Refuting the Standard Arguments Against Communism and for Capitalism

No? What other kind is there? You said "Socialism is any means of wealth collection and/or wealth control and redistribution by the Gov't. If you do not think Hitler collected, controlled and redistributed wealth then you need to revisit your understanding of socialism." Try again.

Your formulation of "extreme socialism" is . . . uh . . "quaint". And how you can say "you end up with a few people owning/controlling all (or most) resources and means of production" is beyond me. Not only have we never seen communism, but your conclusion is fully contrary to every precept of Marxist theory. It's like saying a boat can never work because there are no tires that can reach the bottom of the ocean.

No actually you are confusing things whether you're trying or not.

The only one I have any familiarity with at all is the Native American system, of which I know little.

You haven't read much of this thread. None of those were communist. They never got there.

I do.

 

Native Americans 600 years ago ? So you want to compare a small tribe to a nation totaling in the millions ? That is a nonsensical parallel. No doubt, the disincentive to produce that results from a collectivist economy is decreased in correlation with how small is that "collective". Native Americans were essentially relatives banded together in tribes for the purpose of survival. It makes perfect sense that those within those tribes are going to go the extra mile on the days hunt so that the tribe/ family can eat. When you extend this out to millions however, that same incentive does not exist. If your argument was that you can create a small commune and that everyone would work for the common good, I would ABSOLUTELY agree that with willing participants that could work and potentially even thrive. We aren't talking about that however. We are talking about an entire economy over a vast nation. Nobody is going to put in an extra hour of work so that the 1/1000,000,000 of extra production that results can be shared by all million people in their nation. The incentive is not there. It is non existent. The lack of incentive to produce that results from a truly collectivist economy ensures that the economy in question will struggle financially. There is not one example of a Communist nation that has ever thrived financially, and this is PRECISELY the reason why.

You can try to put a pretty bow on it and pretend that you are going to invent a new collectivist society(without actually providing details) that thrives, but it is nothing more than a hollow dream. The lack of incentive to produce is analogous to a bucket with a hole in the bottom. I don't care how fancy of a bucket with a hole in the bottom that you can dream up, it STILL is not going to hold water. You can say you are going to make it tall so that it will be easy to pick off the ground, but my retort is going to be it has a hole in it, so will not hold water. You can say that it has a nice soft rubber handle so that it wont chafe your skin, but it has a whole in it and will not hold water. You can say that it is bright red so that it is pleasing to the eye, but its still a bucket with a hole in it so will not hold water. You can dazzle with any amount of tangential nonsense that you can imagine, no matter what you do, it is not going to hold water. The exact same thing can be said about a truly collectivist economy, it reduces the incentive to produce so is necessarily going to struggle in terms of production which equates to a lower standard of living for all. This is an inescapable fact. There is nothing that you are going to say that means that a person is equally incentivized to work for 1/1,000,000,000 of a return as they are for a 1/1 correlation.

While one could probably make a stronger argument for your position than pointing to Native Americans living in tribes as primitive savages, but no matter which way one decided to argue your position, there would STILL be a gaping hole in the bottom of the bucket. When applying collectivism to an entire nations economy, you are fighting a losing argument that isn't backed up by history OR logic.

 

You make a very good wage slave! Congrats!

Then there is no point in discussion. Your opinions guide you.

They wouldn't.

 

You have no clue what you are talking about ... sorry but, you do not get to make up the definition of socialism as you see fit.

https://www.google.ca/#q=Socialism

Which, in its extreme form (communism) it is the state that owns the resources and means of production.

 

Well, I'll repeat what I said in my previous reply, that you're obviously trying to reduce my description of authentic communism to something that to you and your anti-communist ilk sounds absurd and can be easily laughed out of court.

