Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why I became a "commie"

debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:39:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto", to make a long story short. I recommend these writings to any who consider themselves open-minded in order to open their minds to the truths of capitalism and the reasons why it is wasteful and detrimental to society as a whole. Who knows- perhaps you'll become a socialist too!

However, both writings don't paint capitalism as the "anti-Christ"; they merely portray it as a "loosening" of previous ideologies. It's all so interesting, and I think it would remain so even for the most staunch capitalist.

And yes, both writings are supported by objective evidence, for the most part. Which is not to say that they are perfect. In any case, I hope you consider my recommendations.
You can call me Mark if you like.
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 12:47:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 3:39:35 PM, debate_power wrote:
I read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto", to make a long story short. I recommend these writings to any who consider themselves open-minded in order to open their minds to the truths of capitalism and the reasons why it is wasteful and detrimental to society as a whole. Who knows- perhaps you'll become a socialist too!

However, both writings don't paint capitalism as the "anti-Christ"; they merely portray it as a "loosening" of previous ideologies. It's all so interesting, and I think it would remain so even for the most staunch capitalist.

And yes, both writings are supported by objective evidence, for the most part. Which is not to say that they are perfect. In any case, I hope you consider my recommendations.

I think posts such as yours show the extent of discontent that exist in our society today. And, I agree that this discontent is warranted. The stratification between the wealthy and the rest of society is now greater than it has ever been in the last 100 years. We definitely need to fix this.

But, with that said, I don't think communism works. We've had several countries try it and it failed disastrously.

I think there needs to be some happy middle ground. Some suggestions:

1. Abolish minimum wage but drastically increase earned income credit. Reason: Starting companies are hard pressed when minimum wage is so high. But, I think everyone should be able to get the basic necessities in life as long as they work.

2. Increase taxes on the upper middle class and upper class. I don't think increases taxes will stifle motivation significantly. People work hard to do better than others. Increasing taxes will still allow people who work hard to make more than others.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 1:54:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 12:47:27 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/1/2014 3:39:35 PM, debate_power wrote:
I read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto", to make a long story short. I recommend these writings to any who consider themselves open-minded in order to open their minds to the truths of capitalism and the reasons why it is wasteful and detrimental to society as a whole. Who knows- perhaps you'll become a socialist too!

However, both writings don't paint capitalism as the "anti-Christ"; they merely portray it as a "loosening" of previous ideologies. It's all so interesting, and I think it would remain so even for the most staunch capitalist.

And yes, both writings are supported by objective evidence, for the most part. Which is not to say that they are perfect. In any case, I hope you consider my recommendations.

I think posts such as yours show the extent of discontent that exist in our society today. And, I agree that this discontent is warranted. The stratification between the wealthy and the rest of society is now greater than it has ever been in the last 100 years. We definitely need to fix this.

But, with that said, I don't think communism works. We've had several countries try it and it failed disastrously.

I think there needs to be some happy middle ground. Some suggestions:

1. Abolish minimum wage but drastically increase earned income credit. Reason: Starting companies are hard pressed when minimum wage is so high. But, I think everyone should be able to get the basic necessities in life as long as they work.

2. Increase taxes on the upper middle class and upper class. I don't think increases taxes will stifle motivation significantly. People work hard to do better than others. Increasing taxes will still allow people who work hard to make more than others.

Well, it's easily disputable that communism has even been attempted...
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 2:17:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 1:54:55 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 12:47:27 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:
At 12/1/2014 3:39:35 PM, debate_power wrote:
I read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto", to make a long story short. I recommend these writings to any who consider themselves open-minded in order to open their minds to the truths of capitalism and the reasons why it is wasteful and detrimental to society as a whole. Who knows- perhaps you'll become a socialist too!

However, both writings don't paint capitalism as the "anti-Christ"; they merely portray it as a "loosening" of previous ideologies. It's all so interesting, and I think it would remain so even for the most staunch capitalist.

And yes, both writings are supported by objective evidence, for the most part. Which is not to say that they are perfect. In any case, I hope you consider my recommendations.

