It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Capitalism and Communism: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
I haven't given up on you ANOK. Since you are a self-proclaimed communist, it probably is bothersome to say the least, when we look out upon a "communist" world, that prefers to hide behind other names.


Oh jeez, I am not a self-proclaimed communist, please point out where I said that? You don't have to support something to point out the truth and reality of it.

This is why you can't grasp the reality of what communism and capitalism is, you read into things what you want to hear. If you really want to know I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist.


Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers" [not without 'leaders' ANOK], leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.

flag.blackened.net...


It's especially frustrating if you feel like it should be otherwise. You have made it clear that you think that all nations are "capitalist" today, regardless of popular impressions. I'm not sure there is exactly total disagreement here, although you seem to have taken it that way.


OK prove to me all countries are NOT capitalist. Go ahead show me ONE country that has a worker controlled economic system (socialism). Or one country that has no economy and everything is shared and owned equally (communism). I won't be holding my breath. Popular impressions don't count, the point I keep trying to make.
Popular impression is more often than not wrong and comes from misinterpretation.

It is propaganda when they try to tell you that other countries are not capitalists because they want you to think capitalism means freedom, when it has nothing to do with it. If they told you that Russia, China etc., were just as capitalist as you then you might question capitalism, they don't want that do they?

When it comes to real discussion using common incorrect assumptions is stupid, how many times do I have to explain why?


Ten Planks of Communism: Already Here in America


That link is BS. Do you even check your sources? Forest Glen Durland is a CEO, oh no he isn't biased with an agenda. You really need to tell when something is true and when it's agenda driven. They are not talking about communism, once again they are talking about the culture of another country, that your state system uses to make you think that communism is bad, when it isn't communism to begin with.

Communism nor socialism requires a state system. That is a pure agenda driven lie.

Why not go to actual communists or socialist sources to find out what it's about? Instead of falling for propaganda that started in the 50's. Don't be afraid of it lol, nothing wrong with being a socialist, no matter how much your state system likes to demonize us.


So often Russia is described at having tried 'socialism.' Russia under Lenin, Stalin and the rest is usually described as socialist or communist by the media. Yet, as these extracts from our British-based journal, The Socialist Standard, argue, Russia was never socialist…


Russia was never socialist


You may remember when the world was divided between communism and capitalism, and when the Chinese were communists. The Chinese still call themselves communists, but now they�re also capitalists.

In fact, visit China today and you find the most dynamic capitalist nation in the world. In 2005, it had the distinction of being the world�s fastest-growing major economy.


www.commondreams.org...

www.democraticunderground.com...

Give up on me lol? I should be the one leaving you to wallow in your smug ignorance.




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



StrangeBrew says that the Koch brother's "...are modern day industrialists using the capitalist schema perfectly to their advantage. ... But still, on the capitalist/communist conspiracy scale, they wouldn't even register on the meter."

I don't agree. Do you?

RE: COVERT OPERATIONS

Covert Ops: The billionaire brothers

Koch brothers jump into California Prop 23 climate fight

.....Also, seems clear to me that the Koch brothers employ Marketing Trolls to re-define Libertarianism, and equate it with corporatism in defence of the New Corporatocracy. ...Do you see that happening?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
How to distinguish a Marxist from a non-Marxist? Everyone who believes that the proletarian dictatorship is needed, after the overthrow of capitalism, to improve social conditions, is a Marxist. The idea of proletarian dictatorship unites all kinds of communists, Stalinists, Trotskyites, Leninists, etc. Anarchists, are not Marxists because they are against any form of state (capitalist and socialist). But all communists are Marxists and all Marxists are communists. These social engineers, like Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, form parties that are said to be "the vanguards of proletariat."

Failure of Bolsheviks, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, is a very powerful arguments against Marxs' idea of proletarian dictatorship. That is what I think.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
I haven't given up on you ANOK. Since you are a self-proclaimed communist, it probably is bothersome to say the least, when we look out upon a "communist" world, that prefers to hide behind other names.


Oh jeez, I am not a self-proclaimed communist, please point out where I said that?


OK, I'll point it out, but you're not going to like it...



I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist.


I'm sorry you have decided that those who disagree with you are ignorant (and in my case, smug too). However, regardless of your purely academic pursuit of "anarchy" (seriously, you sure you want to admit this?), regardless, here is the truth of it:

Communism = Socialism

I'm sure you are correct that I am ignorant, probably of many things, however, I'm somewhat surprised that you don't know that communism, and socialism, WERE originally considered IDENTICAL by mutual agreement of their creators, Marx and Engels, who used these terms interchangeably, in a large amount of correspondence between them (still available today by the way).