My reply is that the Muslim faith is a rich religious tradition that can't legitimately be reduced to the negative one-dimensional stereotype and straw man that Islamophobes go in for bashing. Also, one can always come up with quotes that can be used to make just about anyone or thing sound menacing, or at least not altogether pacifistic. There's even enough for one to make a case that Mahatma Gandhi was not the saintly practitioner of ahimsa that the world believes him to be. Furthermore, you dear Islamophobes overlook the recent aggressions of the West, the capitalist powers, against the Muslim world. It wasn't that long ago that the French and British were engaged in visiting colonialism upon the peoples of the Middle East. And then of course they were promptly replaced by the Americans as hegemons, who continue to practice neocolonialism, and to perpetrate violence against people who've done nothing provocative. For instance, the United States caused the death of perhaps over a million human beings in the course of its invasion-occupation of Iraq, all of whom had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. And it continues to engage in aggression that incites retaliation from ISIS. Then of course there was the U.S.' support of the repressive Shah of Iran, which earned it the intense hatred of the people of that nation. Yes, those Muslims who aren't positive about the United States aren't irrational haters, hating merely because of religious fanaticism, rather they've been provoked by the sort of neocolonialism practiced by this country, and its history of unjust aggressions perpetrated to blatantly secure American predominance in the region. Yes, thanks, capitalist elites whose special interests have motivated our crimes against the Muslim world, for giving us the modern scourge of terrorism. Well, at any rate, to view even Muslim terrorists as simply wild-eyed zealots whose anti-western hostility has no basis in reality or history, as Islamophobes are wont to, is simply unjustifiable and symptomatic of their own quite dangerous mentality.

P.S. Yes, apropos of this thread, that capitalism-imperialism has generated terrorism is yet one more quite significant strike against it.

 

And did very well at it, to boot. No regrets.

As, I should think, they guide everyone. That is sort of the point of having an opinion. Surely you can't expect me to be guided by your opinions!

 

If their hostility does have a basis in reality or history, then there is all the more reason to keep them out.

 

If you actually consider the required tenets of "authentic" communism, you can't help but be put off by the notion that merit runs the high risk of being executed and left for dead in a back ally somewhere, while scapegoating personal responsibility can easily be rewarded even when not doing the absolute minimum to participate in the communistic philosophy.

Communism is first, is an Economic Theory that has been defined in the West to demonize a Social Philosophy and second, a Social Theory that has been defined in the 'East' to demonize an Economic Philosophy. Both sides have been playing the Theory/Philosophy card for quite some time now and many people have been thoroughly confused as a direct result. Socialism is not Communism and Communism is not Free Market Capitalism.

At least not in their purest forms. Thus, the confusion continues and is perpetuated far more by Political Dogma than the actual nuts and bolts comparative elements of either Control Theory Doctrine. Yes, let's face it. No matter the Dogmatic chime used, we are talking about the theory for how The People are ultimately controlled, manipulated and made subject to some kind of system of rule. Let's not kid ourselves here that neither side has an ulterior motive that does not go to the heart of Control Theory.

Which is precisely what my comment above alludes to in part. However, both the Communist and the Free Ranging Market Theorist are often being intellectually dishonest when they don't come clean about the Control Theory they support, especially when they slam the other theory for being born of evil intent and damned to the destruction of the world. In reality, there is little need for the anti-communist to rely on the failures of Christendom, when the failures of Capitalism are frothy, ongoing, contemporary, real-time and very well documented.

What should be the goal of society is the healthy perpetuation and extension of humanity beyond planet earth. In order to accomplish that goal, society would need to evolve not just intellectually to a point where it understands the benefit of global cooperation, but that such evolution on a broad basis by definition requires the maximization of individual contribution, talent, skill, knowledge and expertise across every boarder and even unto the point where boarders no longer exist.

Having said that, it should be quite obvious that individual self-interest does not merely go away, but is transformed through enlightenment, consciousness and awareness to a broader definition that includes the tenets of personal responsibility, personal satisfaction and personal contribution to common goal greater than individual self-interests. This does not have to preclude a capitalistic paradigm in favor of a communistic approach, but it does or would require a shift in personal values coupled to the acceptance of the notion that perpetuating life beyond earth requires harmonization on earth as a first order prerequisite.