I think posts such as yours show the extent of discontent that exist in our society today. And, I agree that this discontent is warranted. The stratification between the wealthy and the rest of society is now greater than it has ever been in the last 100 years. We definitely need to fix this.

But, with that said, I don't think communism works. We've had several countries try it and it failed disastrously.

I think there needs to be some happy middle ground. Some suggestions:

1. Abolish minimum wage but drastically increase earned income credit. Reason: Starting companies are hard pressed when minimum wage is so high. But, I think everyone should be able to get the basic necessities in life as long as they work.

2. Increase taxes on the upper middle class and upper class. I don't think increases taxes will stifle motivation significantly. People work hard to do better than others. Increasing taxes will still allow people who work hard to make more than others.

Well, it's easily disputable that communism has even been attempted...

What do you think of Friedman's "negative income tax"?
You can call me Mark if you like.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 3:24:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 2:17:23 PM, debate_power wrote:

What do you think of Friedman's "negative income tax"?

I despise it.
My work here is, finally, done.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 3:28:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 3:24:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:17:23 PM, debate_power wrote:

What do you think of Friedman's "negative income tax"?

I despise it.

Doesn't seem like an incentive to work, does it? Economists do like their incentives a lot.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 3:31:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 3:28:47 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:24:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:17:23 PM, debate_power wrote:

What do you think of Friedman's "negative income tax"?

I despise it.

Doesn't seem like an incentive to work, does it? Economists do like their incentives a lot.

To be fair, I am not 100% sure what this plan is, but it sounds similar to what we already have with the earned income tax credit, just worse.
I don't like negative taxes one bit. I don't think the IRS should be handing out money as de facto welfare.
Everyone should pay taxes, or at least, no one "pays" negative ones.
My work here is, finally, done.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 3:32:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 3:31:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:28:47 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:24:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/2/2014 2:17:23 PM, debate_power wrote:

What do you think of Friedman's "negative income tax"?

I despise it.

Doesn't seem like an incentive to work, does it? Economists do like their incentives a lot.

To be fair, I am not 100% sure what this plan is, but it sounds similar to what we already have with the earned income tax credit, just worse.
I don't like negative taxes one bit. I don't think the IRS should be handing out money as de facto welfare.
Everyone should pay taxes, or at least, no one "pays" negative ones.

Oh, I quite agree.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 3:34:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 3:32:05 PM, debate_power wrote:

So, as a "commie", what do you agree with in terms of taxes and welfare?
My work here is, finally, done.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 3:48:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 3:34:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:32:05 PM, debate_power wrote:


So, as a "commie", what do you agree with in terms of taxes and welfare?

As a Marxist, I agree with an income tax which is supposed to subsidize things like schools (obviously, very few things would need to be subsidized in communism due to collective ownership of means of production). That's currently. Marx himself proposed a "heavily progressive income tax".

The problem is, I'm not quite sure whether I want to go with Marx's plan on taxes or just forget about them entirely. Obviously, the income tax Marx had in mind would have an effect on personal wealth- which is most likely what he had in mind, one of the goals of the communist system he proposed being to eliminate social classes, or rather, to merge them into one.

The one social class is meant to be a working class (which I'm sure you already knew). Naturally, it follows that everyone in a Marxian system would be obligated to labor- since purchasing of labor is not a viable option- and survival would be a strong enough incentive to work. Marx also suggests that inheritance be abolished to prevent an accumulation of wealth that would compromise the need for labor. I don't currently dispute this, but it seems that income taxes would have the desired effect without the need for abolition of inheritance, so I'm undecided in that regard.

Obviously welfare money would have a negative effect on the incentive for labor. I think most people agree that communism is not compatible with a welfare state.
You can call me Mark if you like.
TryingToBeOpenMinded
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 4:34:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't believe in a negative income tax which is purely a payment for not achieving a certain level of income. So, even if you don't work, you will receive payment from the government. I think this will cause a disincentive to work for a small but significant segment of the population. This segment is what causes the ire in our society who believe that lazy people shouldn't be rewarded.

However, I am a strong supporter of earned income credit in which you would get additional money for working. More you work, more money you get. This credit would marginally decrease as your income decreases so that someone who works more will always get paid more. So, if you make $9k/year, you'll end up getting $18k. If you make $10k, you'll end up getting $18.5k. And, so on and so on.

