim that 'jews rule the world, they control the media' etc.

I also don't understand where you got your 'swedish nazis don't hate jews' idea from at all, but it's obviously bullshit -- or rather, you are confusing plain racists/fascists with nazis. Perhaps the person you spoke to was confused himself -- it wouldn't be that surprising, considering that he was a fascist after all.

Just had to say this.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

No, communists are opposed to poverty and privilege in equal measure.

There wouldnt be any poor people because society would not be run under the economics of scarcity.



You fail at life.

No, its the capitalist who are really opposed to poverty since they live far from it.

Everyone would be poor in a communist society because the unsuccessful will get rewarded and the strong will get punish. Do you have any proof that communism is the least bit successful?

no your stupid system failed on life. It has failed hundreds of millions of lives! History has proven this over and over again but you still don't get it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Everyone would be poor in a communist society because the unsuccessful will get rewarded and the strong will get punish. Do you have any proof that communism is the least bit successful?Other than the success of the internet gift economy (freeware, p2p, piracy)? Check out Orwell's statements on anarchist Catalonia. Or do a quick search on the EZLN.


no your stupid system failed on life. It has failed hundreds of millions of lives! History has proven this over and over again but you still don't get it. Your juvenile remarks aside, capitalism continues to fail millions of people each day by limiting the transportation and development of food.

For every one person who died from "communism," a hundred have died from capitalism. Starting back to when the Europeans conquered the New World and killed over 20 million Africans and Native Americans through the slave trade (not including the millions more who died from disease and war), to right now when major corporations monopolize on diamond fields to send black children mining for 10 hours a day. The best thing to happen to capitalism was the welfare state.

Oh, but that wasn't real capitalism, right? We're talking about something that hasn't existed? Hypocrite.

[RGacky3]

Other than the success of the internet gift economy (freeware, p2p, piracy)? Check out Orwell's statements on anarchist Catalonia. Or do a quick search on the EZLN.

And Anarchist Ukraine, Hungary during the revolution in the 50s, the diggers, many American indian tribes, the Quakers in America early on, the Kibbutz, the Paris Commune and so on and so forth.

Interestingly allmost all of those examples did waht Anarchists said they would do, Capitalism on the other hand never achieves what theorists say its supposed to do.

I'm sick of Capitalists 100% ignoring every single example of communisms success, and success with all the odds stacked against them.

[Bud Struggle]

And Anarchist Ukraine, Hungary during the revolution in the 50s, the diggers, many American indian tribes, the Quakers in America early on, the Kibbutz, the Paris Commune and so on and so forth.

Interestingly allmost all of those examples did waht Anarchists said they would do, Capitalism on the other hand never achieves what theorists say its supposed to do.

I'm sick of Capitalists 100% ignoring every single example of communisms success, and success with all the odds stacked against them.
The problem is Communism's successes didn't stick around for every long.

It would be nice if Cuba actually WAS Communist. Or if Chavez actually tried to implement Communism. It would have been nice if in one of the Iron Curtain countries they gave up that high assed Sovietism and actually tried Communism.

Do you thin Nepal will end up Communist or just another Chinese clone?

It would be nice to see it work just once in the modern world.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Most of those examples are post-1900.

Nepal is more democratic than almost any other country in its region. I don't see how it would be subservient to China, unless you think being China's main trading partner is a problem?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

For every one person who died from "communism," a hundred have died from capitalism. Starting back to when the Europeans conquered the New World and killed over 20 million Africans and Native Americans through the slave trade (not including the millions more who died from disease and war), to right now when major corporations monopolize on diamond fields to send black children mining for 10 hours a day. The best thing to happen to capitalism was the welfare state.

Oh, but that wasn't real capitalism, right? We're talking about something that hasn't existed? Hypocrite.


Capitalism has not limited transportation or food production. It in fact has increased transportation and food production 100 fold. If people are too stupid to limit their population size so that there is enough food for everyone then that is there fault.

Killing native Americans and enslaving Africans has nothing to do with Capitalism.


Africa is fucked up but it has always been this way. The capitlist shouldve never brought their inventions or innovations to Africa. Cars, guns and mass production has only multiplied the problems in Africa by 100000 .

[Plagueround]

Capitalism has not limited transportation or food production. It in fact has increased transportation and food production 100 fold. If people are too stupid to limit their population size so that there is enough food for everyone then that is there fault.