Lest you jump up and down (again) about "definitions" (always of the past, or out of your old dictionary), notice, I intentionally retained the past tense ("were"). Today, by general consent, "socialism" is popularly considered in contrast to "communism", which fairly (or unfairly) became equated with totalitarian regimes.

OR, should we just be honest here with our definitions, and continue to use communism, and socialism, interchangeably? Obviously, I'm OK with that!



OK prove to me all countries are NOT capitalist.


Why? Who is saying otherwise? Straw-man tactics here?




Go ahead show me ONE country that has a worker controlled economic system (socialism). Or one country that has no economy and everything is shared and owned equally (communism).


Oh dear, guess you wrote that back when you still thought there was a difference. I know, that sounded smug, sorry. For the record, I want to point out that I think you just misspoke here, when you said something about a country "with no economy" (no such thing of course). But again, I don't think you actually meant that.



Popular impressions don't count, the point I keep trying to make.


Uh...well (as Reagan used to say), I guess they only count when you want them to count??



Popular impression is more often than not wrong and comes from misinterpretation.


THANK YOU!



It is propaganda when they try to tell you that other countries are not capitalists because they want you to think capitalism means freedom, when it has nothing to do with it.


The old straw-man again. Does anyone think this? "Capitalism means freedom"? Sheesh. You accused me along with soficrow, and both of us already refuted the absurdity.


Ten Planks of Communism: Already Here in America

That link is BS. Do you even check your sources? Forest Glen Durland is a CEO, oh no he isn't biased with an agenda. You really need to tell when something is true and when it's agenda driven. They are not talking about communism, once again they are talking about the culture of another country, that your state system uses to make you think that communism is bad, when it isn't communism to begin with.


Uh...well. Two things here. First, the link is to the Ten Planks of Communism, as given to us by Karl Marx, not some guy named Durland! Honestly, you're a communist, and you have never heard of the famous 10 planks?

Second, the title of that link identified the nation as America. If you are not American, that's fine. If YOU were talking about some other country, well the link is not.

"If" you suddenly got confused, and thought it was Russia, or China that it was about, then it's really time for you to start agreeing with the OP! You're proving the point, big time.



nothing wrong with being a socialist, no matter how much your state system likes to demonize us.


"My" state system? I have a feeling I'm still wearing that black hat you gave me.



Give up on me lol? I should be the one leaving you to wallow in your smug ignorance.


Thanks. Clearly, capitalist pigs (like me?) do enjoy wallowing...

JR



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kowalskil
 


Finally someone knows Anarchist are against any state; including capitalism. I love your input of Marxisms.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
OK, I'll point it out, but you're not going to like it...


LOL go ahead.


I'm sorry you have decided that those who disagree with you are ignorant (and in my case, smug too). However, regardless of your purely academic pursuit of "anarchy" (seriously, you sure you want to admit this?), regardless, here is the truth of it:

Communism = Socialism


In your opinion ONLY. I have tried, I guess unsuccessfully, to explain to you the differences. It has nothing to do with opinions, or cultural definitions.

Communism does not equal socialism, they are different systems. The only historical connection is Marx, and the common mistake of assuming they are the same thing.


I'm sure you are correct that I am ignorant, probably of many things, however, I'm somewhat surprised that you don't know that communism, and socialism, WERE originally considered IDENTICAL by mutual agreement of their creators, Marx and Engels, who used these terms interchangeably, in a large amount of correspondence between them (still available today by the way).


Look I didn't call you ignorant, you are showing your ignorance by what you type. Big difference. No, they were never identical, how many more times do you have to be told this. They are separate systems with some similar but some major differences, such as how labour is organized and resources distributed. It's not my fault you keep failing to understand this.


Lest you jump up and down (again) about "definitions" (always of the past, or out of your old dictionary), notice, I intentionally retained the past tense ("were"). Today, by general consent, "socialism" is popularly considered in contrast to "communism", which fairly (or unfairly) became equated with totalitarian regimes.

OR, should we just be honest here with our definitions, and continue to use communism, and socialism, interchangeably? Obviously, I'm OK with that!


LOL you keep asserting that the definitions have changed, yet you haven't shown me where the definitions have been re-written. They have only changed in the ignorant use by people who take at face value what people with agendas have told them. Is that clear enough to understand? Show me where the true definition of capitalism, socialism, or communism has changed. The common perceptions have changed and that's my point, the common perception does not address reality, but a twisted confused version of it.



Why? Who is saying otherwise? Straw-man tactics here?


I thought you were insinuating otherwise...


You have made it clear that you think that all nations are "capitalist" today, regardless of popular impressions. I'm not sure there is exactly total disagreement here, although you seem to have taken it that way.


I took it that way because of the rest of your argument, and why the use of the term communism to mean something it isn't.


