Refuting the Standard Arguments Against Communism and for Capitalism

Well I don't see any Amish on this Forum....evidently they don't have the technology to even compete with a capitalism. If we wanted to, we could crush them. Development-wise, we are clearly superior.

Sure they have a stable lifestyle that's more sustainable than ours. But then again, if we all lived like cavemen, we would have a more stable society free of racism and all of your other ills. Like I said before, communism works if the society itself has more primitive technology and thus more primitive economies. If the economy is so simple that you could employ a stable from each according to his ability to each according to his need, like the Amish, then it works perfectly. But I don't want to be Amish any time soon.

- - - Updated - - -

Really, tell me then, of all of the "communists" in the world, who doesn't fit that description?

 

That's because they have a truly alternative form of life that's arguably more meaningful and fulfilling and therefore aren't at all interested in trying to outdo capitalism in areas such as the invention and mass marketing of consumer technojunk.

 

Well, I for one, and the majority of communists, in fact do not conform to the negative and derisive stereotype of a communist, i.e. the stereotype of the communist as either a naive idealist or a dangerous authoritarian.

 

What is your commune like? No leaders? How is the division of labor set up?

 

So, you are suggesting that our government needs to start taking active, decision makjng, ownership positions with US corporations as a standard direction?

 

Did I say that I reside in a commune?

 

Didn't you say that you're a communist? That kinda requires being a communist.

 

Yes and no. I don't want to actually nationalize anything. Because then we borderline social democracy which won't work. But I want the government to be able to direct the economy where necessary. So with the Volkswagen example, the German government found that cars were too expensive and impractical for the impoverished citizens, so the government funded Volkswagen to make cheaper cars. Basically, this lets the government take the fall for individual economic blunders. But it also keeps things affordable for even poor people. I'm not saying that the government needs to take ownership positions or make decisions with the corporations, but I think that they should be able to push the corporations in the right direction.

 

Your failure is in assuming we need to compete at all. That's the issue with reducing a solidarity riddled species like humanity down to budget numbers on an excel spreadsheet.

Competition is a fictitious and created scheme by capitalists, from sports and education all the way to wall street. It is designed to reduce solidarity by making one better then others and encourage a splitting of tribalism in humanity

When you remove solidarity with the common man, you have a depression riddled society like we do today.


Capitalism is to blame for this.

 

Did Marx ever reside in a commune? No. Did Lenin reside in a commune while struggling to replace czarism with socialism? No. Did Trotsky live in a commune in Mexico City? No. Does this disqualify them from being considered communists? You're being rather literalistic.

 

The capitalist and his dedicated supporters among the working class don't see their own bias. They really believe everyone else shares their values and finds them to be "superior".

Technology and the power to compete with and crush others are important to capitalists who want to crush others and dominate and be "superior". But if a society has a different set of values relating to valuing others, sharing, and working together to provide the best, most satisfying life for all, the whole picture changes due to those different values.

Valuing others. Seeking the best for fellow man. These are what cause some to describe communism as a "religion" --and because many religions share such values. This is what holds the Amish community together and allows a communal spirit to thrive and work well among them. They are dedicated to such values due to their dedication to their religion. But those who have accepted dogmas of value systems that replace those human-centered values with personal power, gain, achievement, and dominance find the values of communes and socialism to be alien.

 

You seem to be knowledgeable about this. Do you know where Germany got the money to fund/subsidize Volkswagen? That must have been quite a challenge. Taxes, I expect, but taxes on whom if the German citizens were impoverished?

 

Ok well, I think what you're getting at is that they took it from the Jews. This is true, of course, but not so in Fascist Italy who did the same sort of thing. While I tend not to use Fascist Italy as a great example because their empire wasn't really as strong, their economy functioned just as well even if they didn't steal the money from people. The government would receive all profits from corporations. Now, this is sort of like social security in the sense that even though they would be getting a lot of money, they end up spending it on the companies in the first place. So all the cash then goes to pay for wages and such within the companies. The CEO gets a bigger wage of course, and everything acts just like it would in regular capitalism, only that the government now drives the market. So let's say that the paper industry starts to fail, the government can take money from a corporation that is doing very well to fund the sugar industry, and vice versa, the government could chose to withhold the money because the paper market no longer is needed.

 

No, I wasn't heading there.

Well, you said "I want the government to be able to direct the economy where necessary. So with the Volkswagen example, the German government found that cars were too expensive and impractical for the impoverished citizens, so the government funded Volkswagen to make cheaper cars. Basically, this lets the government take the fall for individual economic blunders. But it also keeps things affordable for even poor people." and "I think that they should be able to push the corporations in the right direction."