Whether communism or free market economy, the fact of the matter is that earth's population growth statistics are alarming clear. We must locate Earth II, solve the transportation, life support and navigation problems and then find effective, efficient and optimize methods for terraforming Earth II once we reach its orbital plane. At some point, Earth I will become incapable of sustaining its population for a number of different reasons. If we have not yet found Earth II, or we don't have an extant Global Society operating and functioning in a system that is mature enough to stabilize its growth, then growth itself will deplete the tolerances built into any system we devise.

Communism is an attempt to engage in de facto economic normalization. Thus, the sine qua non for a genuine democratic for of life would need to be more. Economic normalization is one step. However, there is no way to normalize merit. Merit is often the kryptonite to those who support the generalized definition of communism and who hide from the personal responsibility that is required to make it work. The truth is that both personal responsibility and personal contribution to the whole (merit) will be absolute sine qua non in any system of Control Theory that offers individuals an opportunity to contribute in the maintenance and extension of human life into the future.

I think that both the Liberal and the Conservative approaches are highly ineffective and our current state of affairs through much of the world proves it. The instability around the world prove it. The Liberal approach denies that personal responsibility and merit are absolute sine qua non for change, while the Conservative approach denies that equal access and a level playing field are anything but the domain of the privileged class - which could take any form from the color of your skin to the size of your bank account.

The nature of Western Social Philosophy asserts that the individual is sovereign. It is a mistake to underestimate that tenet of Western culture. At its worse, communism by definition pierces the veil of individual sovereignty while creating a path towards the mandate for the unilateral removal of individual protections and individual rights in the name of the greater good. At its worse, free market capitalism by definition threatens the integrity of the whole by way of unilateral usurpation of individual protections and individual rights in the name of progress and growth.

Ironically, under capitalism, it is now the minority elite bourgeoisie who now suffer the insults from the majority proletariat. This proves that so-called "majority rule" is a false notion without much meaning, at least in today's societal structure. This exact same illusion of power being in the hands of the majority can be seen in our own (US) governing structures, as the minority elite corporatocracy has the equivalent of a rear naked choke on The People.

Both approaches are tantamount to a corrupting force and neither of them will yield the kind of expansion of thought necessary to instantiate life beyond this planet in a healthy manner, or in a way that is credibly sustainable. What the world needs is a truly new paradigm not predicated upon the failed methodologies of the past. At the heart of such a new paradigm would exist both merit and personal responsibility coupled to an evolution in the perceived role of the individual and their absolute commitment to doing their part to extend human life beyond our own galaxy.

The entire World must unite, or the entire World will cease to sustain an support human life. I am therefore, closer today to the belief in a One World Paradigm with no national boarders than I have ever been in my life. One United Planet has no need for war and the focus can then shift to how we extend ourselves beyond this realm. A self-governing world is not impossible, nor improbable and it would remove (by definition) many of the corrupting forces in play today.

 

Most likely capitalist companies and both democratic and dictator militaries will soon be moving into space, probably not to have our eggs in more than one basket, but more to make a big profit or to have a stronger military, with a diversity of environments as a side effect.


From an August 2016 article:

Deep Space Industries is hoping to lead the charge. Earlier this year, the company unveiled Prospector X, a tiny robotic spacecraft that’ll sit in low Earth orbit testing technologies for future asteroid prospecting missions, including water-powered propulsion and optical navigation systems. That spacecraft is on track to launch in late 2017.

Shortly thereafter, the company intends to ship off the very first asteroid-bound Prospector 1. This vehicle—just 50 kilograms when fueled up—will hitch a ride into low Earth orbit before pointing itself at a target, firing up the water-powered thrusters, and setting sail for riches and glory.

“Our thirty year goal is to build cities in space. You need a lot of raw materials from asteroids to enable that.”

There could be a several year gap between the arrival of the first Prospector 1s and the first harvesting spacecraft that will tug the asteroid to a processing facility. If a competitor meanwhile decides it wants to harvest the exact same rock, things could get very interesting.


The ideal space rock will be rich in water, which can be used to make rocket fuel; volatiles like CO2 and methane; and also useful metals. The point is not to sell these resources back on Earth, but to create a space-based supply chain so that others can start building in and beyond orbit at a lower price point.