We currently grow and produce enough food for 12-13 billion people, yet it isn't evenly distributed. Yes, globalization allows for food to be transported greater distances and there is an abundance of food...yet 30,000 or more starve each day. How is this not the fault of the dominant economic and political system?


Killing native Americans and enslaving Africans has nothing to do with Capitalism.

So killing off people who live in a particular place so you can let farmers live there instead wasn't motivated by money? The slaves weren't being forced to perform labor for no pay or freedom so others could profit?


Africa is fucked up but it has always been this way. The capitlist shouldve never brought their inventions or innovations to Africa. Cars, guns and mass production has only multiplied the problems in Africa by 100000 .

I'm curious...why do you think this is? Who makes Africa fucked up?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

[/quote]We currently grow and produce enough food for 12-13 billion people, yet it isn't evenly distributed. Yes, globalization allows for food to be transported greater distances and there is an abundance of food...yet 30,000 or more starve each day. How is this not the fault of the dominant economic and political system?[/quote]

This areas where people are dieing are not capitlist societies. They are ruled my tyranny. If they are selling us diamonds for 20 bucks or their resources for a "steal" then its their fault.

In areas where we have a lot of successful capitalist even the poor people can afford to be fat and buy beer and drugs.


[/quote]
So killing off people who live in a particular place so you can let farmers live there instead wasn't motivated by money? The slaves weren't being forced to perform labor for no pay or freedom so others could profit? [/quote]

hey you know what? People do a lot of things for money. Like kill steal and cheat or they try and change the laws so others are forced to give them money but making people do things by force is the opposite of what capitalism is all about. Actually its in a communist society where you are forced to do things.


[/quote]
I'm curious...why do you think this is? Who makes Africa fucked up?[/quote]

Curious or just looking for a reason to ban me?

I've pondered this question before. Its just a part of their culture. In many instances in Africa wealth is acquired by people stealing from each other and the pick pocket will get beaten by the murderer.

The tribe that practices war and violence the most will beat the tribe that practices peace and harmony.

[Plagueround]

This areas where people are dieing are not capitlist societies. They are ruled my tyranny. If they are selling us diamonds for 20 bucks or their resources for a "steal" then its their fault.You cannot tell me it's people's fault for selling to us so cheaply, but then say they live under tyranny. They are forced to procure those resources for greedy people who then sell them to 1st world countries for a profit. Capitalism is responsible for this exchange, no matter how you try to word it. I'm not saying you should get rid of all possessions attained this way, but at least recognize the system for what it is.


In areas where we have a lot of successful capitalist even the poor people can afford to be fat and buy beer and drugs.America's hoarding of resources has created an interesting situation indeed. But again, how do you think these capitalist turn such a heavy profit? Surely you've noticed how much product comes from "less fortunate" countries, as well as how much industry has moved away from America and into these countries?


hey you know what? People do a lot of things for money. Like kill steal and cheat or they try and change the laws so others are forced to give them money but making people do things by force is the opposite of what capitalism is all about.Do you read what you write? Read that sentence again.


Actually its in a communist society where you are forced to do things.We've knocked this one down enough times. I'm Not going to address it again.


Curious or just looking for a reason to ban me?I'm quite certain we have more than enough hateful and bigoted comments from you to ban you if we wanted to...but I think the general consensus is you've been too much fun. Ive certainly had a bit of fun while sitting around on slow days at work, but as I said before you're getting kind of boring. Time to step up your game.
I think I recall seeing you say something along the lines of "Nothing good ever came out of Africa", but it's hard to say that was you for sure...there has been so many objectivist trolls lately.


I've pondered this question before. Its just a part of their culture. In many instances in Africa wealth is acquired by people stealing from each other and the pick pocket will get beaten by the murderer.Have you studied African history? Do you know what led to the violent culture that occurs in some of their countries? This would be a good start to finding a better answer.


The tribe that practices war and violence the most will beat the tribe that practices peace and harmony.Tribal cultures were not always a bloodbath, nor were they harmonious. But like all societies that have existed, they have demonstrated human capacity for co-operation and solidarity...as well as material conditions that can lead to greed. Unfortunately there is still a lot of tribal hatred that is used politically in African countries these days. I've talked extensively with my Rwandan neighbor about it, and it's a much more complicated situation than just simply describing Africa in general as being predisposed to violence.

[RGacky3]

This areas where people are dieing are not capitlist societies. They are ruled my tyranny. If they are selling us diamonds for 20 bucks or their resources for a "steal" then its their fault.

In areas where we have a lot of successful capitalist even the poor people can afford to be fat and buy beer and drugs.


