Communism vs. Capitalism-In an Idealistic World

Sorry that was OT

I believe MA said he was going - ok - MOds please let discussion of where this should be take place elsewhere -

now anyone wish to talk back on topic ?

Originally posted by Silk
Sad very sad to lose a valued contributor

but RATS is a restricted forum - I see nothing in this thread i want restricted.

If you feel unable to contribute in the face of oposition then lets move this to the mud pit

But this as i see it is nothing more than a discussion.

I was of the understanding that RATS was restricted to those members who wanted to present serious topics to people who share the desire to DISCUSS those topics seriously. I agree with the "NO Chit-Chat" topics rule, but I did not intend for this to be a silly or pointless discussion. I also do not want it to turn into a mud-slinging fight, which is almost inevitable on the regular ATS forums.

I hardly ever post anything on RATS, and after this, I don't intend to again. I'll just chalk it up to a waste of points and be done with it.

[Edited on 17-1-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

Jez - its a good topic
just ATS politics that caused the problem

keep it going

MA im sorry but for some one who said he was leaving the thread you are taking a long time doing it

Your apology is accepted. I believe you have missed my point.

but your point has little to do with this thread - you wish to make issue with ATS editorial policy - not with the content here

Humbly requests permission to rejoin this healthy RATS-again topic in due course.

Thank you, to whoever returned this post to it's original forum!

Now back to the topic at hand...

If it were up to me to design an ideal world, it would not be based in currency, but more of a "what's yours is mine and what's mine is yours" type philosophy. This of course would have to rely on the inherrant goodness of mankind, and as such, would not be feasible in today's greed filled world. Many people would label this type of social structure as communistic, and at it's core, it is. But if the world were ever to become a Utopia, it seems like this mind-set would have to be shared by everyone.

I see what this RATS discussion is about. Jezebel was violated in an uncouth manner. I'll be sure to put this in the Drama Herald: "IT Director Illegally Parks Thread"

All humor aside, I would think that communism would work best. Captialism, on paper, uses greed to get what Communism get's directly. That being said, Capitialism is therefore a little more "realistic".

Untill people understand that we are all one and part of the same thing and that there is enough for all. Capitalism will seem to be the most realistic.

A discussion about Che Guevarra and communism from a HipHop website. Very interesting posts.

community.allhiphop.com...

Capitalism works much more easily because the world contains the only downfall of communism theory - greedy people. Capitalism needs really a good few greedy people at the top to get the ball rolling.

First of all I have no idea what the debate is about the location of this thread. I assume that everyone posting here has access to this part of the website and thus is allowed to enter the debate?

Maybe the purpose of this thread is really for the author to prove to themself and a few of their friends that their preconceived notion about the subject matter is in fact correct and that dissenting viewpoints are not welcome?

Now I do have one more point to add and I think myself that it is the most significant one of all:

Socialism is a failed system because it only acknowledges materiality as the basis of existance and ignores spirituality. Thus, it is doomed to failure no matter how many times it is implemented or where or how.

You can say the same about capitalism...

Bandit,

yes there is a great deal of truth to your statement but one difference though.

Socialism's main tenent as I understand it is a sort of conformity, that is reflected in Capitalism too, but Capitalism does not stress that conformity is it's major tenent.

But capitalism is primarily about the gaining of material wealth at the expense of others.

Originally posted by THENEO
(...)Socialism is a failed system because it only acknowledges materiality as the basis of existance and ignores spirituality. (...)

Wrong

All, at least western social and economical orders are based on religion as a mind and subconscious controlling force providing set of beliefs � doctrine, morals which should be blindly followed.
Communism repeats history of Christians taking away part of their doctrine out of Judaism and giving the ruling rights to the Proletariat where Omnipotent First Secretary has Pope Mission.
Only difference is that Christians and Communists create perfect bipolar whole where constantly growing confusion greatly improve government efficiency.
Materialism was kind of �deny ignorance� approach to false all coming from churches (other than communistic) rules, orders, artifacts etc. By the way Judeo-Christian religion is purely materialistic actively denying all �miracles�. Think of Katars and why they where erased so aggressively by Holy Inquisition.
However all the spiritual matters where carefully studied and especially Soviet Union made big progress in alternative sciences.

Originally posted by THENEO
(...)Thus, it is doomed to failure no matter how many times it is implemented or where or how.

Ban churches first...

By THENEO
Socialism is a failed system because it only acknowledges materiality as the basis of existance and ignores spirituality.

I don�t know where you got that from either THENEO, unless you�re talking about the non-promotion of any specific religion by the state, but that doesn�t mean there is no religion. I personally can�t think of a system that rejects spiritually more than Capitalism with the creation of a me, me, me society, the tenet of every man for themselves and the promotion of greed. Incidentally Christ himself would have been considered a communist under any definitions, which is a point I was trying to make a couple of days ago.

Anyway, my view:

Socialism is not Communism, the basic difference between is that the base tenet of Socialism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their deeds," whereas Communism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs."