For instance if you want to build cities, you’re going to need much more air, metal, and water than can affordably be shipped from the ground.

From:
-
http://gizmodo.com/this-mining-company-plans-to-land-on-an-asteroid-in-thr-1785112235
-

 

But those countries are not and never have actually been communist. No country has.

 

No. Try reviewing what I said, . . . --with comprehension.

No inventing. No imposing. Why is it so hard to grasp what's been said just in this one thread about 7 times? Try reviewing posts # 26, 40, 59, 73, 105, 114, 116, 123, and 156. Ant those are just mine. I'm not going to just keep on endlessly repeating myself.

Show me your irrefutable evidence that any of that is true.

What does that have to do with socialism?

 

I didn't, and saying I did doesn't prove I did. It just says you don't know the subject.

See? You don't know the subject yet you rush to persuade people that you are so right. Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the working class. I am happy to accept your definition as you posted it. Same thing. Community ownership. But then you leap blindly to the state machinery owning it. Duh. If the state owns it, the people don't. And if the state owns it you have what Lenin warned about: state capitalism. That term will probably make you crazy too.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me say it differently: you show you are incurious.

 

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with ANYTHING that you have said in this thread other than what has been said in conversation between you and I. I haven't read one other post that you have made, nor is it my responsibility to do so, because it is you whom approached me. If you have a point to make you need to do so in OUR conversation, stop alluding to something you said to someone else. . I made a post to another person about the lack of incentive to produce that comes from a collectivist economic system, and you wrote a one sentence retort to this notion that said "Is that really how you think communism would work".

While your retort really said nothing, I offered you the opportunity to explain yourself in trying to rebut the notion that there is a lack of incentive to produce that results from a collectivist economy. In providing more detail to your argument what you have essentially said is for me to sift through a 19 page thread to ascertain your position which seemingly includes a reference to American Indians 600 years ago. That may be a persuasive and convincing argument in your mind, but from where I sit it seems rather nonsensical. If you have some great pearls of wisdom that you shared somewhere else in this thread, by all means bring them out, there is no better time than the present. The cut and paste function is easy to use. The notion that I am supposed to hunt and peck through your posts to ascertain how your words in another conversation apply to this conversation, is patently absurd. If you don't want to keep repeating yourself then don't jump into MY conversation. I couldn't care less what you have posted on #26,40,59,73.... This is MY conversation, you are supposedly going to prove ME wrong. If you don't want to go through the effort of trying to prove me wrong, then don't jump into MY conversation. LOL... you seem to be operating under the misnomer that you are an oracle and others are supposed to study your friggen writings.

It is funny, because every time I have ever gotten into a discussion with the occasional Communist supporter like yourself, NONE of them EVER want to discuss this issue. You are so fixated on artfully spinning this long and complicated web about the concept, but absolutely REFUSE to address the one glaring fatal flaw that exists with collectivism. Incentive to produce goes down, production is low, and standard of living follows suit. This makes sense from a logical perspective as illustrated in the long example that I gave in my original post to which you responded, and it makes sense when you look at the historical returns on EVERY nation that has adopted this as their economic system.

What about this are you having difficulty comprehending ?

In a capitalist system, the individual keeps what they earn, so any incremental increase in their production results in more money for that persons family. This could be working an hour longer than usual, producing more than usual when paid by the piece, or even a longer term reward like a job promotion as a result of good work production. In this scenario, the payoff is 1/1 in that whatever that increased production earns as a result of their efforts, the person is going to keep all of it ( minus taxes of course).

In a purely collectivist system where everything is shared equally, the increased earnings to that worker for an increase in production is 1 out of however many people are in that society. In the United States, that would be 1/315,000,000,000. So for any earnings that are accrued as a result of extra effort, it only returns to the person putting in that extra effort 1/315,000,000,000 of whatever extra earning that extra effort produced. That really equates to NOTHING. There is literally no incentive to produce any more than the bare minimum required, which is why you have never seen a Communist or true socialist country thrive in the hundreds of years that it has been in existence. You can point to small isolated communities as past success, but nothing on the nation/state level. The larger the nation, the less incentive to produce anything above the bare minimum required.