Oh dear, guess you wrote that back when you still thought there was a difference. I know, that sounded smug, sorry. For the record, I want to point out that I think you just misspoke here, when you said something about a country "with no economy" (no such thing of course). But again, I don't think you actually meant that.


LOL quit saying there isn't a difference or I'll call you ignorant again. Yes I meant it, communism is a system where there is no economy because everything is shared equally. That is what it is regardless of whether you agree it would work or not, personally I am not a communist and think a socialist economy would work better.
But you are trying to argue communism from what you think or assume it would be like, and of course you don't believe it would work, but not from what it actually is.



Uh...well (as Reagan used to say), I guess they only count when you want them to count??


What??



THANK YOU!


You're welcome. Not sure why you thank me though because this is the point I've been trying to make.


The old straw-man again. Does anyone think this? "Capitalism means freedom"? Sheesh. You accused me along with soficrow, and both of us already refuted the absurdity.


I was just commenting on what the majority assume, and it seems your argument is a mishmash of what the majority assume and some other stuff you've picked up. Seeing as you both have the same common misunderstanding of economic terms its not much of a stretch to assume that's where your argument stems from.

I mean you were both trying to say America is becoming more like communism. What am I supposed to assume from that statement. First off I see your use of communism is wrong because America is not becoming communist in any shape or form. So why would you think its becoming more communist, well you must be using the word communism to mean something else, something based on a country you think is communist, like Russia.
And why communism? Because in American the media incorrectly uses communism and socialism to mean totalitarian dictatorships and that's what people equate it to. The only way I could make sense of what you're saying is to come that conclusion.


[
Uh...well. Two things here. First, the link is to the Ten Planks of Communism, as given to us by Karl Marx, not some guy named Durland! Honestly, you're a communist, and you have never heard of the famous 10 planks?


LOL no it wasn't. You are once again falling for propaganda, that is an interpretation of what it means by the guy named Durland...You've never actually read the Communist Manifesto have you?

This is what it really means..


These are instead not "planks of communism" but characteristics of socialism from a Marxist perspective.


knol.google.com...#

I'm guessing this where you misunderstanding stems from? 'Cause that misinterpretation is all over the net and trying to find the real meaning is tough.

But regardless I'm not a Marxist and neither are all communists. Anarchists disagree with his use of the state, communist and socialist, as Anarchists of course are against the state.

Sorry if I'm making assumptions about you that you don't like, but you make it hard not to, there are so many holes in your hypothesis that have to be filled for it to make any sense. And you've yet to say anything that makes me want to think any different at this point.


edit on 9/9/2010 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by kowalskil
How to distinguish a Marxist from a non-Marxist? Everyone who believes that the proletarian dictatorship is needed, after the overthrow of capitalism, to improve social conditions, is a Marxist. The idea of proletarian dictatorship unites all kinds of communists, Stalinists, Trotskyites, Leninists, etc. Anarchists, are not Marxists because they are against any form of state (capitalist and socialist). But all communists are Marxists and all Marxists are communists. These social engineers, like Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, form parties that are said to be "the vanguards of proletariat."

Failure of Bolsheviks, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, is a very powerful arguments against Marxs' idea of proletarian dictatorship. That is what I think.


Historically there have been two side to the left, those who appose the state, Anarchists, and those that don't, Marxists.

Both support either a socialist or communists economy. So communists are not all Marxists, although all Marxists are communists.

Marxism is a political system, like Anarchism, that uses the economic system of socialism and/or communism.

But to be honest there ain't too many Marxists around any more.

Capitalism is an economic system that can not work without a state system to protect the private ownership of the means of production and the privileges it brings.


Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality...Mikhail Bakunin, known as the father of Anarchism




edit on 9/9/2010 by ANOK because: to add quote



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Capitalism is an economic system that can not work without a state system to protect the private ownership of the means of production and the privileges it brings.



BINGO.

Can we go on from there? ...The issue that I've been trying to address here is that so-called "communism" and "democracy" have functioned to establish corporate government - libertarianism also has been redefined, as corporatism - all towards creating the foundation for corporatocracy. imo - Real Libertarians celebrate the individual and do NOT, could NOT, would NOT support corporate government.

Check this out:

"RightNetwork" Launches



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 




Real Libertarians celebrate the individual and do NOT, could NOT, would NOT support corporate government.


AMEN Sofi.

And I think you're right, time to move on!

The funny thing is, I think that most people posting here will probably agree with you, once they understand that it isn't about a particular system, but the fact that whatever system we want to look at, this monster called the corporation has sunk it's teeth into it. Perhaps there is conspiracy afoot, but even if it's "merely" the subversion of Libertarianism (for example), these days we always seem to be staring at the same beast.

This should be alarming, for everyone, regardless of any labels we may choose for ourselves.

