Can we have the best of both Communism and Capitalism?

Why is this rarely discussed? I know of few people that agree with either 100%.

I agree Capitalism is a wonderful opportunity and great motivator for people to excel and achieve great things socially and economically. I also think that there should be a limit. Something like 100x your lowest paid employee or something that prevents such huge imbalances in wealth. Yes I don't believe you should make all the money in the world no matter how great you are or wonderful your product. After a certain point, it stops making any difference whatsoever in your life and only takes from others. So you can continue to increase your wealth, but only if the people under you also get some benefit.

I agree that communism and caring for the poor, stupid, lazy and unfortunate is the right thing to do. Providing the bare essentials is a good thing. Now if you're lazy, stupid, or unfortunate then you don't get the mansion on the hill, but you do get to eat, live and survive, just without any luxuries. You would still have the opportunity to excel and change your life at any time. I have a real problem with people that don't mind watching these people suffer, for any reason.

I think most of us would fall in the middle. Capitalism today is not true capitalism, it's crony capitalism at it's best. Pure communism doesn't really work either, ambition and the want of a better life drives some of the best people to do great things. So no, I don't think people are equal in that regard. Some are better than others at certain things, and it's up to society to decide which is to be rewarded more than another, this is on top of inalienable rights.

So why can't this work?

Then you are a liberal person.
2nd

reply to post by ShedAlert


To a certain extent, that's true. Your point?

Originally posted by Paschar0
Providing the bare essentials is a good thing. Now if you're lazy, stupid, or unfortunate then you don't get the mansion on the hill, but you do get to eat, live and survive, just without any luxuries.

So why can't this work?

Because sooner or later, you'll run out of other people's money.
307 million people getting a non-luxury "living wage" of (to pick a number off the top of my head) $20000 comes out to be a cost of 6,000,000,000,000 dollars.
Your government's income during that year = 0 dollars.

Communism is about no property. At all. In extreme versions of Communism - even no family of your own.
Capitalism is about accumulating stuff.
So you cannot have both. I think that you mix Communism with Socialism, and you can have both Capitalism and Socialism. It works great in Scandinavian countries, that are relatively rich and have low culture of corruption. However i doubt that it will work everywhere.

Replace communism with socialism, and I agree wholeheartedly. Social capitalism, mixed economy, social democracy, third way, market socialism, call it what you want. It is the most succesfull socioeconomical system in history, and virtually all developed countries run this mix of both.

Originally posted by Paschar0
Why is this rarely discussed? I know of few people that agree with either 100%.

I agree Capitalism is a wonderful opportunity and great motivator for people to excel and achieve great things socially and economically. I also think that there should be a limit....

As soon as you made that cutoff (i.e., "I think there should be a limit.") , that is where you identified the real problem...you are right about crony capitalism....when you try to mix economic systems, you end up with oligarchy...none of us alive today have ever experienced unfettered capitalism...the closest the US has come was for a roughly twenty year period of time in the mid to late 1800's...

You have to ask, "By what authority or claim do I impose a limit on another human being?"

My thoughts...

No we cannot. They our opposing ideologies. To have capitalism is to not have communism, to have communism is to not have capitalism. I don't currently have the energy to go much further than that.

One thing I would like to say though,

you said

I agree that communism and caring for the poor, stupid, lazy and unfortunate is the right thing to do.

Of course caring for the poor, etc.. is the right thing to do. What I find most people (not necessarily you) do not understand about capitalism, true capitalism that is. Capitalism is the best chance that the poor, unfortunate, etc.. have.

I don't understand why people think that if a government doesn't help, nobody will. I think it is the exact opposite, nobody helps because it is assumed that the government will.

The government is just a tool that people have created. If the government got out of the "helping people" game, I assure you and everybody else in the world, the people will find another tool to help the unfortunate. Help does not have to come from the government. In fact, governments the world over have proven time and time again that they are quite bad at the job. Just look at any government program and the extreme amount of waste involved.

The best thing that could happen for the poor is to get the government out of the charity business. I mean really, when did people decide that it was government handouts or starving people with no hope.

The reason these laws that take and give exist in the first place is because people care about other people. The government is just the current tool used. Take the tool away and another tool will be built. I would guess a much more fair, efficient and useful tool.

Originally posted by Maslo
and virtually all developed countries run this mix of both.

edit on 5/11/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

I wonder if this has anything to do with the global economic crisis....

Actually, strike that, I don't wonder. How you could call Social capitalism a success story is beyond ignorant to the facts of current events and history.

reply to post by sageofmonticello


Despite crisis (caused by USA corporate capitalism and government incompetence, not social democracy), social capitalist countries still have the highest quality of life on this planet. Should we not call that a success? What better alternative is there, proven to be feasible? I am all ears.

I say throw it all in a blender after removing the waste products and see what we get. Can't be worse then where we are now IMO. I agree though. Just like there are several political parties which both have good ideas, not one is fully correct. The issue is when we start labeling things. Oh you must be libertarian, conservative, left wing, right wing... Why? All it does is divide people on issues. People must be willing to sacrifice to obtain a better world for all, not just the 1%, Republicans, Democrats, middle class or the poor.

Remember... United We Stand, Divided We Fall... - The answer was there all along...

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Markets are controlled by a minority group of 'owners' based on private profits and wages. It is a hierarchical system that creates haves and have-nots.