You don't get it, Capitalism is not a by country thing, its global, Capitalism is a global system, with multinationals, conglomerates and huge vertical and horizontal commercial ventures. Those countries (tyrannies or not) are all part of Capitalism, and Capitalism needs them.


hey you know what? People do a lot of things for money. Like kill steal and cheat or they try and change the laws so others are forced to give them money but making people do things by force is the opposite of what capitalism is all about.

Capitalism is all about force, thats where property comes from, Capitalism is basically legal extortion, you do the work, I get the benefits.


Its just a part of their culture. In many instances in Africa wealth is acquired by people stealing from each other and the pick pocket will get beaten by the murderer.

The tribe that practices war and violence the most will beat the tribe that practices peace and harmony.

Your an idiot, I"m sorry, but all it takes is 5 minutes looking at basic history to show that your theory is untrue, your COMPLETELY ignoring history, that being said, do you happen to know the history of europe as well?

I'm not saying African Society in general is any better than European, but putting the blame on their "culture" is plain ignorant and stupid.

[Green Dragon]

Thats like saying "peaceful coexistance between slave states and free states." Your missing the point, its not about our system against their system, Capitalism is a tyrannical slave system, therefore it does'nt matter if they can coexist, we have to fight Capitalism (and all over forms of tyranny and oppression) everywhere, is it possible for them to coexist? Probably, although Capitalists will (its always worked this way in the past) try their best to stop any form of Communism out of fear for their own power.

That being said, the USSR did a good job of destroying any form of communism in its territories (and there was quite a bit of it).

As long as Capitalism exists people are being oppressed and it should be opposed.

Okay. So this is a concession that:
1. Socialist communities will always have to fight capitalist ones
2. The blame for this socialist need is placed on the capitalists.

Gacky has often seemed one of the more level headed revlefters around; always shying away from the bomb throwers. Yet you now place yourself squarely in their camp.

What is the impact on socialism on it having to fight capitalism? Can a "libertarian" socialist community, or any socialist community, adopt the weapons of Cuba in its fight against capitalism (banning speech, arresting critics ect) and STILL be considered a functioning "libertarian," or socialist, community?

[RGacky3]

1. Socialist communities will always have to fight capitalist ones


Not nessesarily fight perse, but oppose. But generally speaking, i.e. historically, its the Capitalist countries that attack Socialist communities first. The Spanish Civil war is a perfect exmaple, the west were more afraid of Anarchism and Social revolution than they were of fascism.

The Zapatistas, are another example, their main request is essencially that the Mexican State leave them alone, but they don't. So the blame goes to the Capitalist, but although they may not FIGHT the Mexican state on the offensive (they are almost always on the defensive), they oppose it morally.


adopt the weapons of Cuba in its fight against capitalism (banning speech, arresting critics ect) and STILL be considered a functioning "libertarian," or socialist, community?

No, and if it really was a libertarian Socialist comujnity, it would never need to, do any of that stuff, and no one would have the authority to do that stuff.


The problem is Communism's successes didn't stick around for every long.

Not because of anything that Capitalists predicted (lack of iniciative, lack of resources, lack of control, no motivation, everyone stealing and hording, people taking power forthembselves) almost every single example that died out was due to external (generally violent) forces, i.e. Capitalist governments. They also all functioned before being attacked the exact way Libertarian socialists predicted, and did'nt collapse the way Capitalists predicted and continue to insist.


Do you thin Nepal will end up Communist or just another Chinese clone?

Heres a general rule, never trust a Maoist party, never trust a Leninist party, and don't trust politicans in general.

[Dust Bunnies]

True Communism and any enemy of Communism such as Capitalism or Fascism cannot co-exist peacefully, as the Capitalist will try to reconquer us. We must resist.

[danyboy27]

True Communism and any enemy of Communism such as Capitalism or Fascism cannot co-exist peacefully, as the Capitalist will try to reconquer us. We must resist.

that exactly beccause of peoples with paranoid views like your that communism and capitalism will never work together.

and dont get me wrong, there is people like you on the other side too, this has nothing to do with ideology, its a mentality problem, the good old's i am right you are wrong syndrom, we dont negociate beccause you are wrong.

this fucked up syndrom is roaming on earth since civilization exist, infecting both religion and politics, killing every inch of potential progress made by modernists.

[RGacky3]

and dont get me wrong, there is people like you on the other side too, this has nothing to do with ideology, its a mentality problem, the good old's i am right you are wrong syndrom, we dont negociate beccause you are wrong.