Conceptually, communism is basically a flat earned income credit. Think of it this way. Everyone creates value in our society. And, the total national value is equal to GDP. Under communism, the GDP is divided equally to the citizens. So, even if your contribution amounts to $10k, you end up with $40k. Or, if your contribution is $400k, you end up with only $40k. Everyone ends up with $40k.

But, with the earned income credit, you're building an incentive component. You're cutting up the pie more evenly but it's still based upon how much you work.
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 8:42:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2014 3:39:35 PM, debate_power wrote:
I read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto", to make a long story short. I recommend these writings to any who consider themselves open-minded in order to open their minds to the truths of capitalism and the reasons why it is wasteful and detrimental to society as a whole. Who knows- perhaps you'll become a socialist too!

However, both writings don't paint capitalism as the "anti-Christ"; they merely portray it as a "loosening" of previous ideologies. It's all so interesting, and I think it would remain so even for the most staunch capitalist.

And yes, both writings are supported by objective evidence, for the most part. Which is not to say that they are perfect. In any case, I hope you consider my recommendations.

Communism is terrible. Its based on good intentions, but it doesn't work. The best form of government, is one that is small and holds very little power.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 10:11:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2014 3:48:58 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:34:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:32:05 PM, debate_power wrote:


So, as a "commie", what do you agree with in terms of taxes and welfare?

As a Marxist, I agree with an income tax which is supposed to subsidize things like schools (obviously, very few things would need to be subsidized in communism due to collective ownership of means of production). That's currently. Marx himself proposed a "heavily progressive income tax".

The problem is, I'm not quite sure whether I want to go with Marx's plan on taxes or just forget about them entirely. Obviously, the income tax Marx had in mind would have an effect on personal wealth- which is most likely what he had in mind, one of the goals of the communist system he proposed being to eliminate social classes, or rather, to merge them into one.

The one social class is meant to be a working class (which I'm sure you already knew). Naturally, it follows that everyone in a Marxian system would be obligated to labor- since purchasing of labor is not a viable option- and survival would be a strong enough incentive to work. Marx also suggests that inheritance be abolished to prevent an accumulation of wealth that would compromise the need for labor. I don't currently dispute this, but it seems that income taxes would have the desired effect without the need for abolition of inheritance, so I'm undecided in that regard.

Obviously welfare money would have a negative effect on the incentive for labor. I think most people agree that communism is not compatible with a welfare state.

How do you reconcile the fact some labor is much more valuable than other labor while establishing a single social working class?
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 2:15:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 10:11:37 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:48:58 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:34:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:32:05 PM, debate_power wrote:


So, as a "commie", what do you agree with in terms of taxes and welfare?

As a Marxist, I agree with an income tax which is supposed to subsidize things like schools (obviously, very few things would need to be subsidized in communism due to collective ownership of means of production). That's currently. Marx himself proposed a "heavily progressive income tax".

The problem is, I'm not quite sure whether I want to go with Marx's plan on taxes or just forget about them entirely. Obviously, the income tax Marx had in mind would have an effect on personal wealth- which is most likely what he had in mind, one of the goals of the communist system he proposed being to eliminate social classes, or rather, to merge them into one.

The one social class is meant to be a working class (which I'm sure you already knew). Naturally, it follows that everyone in a Marxian system would be obligated to labor- since purchasing of labor is not a viable option- and survival would be a strong enough incentive to work. Marx also suggests that inheritance be abolished to prevent an accumulation of wealth that would compromise the need for labor. I don't currently dispute this, but it seems that income taxes would have the desired effect without the need for abolition of inheritance, so I'm undecided in that regard.

Obviously welfare money would have a negative effect on the incentive for labor. I think most people agree that communism is not compatible with a welfare state.

How do you reconcile the fact some labor is much more valuable than other labor while establishing a single social working class?

Communists do not want to express labor in terms of money. We want to express the product created by that labor in terms of money.