 

Some people in fact strive to also be guided by sources of knowledge such as moral intuition, good reasoning, and empirical evidence, they don't merely indulge in entertaining and being guided by their own subjective opinions.

 

Not so. You're a thoughtful and intelligent-sounding individual, and I don't wish to seem confrontational, but this bit is pure nonsense inspired by the negative popular stereotype of a communist society.

Authentic communism is in fact a new and revolutionary paradigm for the organization of man's social and economic existence, it's not your grandfather's communism. And genuinely grounding society in the principle of from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need would indeed promote an appreciation of the personal merit and talents possessed by individuals, a sense of one's personal social responsibility, and a commitment to doing one's individual part for the common good. And of course, conversely, it would guarantee that communities, that society would function to help every individual member enjoy the material well-being, the liberation from want, economic adversity, and economic and political oppression that would favor their full self-actualization.

I certainly wholeheartedly agree that a unified humanity is a goal that we should each do our part to set for humanity, and to help realize. Communism is of course an internationalist philosophy, it promotes a social and political identity, and a sense of solidarity with all oppressed human beings that transcends nationality – this, btw, is one of the things about communism that the nationalistic conservative mentality intensely dislikes. And communism sets itself the goal of worldwide expansion and encompassment, not for purposes of planetary domination, but rather global liberation. Well, what this means is that communism is indeed a philosophy and force that aims at and works for world unification. And not mere unification, but rather the unification of humankind in a form of society in which everyone will equally enjoy a fully liberated existence conducive to the optimization of creative self-actualization.

 

Who precisely is "them"? Any and all immigrants who are professing Muslims? Are you one of those folks with a lovely stereotyping mentality that thinks in terms of all Muslims being dangerous? Just because they may have legitimate grievances against this country doesn't mean that if they're allowed to immigrate here they're eventually going to shoot up a nightclub or blow up a skyscraper.

 

"Extreme socialism = Communism as practiced"

communism definition

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/communism

 

So what's your evidence in support of communism?

As I clearly said in my post, what is the correlation with the achievements of a communist society you claim will occur?

Are you claiming Cuba is not closer to communist policies than the United States?

It almost seems you are deliberately misreading my post.

Why can't you show correlation?

 

How is Western society benefiting from Muslim diversity?

 

Just where do you think opinions come from if not from intuition, reasoning and evidence?

You and your doppelganger kode seem to think that a society which has never existed based on the ideas an economist who observed the dawn of the industrial age and developed a theory based on the metaphysical musings of an impenetrable German philosopher is the answer to all our problems!

And then you have the unmitigated gall to suggest anyone who demurs from this opinion is either stupid, ignorant, or malicious.

Step back for a moment. Try to consider this dispassionately. Can't you see how a normal person would consider this, well, off the wall.

 

Not really. I tossed Marxism on the intellectual rubbish heap some decades ago.

Marx's predictions just didn't work out, especially his prediction of immiseration of the working class.

When a thinkers thoughts do not correspond with reality, I tend do discard them. What do you do.

 

Marxism may not have worked out...

...BUT...

...the notion that some have WAY too much...and many have not nearly enough is far from a thought that does not correspond with reality.

Something has to be done about that. Something will be done about it.

 

Yes.

No, but their children or grandchildren might. And they will provide a hothouse environment in which such resentments can fester.

Do you know what really goes on in the Mosques? They teach Islamic supremacy.

 

It doesn't matter if zero Muslims kill anyone. The fact that they hold views about reality and the way the world should work that are completely antithetical to our own is reason enough to keep them out.

 

Socialism indicates a state apparatus. Communism, by definition, means no state apparatus. How many times must I say this???

That's rich! You would rather quote what a capitalist dictionary says about Marx than quote Marx!!!

I've posted what communism is as Marx presented it. But you would rather quote what a capitalist dictionary says.