If you believe that Capitalism is a tyrannical/oppressive system, then you MUST oppose it. What your saying applies to many situations, but not to this one.

If it was a question of which system is 'better' or more 'efficiant' then maybe it would apply, but thats not the issue. Its not an utalitarian issue, its a moral one, Capitalism is oppressive and tyrannical, thus I oppose it. Its the same issue of monarchy vrs democracy.

[danyboy27]

and i am pretty sure people standing against communism got the same kind of speech in mind.

to me, this is a moral issue to stand against people that are over-radicalized, capitalist, communists,religious peoples, beccause its with people like you that the world rots in Civil war, terror attacks, arsh free market measures, social cut, useless social spending, overtaxation, undertaxation, you all together, Radicalists, make the world a wrost place to live.

[RGacky3]

and i am pretty sure people standing against communism got the same kind of speech in mind.

Generally its against Stalinism and Uniformity, other than that the arguemtn against communism is it won't work, not its morally wrong.

But that being said, you ignored my entire post. Obviously you don't have any moral principles, or at least enough to take a stand for your principles.

Heres some examples of people who don't have principles, or at least did'nt really stand by them: Nixon, Lenin, Stalin, Ragen, King Leopold and any other person that gave up their moral principles to get ahead.

Some examples of people who stood by their principles: Eugene Debs, Ghandi, MLK, Malcom X, Zapata, Che and anyone who stood by their principles.

Standing by your principles does'nt mean your principles can't change, Malcom X is an example of that, but it means you take a stand for whatever principles you believe in and don't give it up for pragmatics sake.

If your not willing to stand by your principles then you have no business being a revolutionary, and in my book don't deserve much respect.

I'm not saying your that type of person, I'm saying thats what this issue is about, principle.

If Capitalism is tyrannical, then you must decide if that is wrong or not, if you decide its wrong, then that part of your principles, stand by it.

[Plagueround]

and i am pretty sure people standing against communism got the same kind of speech in mind.

to me, this is a moral issue to stand against people that are over-radicalized, capitalist, communists,religious peoples, beccause its with people like you that the world rots in Civil war, terror attacks, arsh free market measures, social cut, useless social spending, overtaxation, undertaxation, you all together, Radicalists, make the world a wrost place to live.

The positive changes throughout history were not made by people sitting on the fence. You just sound scared.

[Dust Bunnies]

I am not saying having the Communist Society attack the remaining Capitalist society, but I do promise that the Capitalist will fight.

[danyboy27]

i have principles, moral values, all that stuff you said i didnt have.

i do understand why you hate capitalism, and i understand the group of people like you that says capitalism is tyrannical, its just that you and me dont have the same point of view of communism and capitalism.

the system suck the way it is? Agreed man, fucking agreed! you want to change something about that? AGREED!
but if you want to, pragmatism is needed, and by stubborny hating that system, and absolutly want to bring it down you leave no room, no room to thing that could actually change it for the better of people, things considered moderates, liberals, socialists by your standards.

[RGacky3]

but if you want to, pragmatism is needed, and by stubborny hating that system, and absolutly want to bring it down you leave no room, no room to thing that could actually change it for the better of people, things considered moderates, liberals, socialists by your standards.

I'm not saying don't be practical, or flexible, I am saying your convictions should'nt change because of that.

Peaceful coexistence between Capitalism and Communism requires that both accept the others right to exist, I don't accept Capitalisms right to exist.

Now that does'nt mean that Communist communities should literally always be fighting against Capitalist States, or should'nt trade with them, but Communists should always stick to their moral convictions of opposing Capitalism, and they should always, given the chance, support and fight against Capitalism for freedom and equality.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm not saying don't be practical, or flexible, I am saying your convictions should'nt change because of that.

Peaceful coexistence between Capitalism and Communism requires that both accept the others right to exist, I don't accept Capitalisms right to exist.

Now that does'nt mean that Communist communities should literally always be fighting against Capitalist States, or should'nt trade with them, but Communists should always stick to their moral convictions of opposing Capitalism, and they should always, given the chance, support and fight against Capitalism for freedom and equality.

I don't know if that's good or bad. Bacause Capitalism cetainly feels the same way about abolishing communism and wiping if off the face of the earth. That's EXACTLY what the Vietnam war was about about--defeating Communism. Nobody cared about that little country beyond that. Same with the "embargo" of Cuba. 95% of the countries "south of the boarder" have worse governments than Cuba, but nobody cares about them, because they aren't Communist.