With some communist models wages might be paid, but they wouldn't be for producing any product.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 2:17:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 2:15:24 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:11:37 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:48:58 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:34:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:32:05 PM, debate_power wrote:


So, as a "commie", what do you agree with in terms of taxes and welfare?

As a Marxist, I agree with an income tax which is supposed to subsidize things like schools (obviously, very few things would need to be subsidized in communism due to collective ownership of means of production). That's currently. Marx himself proposed a "heavily progressive income tax".

The problem is, I'm not quite sure whether I want to go with Marx's plan on taxes or just forget about them entirely. Obviously, the income tax Marx had in mind would have an effect on personal wealth- which is most likely what he had in mind, one of the goals of the communist system he proposed being to eliminate social classes, or rather, to merge them into one.

The one social class is meant to be a working class (which I'm sure you already knew). Naturally, it follows that everyone in a Marxian system would be obligated to labor- since purchasing of labor is not a viable option- and survival would be a strong enough incentive to work. Marx also suggests that inheritance be abolished to prevent an accumulation of wealth that would compromise the need for labor. I don't currently dispute this, but it seems that income taxes would have the desired effect without the need for abolition of inheritance, so I'm undecided in that regard.

Obviously welfare money would have a negative effect on the incentive for labor. I think most people agree that communism is not compatible with a welfare state.

How do you reconcile the fact some labor is much more valuable than other labor while establishing a single social working class?

Communists do not want to express labor in terms of money. We want to express the product created by that labor in terms of money.

With some communist models wages might be paid, but they wouldn't be for producing any product.

One of the primary goals of communism is to detach worth from labor, and instead apply worth to a product.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 5:49:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 2:15:24 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:11:37 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:48:58 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:34:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/2/2014 3:32:05 PM, debate_power wrote:


So, as a "commie", what do you agree with in terms of taxes and welfare?

As a Marxist, I agree with an income tax which is supposed to subsidize things like schools (obviously, very few things would need to be subsidized in communism due to collective ownership of means of production). That's currently. Marx himself proposed a "heavily progressive income tax".

The problem is, I'm not quite sure whether I want to go with Marx's plan on taxes or just forget about them entirely. Obviously, the income tax Marx had in mind would have an effect on personal wealth- which is most likely what he had in mind, one of the goals of the communist system he proposed being to eliminate social classes, or rather, to merge them into one.

The one social class is meant to be a working class (which I'm sure you already knew). Naturally, it follows that everyone in a Marxian system would be obligated to labor- since purchasing of labor is not a viable option- and survival would be a strong enough incentive to work. Marx also suggests that inheritance be abolished to prevent an accumulation of wealth that would compromise the need for labor. I don't currently dispute this, but it seems that income taxes would have the desired effect without the need for abolition of inheritance, so I'm undecided in that regard.

Obviously welfare money would have a negative effect on the incentive for labor. I think most people agree that communism is not compatible with a welfare state.

How do you reconcile the fact some labor is much more valuable than other labor while establishing a single social working class?

Communists do not want to express labor in terms of money. We want to express the product created by that labor in terms of money.

With some communist models wages might be paid, but they wouldn't be for producing any product.

That really didn't address the issue. Even if you shift the value of the work to the value of product, there remains a significant value difference,
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 5:52:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2014 3:39:35 PM, debate_power wrote:
I read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto", to make a long story short. I recommend these writings to any who consider themselves open-minded in order to open their minds to the truths of capitalism and the reasons why it is wasteful and detrimental to society as a whole. Who knows- perhaps you'll become a socialist too!

However, both writings don't paint capitalism as the "anti-Christ"; they merely portray it as a "loosening" of previous ideologies. It's all so interesting, and I think it would remain so even for the most staunch capitalist.

And yes, both writings are supported by objective evidence, for the most part. Which is not to say that they are perfect. In any case, I hope you consider my recommendations.

Why did you say "commie" and not just communist. I find that highly susp.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 3:07:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 5:52:01 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/1/2014 3:39:35 PM, debate_power wrote:
I read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto", to make a long story short. I recommend these writings to any who consider themselves open-minded in order to open their minds to the truths of capitalism and the reasons why it is wasteful and detrimental to society as a whole. Who knows- perhaps you'll become a socialist too!