I notice no one wants to really tackle the extreme example of the Kochs brought up by someone a page ago. I think discussing extremes, in this case, is certainly germane to the topic, since corporations, at this late date in their evolution, do in fact represent an "extreme", a rather dangerous one too.

So, I'm all for setting aside the chatter about particular systems.

The interesting thing here is that even those of us who are convinced that the blue-bloods & banksters are behind a whole lot that has gone wrong these past few centuries, the challenge before ALL of us may prove to be something that even the PTB underestimated.

Sort of reminds me of "SkyNet", and such things...unintended consequences. Still lots of great things to discuss!

JR



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


You are right about capitalism and comunism both being superficial veils of royal subterfuge.
The real difference between the two is where the corruption takes place. Sad but true. Communism is intended to spread state wealth evenly throughout the populace. Leaving no child hungry or uneducated. The problem is someone has to collect and spread the wealth (and protect it with a military). This has usually led to dictatorships. Dictators become greedy and ask the people to produce more and receive less. The decision makers dine on caviar and spread the wealth of bowls of rice to the people. Few starve but fewer still prosper.
Capitalism is a disguise that everyone has an opportunity. I believe in the American dream. One is only held back by their own shortcomings (to a point), Capitalism is intended to make the people strive to better themselves and achieve. Te corruption here comes from big business. Anyone in America can build a better mouse trap and market it to make billions. Capitalism wins. The rub is: the days of starting in the mail room and working your ass off to the 90th floor corner office are gone. Those who make 80k in America feel they are doing well. All the while those who make 8million pay less tax by %.
The real problem is when a society mixes the two (America) the dreamers and achiever succeed and prosper. They pay taxes and are motivated to work harder to earn more. All the while their taxes have paid for a socialized program that allows the lazy and unmotivated to still be granted a bowl of rice from their Government. Some mice race to the cheese some know the cheese will be given to them and attempt not the maze. Humans are not rats and should not be left to starve, they are more like cattle and need the prod of hunger to t moving.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You are a little misguided. In fact there are no Marxist govenments, There never has been. Marxism is a myth. Read the Communist manifesto, It is all of like 100 pages. Marxism is the idea that all weath, all goods, all care and all education is spred eveny and to the betterment of the entire population. The only place I know of that comes close to this is a Hippy Commune. A state must collect, count, evaluate and disperarse the poulation income. Once the population becomes large enough the good of all is no longer clear and the state begins to either make decision for the people(Dictatorship) or vote on the correct action (Democracy)

Imagine a small Marxist island on side has rich soil the other has fossil fuel supplies. Who and how is it decided that research dollars will be spent on agricultur and not mining. In a true Marxist society it would be equal, however equal may not be equitable because mining reseaxh is more expensive than farming reserch.
I learned that from Civ II



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by chuckpc
reply to post by ANOK
 


You are a little misguided. In fact there are no Marxist govenments, There never has been. Marxism is a myth.


No you are a little misguided, I never said there were Marxist governments. In fact I thought I pointed that out?


Read the Communist manifesto, It is all of like 100 pages. Marxism is the idea that all weath, all goods, all care and all education is spred eveny and to the betterment of the entire population. The only place I know of that comes close to this is a Hippy Commune. A state must collect, count, evaluate and disperarse the poulation income. Once the population becomes large enough the good of all is no longer clear and the state begins to either make decision for the people(Dictatorship) or vote on the correct action (Democracy).


Yes I've read the 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' (there is no Marxist Manifesto), and Das Kapital thank you.
Again what is your point? Hippie commune lol. What do you think 'communes' are based on, couldn't be communism could it?



Imagine a small Marxist island on side has rich soil the other has fossil fuel supplies. Who and how is it decided that research dollars will be spent on agricultur and not mining. In a true Marxist society it would be equal, however equal may not be equitable because mining reseaxh is more expensive than farming reserch.
I learned that from Civ II


I'm not a communist so I couldn't tell ya. But the 'expense' you talk about is the result of capitalism, under communism, and socialism, the 'expense' would be an entirely different issue. Socialism is about needs, not greeds, so if oil is needed to better the community expense is irrelevant (we wouldn't need oil anyway).

Capitalism would see the need but exploit that need by keeping the oil artificially scarce, in order to charge the islanders max $$. No one but the oil company would have access to the oil, and so would monopolize its distribution making the islanders subservient to the oil company. Not too far away another island finds oil, but your islands oil company has become very powerful and can influence your government. So your government, because it benefits from the oil company, creates a false flag situation and kills some of your citizens by flying frozen fish into buildings. The incident is blamed on the other island, so your military invades under the excuse that it has an evil dictator and terrorists wanting to kill you. The real reason is to keep the island from selling oil, in order to keep it artificially scarce so your islanders still pay top $.



edit on 9/12/2010 by ANOK because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join