[RGacky3]

I don't know if that's good or bad. Bacause Capitalism cetainly feels the same way about abolishing communism and wiping if off the face of the earth. That's EXACTLY what the Vietnam war was about about--defeating Communism. Nobody cared about that little country beyond that. Same with the "embargo" of Cuba. 95% of the countries "south of the boarder" have worse governments than Cuba, but nobody cares about them, because they aren't Communist.

Excactly, and I guranantee you, its not an ethical issue (If it was they would go just as hard against the other worse governments), its an issue of fear, fear of loosing control and power.

I on the other hand, and most leftists out there oppose not only Capitalism but any other oppressive tyranical system, be it Capitalism, Fascism, the State, Leninism, Maoism, Monarchies.

[Bud Struggle]

I on the other hand, and most leftists out there oppose not only Capitalism but any other oppressive tyranical system, be it Capitalism, Fascism, the State, Leninism, Maoism, Monarchies.

Sorry, I don't see that--I only post on RevLeft.


;):lol:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I know I get some flack for touting it as an alternative to capitalism, but mutualism (free market socialism) has the potential to bridge the gap between capitalism and participatory/democratic/communistic economics. For one thing, it turns the capitalists' argument on its head in every way possible, both by rejecting the claim that you can acquire land as a monopoly, and by advocating measures "free" of corporate legislation. Even the economic miscalculation, which really is a lot weaker than the Austrian schoolers would like it to be (they do have a tendency to blow things out of proportion - see business cycle theory), does not apply.

I've also noticed that - where cooperatives are commonplace - they usually voluntarily federate or cooperate.

[danyboy27]

I know I get some flack for touting it as an alternative to capitalism, but mutualism (free market socialism) has the potential to bridge the gap between capitalism and participatory/democratic/communistic economics. For one thing, it turns the capitalists' argument on its head in every way possible, both by rejecting the claim that you can acquire land as a monopoly, and by advocating measures "free" of corporate legislation. Even the economic miscalculation, which really is a lot weaker than the Austrian schoolers would like it to be (they do have a tendency to blow things out of proportion - see business cycle theory), does not apply.

I've also noticed that - where cooperatives are commonplace - they usually voluntarily federate or cooperate.

that what i am talking about!
things like that represent progress, and people like you that advocate that represent modernism!

[Green Dragon]

Not nessesarily fight perse, but oppose.

Ok. But what I am wondering about is the IMPACT on its oppositon to capitalism, on the existing socilaist system. My comment regrading Cuba had to do with GC's comment capitalists will seek to subvert the socialist revololt (which seens a staple in socilaist thinking) and which the socialist community has to defend. GC, a proud libertarian socialist, suggested the Cubam example as a model to follow. That model would seem to destroy the "libertarian" socilaist ideal.



But generally speaking, i.e. historically, its the Capitalist countries that attack Socialist communities first. The Spanish Civil war is a perfect exmaple, the west were more afraid of Anarchism and Social revolution than they were of fascism.

The Zapatistas, are another example, their main request is essencially that the Mexican State leave them alone, but they don't. So the blame goes to the Capitalist, but although they may not FIGHT the Mexican state on the offensive (they are almost always on the defensive), they oppose it morally.



The Spanish civil watr began as a result of an assasination of a defender of the old order by the communists.
But since socialism so often demands the entire world be socialsit (and you yourself said basically the same thing in this very thread), and so often argues it has to be in order for socialism to succeed, it tough to accept the claim the socialists just want to be "left alone."





Not because of anything that Capitalists predicted (lack of iniciative, lack of resources, lack of control, no motivation, everyone stealing and hording, people taking power forthembselves) almost every single example that died out was due to external (generally violent) forces,

Which would also mean those examples cited as successes cannot be cited- they existed under times of strain and external pressures. It says nothing of how they would function in times of relaxation and peace.






Heres a general rule, never trust a Maoist party, never trust a Leninist party, and don't trust politicans in general.


I certainly have no objection being warned against trusting a maoist or a trotskyite.
But those parties and people existed because they had particular theories and ideas on how to build socialism. In any sort of free society, it should be expected that political parties are created and formed, since they are expressions of peoples freedoms of what they think is the best course of action.
Far from being frowned upon, political parties are more imperative in a socialist community, since the socialism proposes to redo and rebuild society and the world. It is simply unreasonable to expect everyone in a community to agree on such steps in such a gargantuan undertaking.