However, both writings don't paint capitalism as the "anti-Christ"; they merely portray it as a "loosening" of previous ideologies. It's all so interesting, and I think it would remain so even for the most staunch capitalist.

And yes, both writings are supported by objective evidence, for the most part. Which is not to say that they are perfect. In any case, I hope you consider my recommendations.

Why did you say "commie" and not just communist. I find that highly susp.

Just to be funny
You can call me Mark if you like.
Tranny
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 4:46:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2014 3:39:35 PM, debate_power wrote:
I read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto", to make a long story short. I recommend these writings to any who consider themselves open-minded in order to open their minds to the truths of capitalism and the reasons why it is wasteful and detrimental to society as a whole. Who knows- perhaps you'll become a socialist too!

However, both writings don't paint capitalism as the "anti-Christ"; they merely portray it as a "loosening" of previous ideologies. It's all so interesting, and I think it would remain so even for the most staunch capitalist.

And yes, both writings are supported by objective evidence, for the most part. Which is not to say that they are perfect. In any case, I hope you consider my recommendations.

Communism is not the same as socialism. Socialism is real democracy. Communism is authoritarian and corrupt. It has socialistic values, but they're not the same. And just because something has capitalism, doesn't mean it can't be socialist. Why not a socialist government with a capitalist economy?
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:01:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 4:46:33 PM, Tranny wrote:
At 12/1/2014 3:39:35 PM, debate_power wrote:
I read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto", to make a long story short. I recommend these writings to any who consider themselves open-minded in order to open their minds to the truths of capitalism and the reasons why it is wasteful and detrimental to society as a whole. Who knows- perhaps you'll become a socialist too!

However, both writings don't paint capitalism as the "anti-Christ"; they merely portray it as a "loosening" of previous ideologies. It's all so interesting, and I think it would remain so even for the most staunch capitalist.

And yes, both writings are supported by objective evidence, for the most part. Which is not to say that they are perfect. In any case, I hope you consider my recommendations.

Communism is not the same as socialism. Socialism is real democracy. Communism is authoritarian and corrupt. It has socialistic values, but they're not the same. And just because something has capitalism, doesn't mean it can't be socialist. Why not a socialist government with a capitalist economy?

Communism is a type of socialism, and is intended to exist within a fully democratic government. "Authoritarian" and "corrupt" don't accurately describe real communism, and especially since "corrupt" is subjective.

"Socialist government with a capitalist economy" is just democracy with capitalism.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Tranny
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:05:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 5:01:00 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:46:33 PM, Tranny wrote:
At 12/1/2014 3:39:35 PM, debate_power wrote:
I read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto", to make a long story short. I recommend these writings to any who consider themselves open-minded in order to open their minds to the truths of capitalism and the reasons why it is wasteful and detrimental to society as a whole. Who knows- perhaps you'll become a socialist too!

However, both writings don't paint capitalism as the "anti-Christ"; they merely portray it as a "loosening" of previous ideologies. It's all so interesting, and I think it would remain so even for the most staunch capitalist.

And yes, both writings are supported by objective evidence, for the most part. Which is not to say that they are perfect. In any case, I hope you consider my recommendations.

Communism is not the same as socialism. Socialism is real democracy. Communism is authoritarian and corrupt. It has socialistic values, but they're not the same. And just because something has capitalism, doesn't mean it can't be socialist. Why not a socialist government with a capitalist economy?

Communism is a type of socialism, and is intended to exist within a fully democratic government. "Authoritarian" and "corrupt" don't accurately describe real communism, and especially since "corrupt" is subjective.
Communism concentrates all its power into one or a few people and leaves everyone else equally powerless. That's Communism. Communism is not socialism. It is socialistic. Socialism and communism are different entities.

"Socialist government with a capitalist economy" is just democracy with capitalism.

