Why are and should communism and capitalism inherently be at war????

So why did the West instantly go to war with communism and capitalism??

Also should we be inherently at war with communism??

To me this makes zero sense on its face value..

Why would America and Europeans spend gajillions if dollars and no telling how many lives combating an Economic system??

Why would we instantly impose sanctions and such, on countries who try a different economic system than our own??

What do we care???

If capitalism is the superior system, then why do we need sanctions or military actions to intercede and try and purposefully crash their system???

Why is a capitalist country considered to be inherently an ally and a communist country inherently against us??

A specific nation or a specific administration, I understand completely.. but a specific economic system?!?!

What sense does that make??

In theory, Couldn’t a communist country be your most loyal ally , while your at war with another capitalist country??

It definitely doesn’t break the laws of physics or nothing..

And this isn’t a new thing.. the old European monarchies instantly united against Napoleon after the French Revolution.


My personal guess is it all comes from the French Revolution and Napoleon.... or really father back than that it is the class that runs that specific societies economic system, which is really who runs that society..



I think that whatever social class runs your society is always afraid one of the other classes will usurp them.

So when ever they hear about some other nation ran by the same class, having a revolution that usurps them. They instantly think “this could happen here next, our (fill in the blank) could try and seize power here!”


So when the other monarchies in Europe saw Napoleon lead a peasants revolt. They instantly thought “man, that could happen here! Our peasants could rise up.. we gotta put this stuff down!”

Well isn’t that what happened with communism and capitalism too??

The Rockefeller types ran America and England by that time.. so when they saw the Russian peasants overthrow the czar and the military section of the peasantry seize power....

Well couldn’t the peasants of America and Europe take over there too.. and with out any bloodshed..they could do it through the ballot box..

So they sold it like communism and anyone who considers using it are evil...

And this isn’t a vote for communism. This is just analysis..

The communists feel the same way about us..

The military peasant class that ousted the czar was scared to death of the Rockefeller types seizing power there.. so capitalism was evil and must be destroyed...


Thoughts, input o why they would be inherently at war??

a reply to: JoshuaCox
The whole point of communism was the self-proclaimed purpose of destroying the capitalist system. "We will bury you", as Krushchev once declared. In the circumstances, it was natural for the capitalist world to fight back, in self-defence. Are you well-read in History?

You know the difference, of course.
"Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man.
Communism is the other way round".

Communism as stated in it's many manifesto's and writings number one goal is to destroy capitalism and for communism to be the one system available in the world for economic systems and government control.


The Soviet Union is fairly close to destroying the United States from its grave with the many various disrupting programs it funded and sheltered throughout its existence who's goal was to fracture and destroy any traditional system that existed in the west. The point of it was to fracture our society into so many pieces that when the communist system is offered as a replacement most people would go ahead and accept it just for some sense of "normalcy".

The plans are still going and they are brilliant. And they may well work, it is hard saying at this point.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Communism is only effective as a controlling government if there is no other type of government.

In order for communism to be in place and top stay in place, there should be no other alternative form of government available.

Hey man if you ain't got the money to pay an army to do your bidding for you, you probably wouldn't have an army to do your bidding.
What are they (armies) just blood-thirsty mercenaries and get a kick out of killing people?

Every man has his price whether he asks it or not. Kinda crappy predicament huh?

Wanna know the difference between capitalism and communism?

You can let communism exist in a capitalist society.

But a communist society doesn't allow the capitalist to exist.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Do you want a serious answer or are you just making conversation? I can answer several of your questions & give a bit of historical context too. But since you put it in the mud-pit, this thread will likely devolve into the typical left/right, half-emo/half-zeolot vitriolic bs that has nothing to do with the historical context for this conflict.

Its a two men con. Simple and beautyfull on its own accounts.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Simply listen to Obama's 2008 Inaugural speech. Listen carefully or read it carefully. The answer is, no. That is long gone. All what is left are symbolisms.

Having said that, the question is: WHO owns you? Why is is this applicable?

Because you represent labor. Labor has value. Labor represents capital.

If you answer is the State, then there is no conflict. If you answer I own myself, if you really feel that way, you can never ever allow the state to procure your capital without just compensation and even you will not prefer to have you capital procured by the State. First because you have the opportunity to have your capital procured for a better rate, second, because the State is the antithesis of capitalism. The tree of liberty should bloom, not the state.

Alas, we are in the latter state of being ...

I don't think there is a need for perpetual war. Rather, it is important for humanity to combat tyrants and dictators. Not saying those two things are specific to communism, but you have to admit communist countries have a history of attracting these types.

It isn't the ideology I have a problem with. I don't agree with it at all, but I don't have an issue with it either. I just think humans as a whole are incapable of supporting a system that doesn't put the individual first, since we're self-centered by default. And even if 99% went along with it, you'd have a small few that would abuse the system and enrich themselves at the expense of others (re: North Korea).

But yeah, no need to waste billions of dollars to fight an ideology. Much better to put that energy into toppling dictators when needed and advancing the cause of freedom/democracy/liberty/self-determination/human rights.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I doubt seriously destroying the economic system of some goriness nation was the motivating factor in the invention of communism..