Which goes back to what I have asked earlier: How does a free socialist community block capitalist parties and its synmpathisers from gaining traction in the socialist community WITHOUT taking steps to crush their freedom, and thus society's in the bargain?

[RGacky3]

It is simply unreasonable to expect everyone in a community to agree on such steps in such a gargantuan undertaking.

It does'nt require everyone to agree on everything, just to be able to make general desicions, something which has been prooved is possible many many times in the past.


How does a free socialist community block capitalist parties and its synmpathisers from gaining traction in the socialist community WITHOUT taking steps to crush their freedom, and thus society's in the bargain?

What your suggesting is that in a free socialist community there would be people that would actually support someone who wanted to turn them back into wage slaves, someone who is arguing "you had it much better off when someone else was your boss and took most of the fruits of your labor" which is very unlikely, let me ask you, how many people nower days argue for monarchies? Not many, and those who do have very very few supporters.


I know I get some flack for touting it as an alternative to capitalism, but mutualism (free market socialism) has the potential to bridge the gap between capitalism and participatory/democratic/communistic economics.

I agree actually, its a big step, and huge progress, but its not the end all, but it is something we can work towards and support.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=RGacky3;1257755]It does'nt require everyone to agree on everything, just to be able to make general desicions, something which has been prooved is possible many many times in the past.



Socialists, as this board demonstrates, do not.
Which makes the neccessity of political parties all the more important in a socialist community. The socialist project is not about changing the lighbulbs. Its about tearing down the house, and building a new one. In such an environment, it strikes as ridiculous the notion that people will not look for guidance, and for like minded people, to push the construction in the direction of their choosing. A maoist party or a stalinist party is something to logically expect to arise out of the socilaist project.
Avoiding faith in political parties as a way to avoid the problem of the maoists et. al. does not solve the problem.


What your suggesting is that in a free socialist community there would be people that would actually support someone who wanted to turn them back into wage slaves, someone who is arguing "you had it much better off when someone else was your boss and took most of the fruits of your labor" which is very unlikely, let me ask you, how many people nower days argue for monarchies? Not many, and those who do have very very few supporters.

Such an argument, of course, could be made by any Stalinist defending the Soviet regime of that era (and Stalin himself made such claims).
But as an aside to my claim that Stalinism is socialism logically applied,
the above paragraph misses everything.

I hate having to remind socialists what socialism is about: Its about building a new society. You guys have different ideas on how it would look, on how to get there and so on.

But if you are not going to support the stalinist model of shooting everyone who opposed the stalinist idea of building socialism, then you are going to have to rely upon a view of persuasion. Even if one has visions of a great revolt of the masses, you are going to face the issue of people who simply do not buy your song and dance. And since these people must also have the right to have a say in how the building of the new society should proceed, Or even IF the building is needed.

Which means an argument must be made as to WHY socialism is the better way (which is again why political parties are of absolute neccessity in a free socilaist system). The historical inevitability argument about kings is more of a socialist conceit than an actual argument in favor of socialism. And saying everyone will agree with socialism after its formed is meaningless, since it has to be formed to begin with.

[RGacky3]

Such an argument, of course, could be made by any Stalinist defending the Soviet regime of that era (and Stalin himself made such claims).
But as an aside to my claim that Stalinism is socialism logically applied,
the above paragraph misses everything.

Well Stalinism was tyrannical and oppressive, and was not communal or equal at all, so in that sense Stalinism was not socialism at all, so Stalin's claims were not valid. Now take a look at history, how many people in Stalins Russia resented loosing their freedoms? Many (not that they had it beforehand).

Look now at Zapatista Chiapas or Anarchist spain, how much Capitalist opposition was there internally? Almost none, only from former land owners or Bosses who lost their power, internally none of the workers lost anything, and infact gained a lot.


And since these people must also have the right to have a say in how the building of the new society should proceed, Or even IF the building is needed.


All that they need to agree on is that they have a right to the fruits of their own labor, and a right to decide their own lives, and have to agree that certain things need to be done.

Now Historically, in Anarchist societies, has this internal strife your talking about ever happend? NO, infact people were generally more cooperative than even Anarchists expected.

Also Historically, Maoist and Stalinist parties did not 'rise up' to guide the masses asking for their help, generally they were either there from the begining, in control, or in a few cases, took a on going revoltion and took control by force, its alwasy been Maoist and Stalinist parties self-appointment, not appointment by the masses.