Yes, because socialism = democracy. What's wrong with capitalism in itself?
Tranny
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:06:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In a socialist society, everyone is equally powered. There is no dictator or polyarchic administration. Now that's real socialism.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 12:45:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 5:06:50 PM, Tranny wrote:
In a socialist society, everyone is equally powered. There is no dictator or polyarchic administration. Now that's real socialism.

everyone is equally politically empowered in any normal democratic country (many of which are capitalist country), in order to make people equally economically powered you need a central power to monitor the equal distribution of wealth - that's where the authoritarian regime play a part. You an even more powerful government to actually make wealth distribution equal and dictatorship is normally the only way to maintain that kind of power. Not to mention that it generally produce less, thus making people poorer overall, thus need even more undemocratic power to function.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 1:07:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2014 3:39:35 PM, debate_power wrote:
I read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto", to make a long story short. I recommend these writings to any who consider themselves open-minded in order to open their minds to the truths of capitalism and the reasons why it is wasteful and detrimental to society as a whole. Who knows- perhaps you'll become a socialist too!

However, both writings don't paint capitalism as the "anti-Christ"; they merely portray it as a "loosening" of previous ideologies. It's all so interesting, and I think it would remain so even for the most staunch capitalist.

And yes, both writings are supported by objective evidence, for the most part. Which is not to say that they are perfect. In any case, I hope you consider my recommendations.

If you've read Capital, then you should know already that Marx embraced capitalism. He saw a lot of problems with it and sought a solution to those problems, but he was fully cognizant of the historical necessity of going through what he deemed a capitalist phase of sorts, and most certainly did not consider it to be overall detrimental to society.

Marx recommended socialism upon achieving a super-abundance of capital. However, I would contend that there never is "enough" capital, and that his historical materialism model was severely flawed. His "modes of production" modeling is much more suited to compare industrialism with agrarian/hunter-gather/etc systems, the former which he fuses with market economies to "create" the concept of capitalism. Most of his other analysis on "capitalism" describes basic and mundane aspects of commerce, which has been with humanity for thousands of years and is not particularly enlightening except for academics who have never seen a trading floor.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 2:32:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 1:07:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/1/2014 3:39:35 PM, debate_power wrote:
I read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto", to make a long story short. I recommend these writings to any who consider themselves open-minded in order to open their minds to the truths of capitalism and the reasons why it is wasteful and detrimental to society as a whole. Who knows- perhaps you'll become a socialist too!

However, both writings don't paint capitalism as the "anti-Christ"; they merely portray it as a "loosening" of previous ideologies. It's all so interesting, and I think it would remain so even for the most staunch capitalist.

And yes, both writings are supported by objective evidence, for the most part. Which is not to say that they are perfect. In any case, I hope you consider my recommendations.

If you've read Capital, then you should know already that Marx embraced capitalism. He saw a lot of problems with it and sought a solution to those problems, but he was fully cognizant of the historical necessity of going through what he deemed a capitalist phase of sorts, and most certainly did not consider it to be overall detrimental to society.

Marx recommended socialism upon achieving a super-abundance of capital. However, I would contend that there never is "enough" capital, and that his historical materialism model was severely flawed. His "modes of production" modeling is much more suited to compare industrialism with agrarian/hunter-gather/etc systems, the former which he fuses with market economies to "create" the concept of capitalism. Most of his other analysis on "capitalism" describes basic and mundane aspects of commerce, which has been with humanity for thousands of years and is not particularly enlightening except for academics who have never seen a trading floor.

I'm aware of Marx's recognition of the historical necessity of capitalism. He saw the global "bourgeois revolution" as a "loosening" of the aspects of the feudal society that existed prior to the modern one. To him, one of the necessary and inevitable parts of the phase system of society is the seizure of the means of production by workers and the creation of a socialist state that will eventually devolve into an anarchic society without exploitation of humans by humans. If I didn't believe the phase system described by Marx was sound, I wouldn't be a communist. If I were to believe capitalism was the worst possible system, I'd be an idiot.
You can call me Mark if you like.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 7:45:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 2:32:07 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/12/2014 1:07:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I'm aware of Marx's recognition of the historical necessity of capitalism. He saw the global "bourgeois revolution" as a "loosening" of the aspects of the feudal society that existed prior to the modern one. To him, one of the necessary and inevitable parts of the phase system of society is the seizure of the means of production by workers and the creation of a socialist state that will eventually devolve into an anarchic society without exploitation of humans by humans. If I didn't believe the phase system described by Marx was sound, I wouldn't be a communist. If I were to believe capitalism was the worst possible system, I'd be an idiot.