I don’t doubt they tried to spread it.. we try and spread capitalism as well, but I think it is far fetched to believe it was all specifically orcastrate s to take down the west.. or “one side started it..”

They would have more to worry about with their own revolution at home..long before turning their sights outward.

I also know the red army terrified Europe .. no matter what economic system they had.

a reply to: Fools

So the goal of communism would not be to improve upon the previous system, and hypothetically improve the lives of its population???

Seems to me more likely those who championed it were saying “communism WOULD destroy capitalism” assuming it was more efficient and thus superior..

It makes no sense for them to create communism specifically to destroy capitalism.. because communism would not at all be the most efficient way to destroying a foreign economy..

The military would be.. or counterfeiting billions in their currency, then telling everyone you did it..

The last thing you would do if you wanted to destroy the western elites , is gamble on a whole new economy..

I think you are confusing g the symptom, for the disease..

Was capitalism specifically created with the intention to destroy the hunger gather system??

Or was it just easier than trying to trade in goats , with destroying the barter system as a symptom..

a reply to: DBCowboy

Wasn’t asking for a debate on which system is better, only the reason the 2 systems would be inherently at war???

a reply to: projectvxn

Why??

I see absolutely no reason the 2 could not co -exist..

In this country the government fixes prices, in this country they don’t..

Not exactly seeing a reason to go to war..

That seems like an abstraction.. something that sounds good but means nothing..

The actions of one leader/nation/exc would not change the “math” behind THEY ARE ECONOMIC SYSTEMS NOT ACTS OF AGGRESSION..

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Can’t it be both??

Lol.. can’t I be asking a serious question in random conversation???

Yea I get tired of threads getting killed for some unintended T&C issue, so I usually go mud pit and it a mod thinks it deserves to be upgraded so be it..

a reply to: Yvhmer

Ugh.. doesn’t the fact that capital is based on nothing and printed by the state kinda poop all over what you said???

Plus

Without the state

There is no capitalism..

There is no ownership..

There is no money..


If the state vanished tomorrow, you don’t own your stuff.. the local warlord owns your stuff..

Sure, you can assume youll be the warlord.. I guess, but that’s likely a bold statement..

Capitalism requires a government or what?? Everyone prints their own money?!?!

the "ism" make no difference

humans are #ty therefor any system we apply to humans becomes #ty eventually

yay!!!!

a reply to: JBurns
Every system in the end depends on who you put in charge..

King author running a communist monarchy would hypothetically be a utopia, and we all say what happened when a democracy elected a dictator..

Now I will say that some systems have a larger margins for error, than others.. if you get a bad president, wait 4 years, but if you get a bad king/dictator.... your in for a long ride..

I’m also not sure what you mean about “ putting the individual first” I can’t drive any speed I want to, I have to “do what’s best for the community “ and slow down..

Every law we have is SUPPOSED to be good for the group.. not all are obviously, but I promise they didn’t sell them by saying “this will suck for everyone else but you!”

Lol

I read a great article that basically said ;

“ we are on the verge of a Startrek type society where human labor nearly all automated, which should be a great thing..

Robots do all the work while we get to play!

But we might never get there because we have all been raised to hate anyone who works less than you with the power of 1000 suns..

Hate them so much if they work less than you they don’t deserve food, clothing or shelter.. “

To add my own little bit,

it is undeniably true that if you are a horrible husband and father , but a great buisness man you are a job creator and pillar of the community..

If you are a horrible businessman , but a great husband and father, your a bum..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You need to read more. It seems by your response that you have never studied communist manifesto's or serious lit in regard to what communist people actually want.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Yvhmer

Ugh.. doesn’t the fact that capital is based on nothing and printed by the state kinda poop all over what you said???

Plus

Without the state

There is no capitalism..

There is no ownership..

There is no money..


If the state vanished tomorrow, you don’t own your stuff.. the local warlord owns your stuff..

Sure, you can assume youll be the warlord.. I guess, but that’s likely a bold statement..

Capitalism requires a government or what?? Everyone prints their own money?!?!

No local warlords. That is Imperialism. The dream of conquering the world is a form of Imperialism.

Communism there are laws of respecting others just like being respected by others. It closer to brother/sister hood. But, Human greed turns it into Imperialism just like Stalin. Both system equally can become Imperialism. Cold war we saw a fail of communism. Today we see a fail of Capitalism. NK is already Imperialism in fake form of Democracy and communism.

Capitalism is that you don't bother me and I won't bother you. But the whole conquering the world mind turns the Government into an Imperialist/Fascist system.

What capitalism corruption can bring is more than Communism. Corporate dictatorship which Communism can never have. That is totally against or direct opposite of Communism. US military is a major example seen compare to revolution times against Britain. Since when does US follow orders to corporations?

financesonline.com...

What you see in China today is more Gov control > corporations( it is a mixed form). China cannot get rid of communism because it goes against the party and ideology of the word. In the US its directly opposite. If you can't have your Imperialism another corrupt entity will come out of Capitalism. Just think about slavery in the past.