And the people of fascist Germany and of fascist Italy and fascist Spain all decided they were not going in the "right direction", yet you seem to want that for us -fascism.

Yup, that's what fascism does: manages the economy for corporations, -usually certain favored corporations. And it has been hell for people.

Fascism is a last-ditch effort for capitalism in its effort to survive in the face of impossible difficulties piling up. I hope Americans will wake up and organize before things go that far.

 

Well, we do have mechanisms for doing that today.

For example, we can give tax advantages and even direct aid through grant programs.

Our government bailed out the auto industry, saving a large number of jobs at a time of crisis.

Our government has helped corporations that have made progress on solar and wind power.

Our government funds research through our universities and other organizations, with the results being spun off as for-profit corporations.

Our government gives HUGE advantage to our oil industry. We even help out coal, including ignoring too much of the pollution problem.

You mention transportation, and that is a segment where government supports the construction and operation of transportation infrastructure, from airways, to roads to rail to bus systems.

My only point here is that I think we already have methods of doing a lot of what you want done. All that needs to happen is for us to agree to do it.

And, of course that is an area where we're crippled - which I see as a bigger part of the problem.

 

Its funny when conservatives call the Democrats a socialist or communist party when in no way have we advocated for that and most of the democrats are at best center-right. I do believe we should be a democratic-socialist hybrid system. And in many ways we already are. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, police, fire fighters, the military, public schooling, and so many more are socialist programs. I just think that instead of 54% of the budget being spent on the military we should give everyone good healthcare and a good education.

 

They might have had an idea of wanting to live in a commune, but they weren't getting their like-minded brethren together and just going off to live out their communist ideology. Marx was mooching off of Engels, Lenin was secretly transported into Russia by the kaiser in an attempt to create such turmoil in that country that germany would no longer have to worry about the eastern front.

They weren't living as communists, but rather as revolutionaries who wanted everybody else to become communists. Only then would they be able to be communists.

This is a distinction that I think deserves more than a sideways glance when talking about communists. Could I call myself Amish, even though I'm not living as an Amish? Could I call myself a chrstian while waiting for everybody else to become christian before cracking open a bible?

No, if you wanted to be a communist, nobody is going to stop you. Since you're not living as a communist, you're not a communist. You could if you wanted, but you chose not to.

 

Great! Where can I find or start a nation without a government and without classes?

You're being ridiculous.

 

Does their dependence on oil revenue factor into your assessment at all? Besides, most western nations are mixed economies in which Keynesian, Hyakian, Livertarian, and Socialist economic policies are implemented. Central planning and the means of production isn't going to be transitioned to the public very soon if ever. We inherit legacy systems, robust and complicated markets which interact in dynamic ways which we need to be not so ideologically narrow minded to solving the problems mankind possesses.

I just think conservativism which emphasizes traditional values and limited state Liberalism is at odds with the state of the world as it actually exists. Sometimes the government grows because congress delegates responsibility and authority to the executive branch to regulate in a more active manner.

The fact of the matter is, there are no guard rails to society beyond the institutional integrity and effectiveness of our Republic. It's just nearly impossible to have a constructive conversation anymore.

 

You find like-minded people and just do it. There's no reason for a violent uprising so long as you're willing to realize that not everybody wants to be communist. Just go with what you have and be a communist. But until then, you're not a communist.

 

Oh my, you're going to persist with this semantic pettiness.

 

I could understand if it really wasn't a possibility. The problem is that it is possible. You don't need me to join your commune, but I do know that there are enough other professed communists that you guys could go out into the woods and drink the marrow from the communist bones of life.

If you wanted to, that is.

 

Is this an intentional attempt at grandiloquence?

 

A society divided into haves and have-nots, and in which the haves of course have the real power and govern the have-nots can not, even with laws and constitutionally-enshrined civil rights galore, guarantee liberté, égalité, fraternité, and justice for all. Or, let me put it this way, no social ownership of the forces of production and the economic wealth produced, no justice; and no justice, no, peace, no genuine freedom, no optimal chance to exercise our right to engage in the pursuit of happiness, no optimization of human solidarity, creativity, dignity, and joy. Yes, justice isn’t a mere legal proposition, its totality fundamentally includes socioeconomic justice, i.e. the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and class divisions; without such socioeconomic justice, the legal rights and equality before the law that we’re told ensure justice are at best mere palliatives, and of course function to keep us erroneously believing that ours is a righteous society and thus perpetuating its structural unrighteousness.

 

Of course the transition to authentic and full socialism will be complicated, but it's certainly doable.