Marx has no historical basis for his claims. The "phase system of society" has invariably involved exploitation in every phase...what Marx calls for is a complete break from historicity in his advocacy of communism. It's right here that Marx's observations lose track of reality.

What makes far more sense is that, yes, there will be another seizure of the means of production, one that will still invariably lead to exploitation of humans by humans...but the new "mode of production" will progress from industrial goods to something else. In fact, we are seeing that now, as tech companies are outstripping industrial companies in market value and replacing them as the primal force in economic output. We see progress in prioritization, from agrarian, to industrial, to post-industrial (information), while keeping all prior modes of production intact thereby increasing our material wealth. It will still involve a market economy, as did all the three modes of production prior.

I don't think he noted anything particularly interesting by classifying market-oriented industrialism as "capitalism"...it makes it seem as though it was only with the advent of industrialization that allowed humanity to create the market economy and is very misleading. For example, he makes a point to note that MCM developed with capitalism (and hence industrialism)...this is simply false, as MCM has been with us since the advent of commerce. Any merchant would focus upon MCM over CMC, to include merchants in ancient Greece and Rome.

Marx's observations of historical materialism are sound if not a bit mundane...there's really no reason to break from such observations when attempting to predict the future. Humanity has always been materialistic...indeed we ARE material. To shed the material would involve shedding what we are.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 8:20:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 5:01:00 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:46:33 PM, Tranny wrote:
At 12/1/2014 3:39:35 PM, debate_power wrote:
I read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto", to make a long story short. I recommend these writings to any who consider themselves open-minded in order to open their minds to the truths of capitalism and the reasons why it is wasteful and detrimental to society as a whole. Who knows- perhaps you'll become a socialist too!

However, both writings don't paint capitalism as the "anti-Christ"; they merely portray it as a "loosening" of previous ideologies. It's all so interesting, and I think it would remain so even for the most staunch capitalist.

And yes, both writings are supported by objective evidence, for the most part. Which is not to say that they are perfect. In any case, I hope you consider my recommendations.

Communism is not the same as socialism. Socialism is real democracy. Communism is authoritarian and corrupt. It has socialistic values, but they're not the same. And just because something has capitalism, doesn't mean it can't be socialist. Why not a socialist government with a capitalist economy?

Communism is a type of socialism, and is intended to exist within a fully democratic government. "Authoritarian" and "corrupt" don't accurately describe real communism, and especially since "corrupt" is subjective.

"Socialist government with a capitalist economy" is just democracy with capitalism.

No. Communism involves absolving all government. There is no democracy in communism...communism (and socialism) involve stateless societies. No property, no laws, nothing.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 8:26:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 4:46:33 PM, Tranny wrote:

Communism is not the same as socialism. Socialism is real democracy. Communism is authoritarian and corrupt. It has socialistic values, but they're not the same. And just because something has capitalism, doesn't mean it can't be socialist. Why not a socialist government with a capitalist economy?

No, there is no democracy in socialism or communism...there is no governing structure whatsoever, i.e. stateless society.

What you're describing is how socialism has been applied. You're describing Stalin and Mao's communism, and America's version of socialism. Those applications bastardize the ideology to such an extent that most people familiar with the ideology do not recognize them to be true to the ideology.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 1:05:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 8:26:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:46:33 PM, Tranny wrote:

Communism is not the same as socialism. Socialism is real democracy. Communism is authoritarian and corrupt. It has socialistic values, but they're not the same. And just because something has capitalism, doesn't mean it can't be socialist. Why not a socialist government with a capitalist economy?

No, there is no democracy in socialism or communism...there is no governing structure whatsoever, i.e. stateless society.

What you're describing is how socialism has been applied. You're describing Stalin and Mao's communism, and America's version of socialism. Those applications bastardize the ideology to such an extent that most people familiar with the ideology do not recognize them to be true to the ideology.

Where did you see/hear that communism involved the dissolution of government? Do you have any evidence for that?
You can call me Mark if you like.