Socialism is the workers collective ownership of the means of production. Markets are controlled by the workers who produce for the market, and earn directly from the profits. It can have a state system, Marxism etc., or it can be non-state, as in Anarchism (anarcho-socialism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-sindicalism etc.)

Communism is the communities communal ownership of freely produced, and distributed resources.

Capitalism is not compatible with the other two.

Isn't this what America has been trying to do all along? Pretend it's capitalism while confiscating property at gun point and oligarchs funneling that property to points they see fit through various programs and systems which circumvent any and all checks or balances?

What you describe is America. How's it working out?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by sageofmonticello

 

Despite crisis (caused by USA corporate capitalism and government incompetence, not social democracy), social capitalist countries still have the highest quality of life on this planet. Should we not call that a success? What better alternative is there, proven to be feasible? I am all ears.

My guess is that our argument is mostly semantics. What you call corporate capitalism I would call social capitalism for corporate interest. I wouldn't use social democracy and social capitalism interchangeably. A social democracy can exist without capitalism and social capitalism can exist without democracy, but like I said semantics...

Though I see your logic in saying that social capitalist countries have the highest quality of life and are therefore successful, I would argue it is in spite of social capitalism, certainly not because of it. Anyhow, even if I am incorrect on that point, calling any country a "success" in comparison to other countries really sets the bar pretty low, don't you think?

I mean, highest quality of life compared to what? Total tyranny? Monarchies? Dictatorships? I would agree, out of all the crap that is currently in practice social democracy works better but to me it is like saying which one of these turds smells the least offensive? Does that make any sense?

As far as a better alternative, true free markets, limited government, true capitalism and the maximum amount of freedom and an end to corporate person-hood.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Isn't this what America has been trying to do all along? Pretend it's capitalism while confiscating property at gun point and oligarchs funneling that property to points they see fit through various programs and systems which circumvent any and all checks or balances

How is that anything to do with communism?

Overwhelmingly, most people’s understanding of what Communism is, comes from an extremely propagandistic presentation of the Soviet Union, generally by US right-wing sources. This would give you the idea that communism is supposed to be very authoritarian, rigidly collectivistic and anti-democratic.

This misconception is unfortunately so wide-spread that it’s not infrequent to be called a mass murderer wannabe for simply bringing it up and even though it is trivial to find out what Communism really is and how it works, this exasperatingly wrong view of it nevertheless persists in even otherwise brilliant minds.

So let me say this first: Whatever view you may have of the USSR (and there are quite a few supporters of Stalinism out there), it was not Communism.

dbzer0.com...

reply to post by ANOK


Though you didn't ask me, I would say it applies to how communism has been historically represented and how it has historically been practiced. In that way it relates to communism. Though the USSR may have been a bastard son of communism and a poor representative of what some say true communism is, it is never the less, the communism people know.

In all examples, communism or the so called communist countries have always practiced authoritarianism.

Anyhow, if your idealized version of communism, which I agree has never existed was to be in place how could it exist without authoritarianism?

Communism - a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

So how does that come about without authoritarianism? Just an honest question As I see no way of that happening.

RE: your title, "Can we have the best of both Communism and Capitalism"

Isn't the phrase "the best of Communism" an oxymoron? Or perhaps an impossibility?

Communism is a totalitarian system (total control of people and wealth/natural resources). If you're lucky, you get a nice, honest government. If you're not so lucky (and to date, this seems to be the norm)...well, you get screwed.

Same fertilizer, different farmer. Eh, comrade?

Governments around the world--including in the West--are currently pretty corrupt. (The West is just better at concealing it, having convinced us that we're free.) So I think you can safely assume that any money you give them will NOT go to benefit those in need, but rather to the corporations and special interest groups that REALLY control government and help re-elect our bought-and-paid for "elected representatives" year after year. If you're lucky, though, you might get a few crumbs off their table once in awhile. You know, just to appease the peasants and all.

reply to post by sageofmonticello


That's because they were authoritarian, which is in complete opposition to communism. It's not the fault of communism, it is simply authoritarian propaganda, and control of the population.

Just like Hitler wasn't socialist, Russia never was communist.

You have to understand the history of those times. The majority of the working class was socialist, communist, or anarchist. For government to be trusted by the people they used the terms socialism/communism, and were that in name only, not practice. The US government simply used those countries faults, and downfalls, as a way to demonize socialism and communism. Capitalists, private owners of the means of production (the capitalist class, the ruling class, the establishment, TPTB), worse nightmare is people becoming aware that they don't need them in order to produce, and in fact could be better off without them.

Capitalists become fascists, socialists become communists. The answer lies within the middle path, but we're all too blind or stubborn to walk down it.

reply to post by ANOK


I agree with everything you just said and I feel I have a pretty good understanding of the history of the subject in question.

My question to you was how does a communist society exist without authoritarianism. I don't see how it can.

How can communism exist without authoritarianism? Though communism may not advocate authoritarianism it does not seem possible to have a communist society without authoritarianism.

you said

Communism is the communities communal ownership of freely produced, and distributed resources.

I am asking you how such a system could possibly function without authoritarianism. It would seem necessary unless it had 100% support by every living person in that society as well as every new-born citizen. If it didn't have 100% support by every person then it would seem logical that some force would have to be used to implement and continue such a system. any thoughts to that?