The main problem with any system is that is people at the top are always corrupt and have no real interest in the principles of the system. That though is indicative of the people in general at the time of the invocation of the system and is not a reason to give up on and abandon faith in every system out of hand.

I see Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism as stages of political and economic evolution rather than mutually exclusive concepts. Capitalism comes first and is needed to create the physically needed foundations of the next stage, Socialism, which is primarily economic and works on the fruits produced by Capitalism, then ultimately Communism when government is no longer needed.
Communism was enforced in Russia etc, without going through the other two first and with corrupt leadership and economic isolation, and amongst everything else, became vilified by the west and by association so did Socialism, which has left us with no other perceived option than Capitalism. The problem is that Capitalism has grown into a monster. The predatory form of Capitalism that we have now (introduced by America) is wreaking havoc across the planet and bears little relation to the original idea of the upper reaches of Capitalism. Capitalism cannot work indefinitely. It has no end goal. There always has to be more and more and more of everything for it to continue to grow, what happens when there is no more?

Capitalism affects our entire way of live and our society just as much as any idealistic, religious, extreme or fundamentalist system would. Only with less fanfare. The major part being democracy.
Under Capitalism democracy suffers just as much as it would in any bad system, and it gives fascism fertile ground to flourish. Just look at our current business, political and democratic situations, you don't have to look far for evidence of this.

Noam Chomsky put it best:

"Personally, I'm in favour of democracy, which means that the central institutions of society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level--there's little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until the major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy."

People see this and the increasing role business plays in politics and it helps create apathy which only helps the corrupt politics and business relations even more. Under capitalism we are effectively ruled by big business. Under this U.S administration alone there has been plenty of evidence of how easy it is for business to buy policy.

Some of the �minor� examples of its effect on our whole way of life are; The Music Industry, mainly the manufactured bands and performers. The rise of manufactured pop is a result of capitalism. The music industry is based on profit. The industry goes for the artists that take the least outlay and effort with the most financial return, and we get an endless steam of business sponsored musical whores.

Television. The increasing amount of crap shows and the general dumbing down of television are a result of capitalism. The station wants programmes that generate the most advertising revenue and tie-ins, which therefore have to get a large audience share, which leads to the programmes being aimed at the lowest common denominator.

Family. Parents in our families have to work longer and harder than ever before, time off, maternity and sick leave are frowned upon resulting in the degradation of there own happiness and mental health and also their children�s general development as a result of spending less time with harassed, overworked and tired parents. Many surveys and political noises have been made about these aspects recently. Not to mention that pound for pound you most like earn less than your grandfather did for far more work.

Health and safety. Takes a backseat to the pursuit of profit. Every corner that can legally be cut in health and safety in the practices of drug, chemical and nuclear companies is cut to maximise financial gain. The huge drugs recall in Australia, Bush letting business leaders decide their own environmental policies etc. The implications of this are obvious.

There are many examples I could give; they range from agriculture to architecture (Farmers forced to accept a pittance in payment for their products from supermarkets that then sells them on at hugely inflated prices. Architecture of new buildings and housing developments being built with only making profits in mind, the result being rows of identical, characterless and soulless paper thin walled eyesores. etc etc etc

All of these things and more interlink and combine to create the me society. That we�ve experienced more and more of since the 70�s and 80�s. The dictate that says greed is good and promotes selfishness, vanity, and intolerance of others for the sake of the pursuit of money. The cult of celebrity is a result of this (which links to the dumbing down of television) and a result of that is increase in anorexia, compulsive dieting, and obsession with self-image.



And of course with a self interested society comes a self interested nation and a myopic selfish foreign policy, which in turn affects our view and use of war:

Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any effective power but that of self interest backed by force.

- George Bernard Shaw.

[Edited on 11-1-2004 by kegs]

Originally posted by jezebel
O.K., I know that everyone is aware of the negative aspects of both ideals, but I am curious. If it were possible for Communism to work as it was intended, everyone being equal and the removal of any hierarchy, would it be better or worse for mankind?

Try and remove the instinctive mental block against the dreaded word "Communism", and think of it like something you haven't been taught to fear and hate.

The basic premise of Communism is that everyone works for the common good and nobody can subject anyone else to their will, because of status or wealth. Nobody can avoid doing their share of the work, by paying others to do it for them. It prevents the fat, lazy element from forming and makes the executive of the company as important as the grunts that do his work.

Of course it could never work with the way mankind thinks today, namely, every man for himself, but if we were able to consider our fellow man first and truly love our neighbors as ourselves, I think that Communism would be the result.

If you were thinking of everybody else, and everyone else was thinking of you, when working or doing anything, the world couldn't help but become a Utopia. No one would have to worry about how they would get food or clothes or shelter, because everyone else would do that for them. It would require greed to become a thing of the past, which is why it is impossible in real life, but if it could happen, why wouldn't we want it to?

p.s. I am not a Communist, or any other -ist for that matter, except maybe an idealist. So don't go jumping to any conclusions please.

its only good for developing nations, once they get on their feet capitalism is the way to go