Communism vs Capitalism Sticky


#301

[QUOTE=“TheRightStuff, post: 221511, member: 4521”]I don’t understand how that is? buying shares in a company has nothing to do with voting in politics, and the more shares you buy the more money you"ll make so you can keep buying more shares that’s how it works, all 65 million people in the UK couldn’t have a say in a business it’s not possible.[/QUOTE]

Ya under socialism it would be a vote


#302

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#303

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#304

[QUOTE=“lake avenue, post: 225406, member: 3521”]hey commies, what do you think of cuba? are they actually a marxist-leninist state, or is that just a self-given label? the communist party is the only party in the state; are they actually communist?
@Stub_Bohs[/USER] [USER=579]@oli[/USER] [USER=1298]@Kyte314[/USER] [USER=2875]@Alias[/QUOTE]
State captialism, don’t like them.


#305

[QUOTE=“lake avenue, post: 225406, member: 3521”]hey commies, what do you think of cuba? are they actually a marxist-leninist state, or is that just a self-given label? the communist party is the only party in the state; are they actually communist?
@Stub_Bohs[/USER] [USER=579]@oli[/USER] [USER=1298]@Kyte314[/USER] [USER=2875]@Alias[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://youthdebates.org/forums/threads/pick-a-country.11323/#post-218565[/URL]

Probably the modern-day Marxist-Leninist state that I approve most of.


#306

[QUOTE=“TheRightStuff, post: 221494, member: 4521”]But under a capitalist system members of the public can buy shares in a company.[/QUOTE]

In a communist society, you don’t have to buy shares.

Sent from my LG-L38C using Tapatalk 2


#307

[QUOTE=“lake avenue, post: 225406, member: 3521”]hey commies, what do you think of cuba? are they actually a marxist-leninist state, or is that just a self-given label? the communist party is the only party in the state; are they actually communist?
@Stub_Bohs[/USER] [USER=579]@oli[/USER] [USER=1298]@Kyte314[/USER] [USER=2875]@Alias[/QUOTE]

Deformed workers state is the term I’d use. Well they have much of the economy in public hands to be true to socialist ideas you need radical democracy otherwise it degenerates into a bureaucratic directorship . They face difficult conditions to say the least, I’d support them against capitalist aggression and american warmongering but encourage a political revolution to bring radical workers democracy to cuba. In the event of socialist revolution else wear its likely the siege mentality would lift and the government placed under pressure to finish the revolution


#308

[QUOTE=“Stub_Bohs, post: 225819, member: 4276”]Deformed workers state is the term I’d use.[/QUOTE]
Hello trotskyist.

That is a very broad generalization of socialism, socialism can be anything from Strasserism to Anarchism it isn’t very well defined enough for it to have one method of application.

What is a worker’s democracy. How would it specifically work?

*elsewhere

How would this revolution work, it’s purely ideological.


#309

You may not like it, but Capitalism is the system in place in the freest nations on earth.


#310

Capitalism as its the most efficient.


#311

[QUOTE=“CrearBIn, post: 225880, member: 4489”]Hello trotskyist.[/QUOTE]

British SWP and their various offshoots use the term state capitalism, still trots or so they say

[QUOTE=“CrearBIn, post: 225880, member: 4489”]That is a very broad generalization of socialism, socialism can be anything from Strasserism to Anarchism it isn’t very well defined enough for it to have one method of application.[/QUOTE]
Trotskyists interpretation of socialism

[QUOTE=“CrearBIn, post: 225880, member: 4489”]What is a worker’s democracy. How would it specifically work?[/QUOTE]

The means of production would be collectively owned by a democratic state with all the rights that go with ( minus private property right of course ). You’d also have things like the right of recall and more issues decided by direct democracy. For the finer details you can wait for the article in that section of the forums or read The transnational program, obviously some needs up dating [URL]https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/[/URL]

[QUOTE=“CrearBIn, post: 225880, member: 4489”]*elsewhere[/QUOTE]

Grammer and spelling, never one of my strong cheers

[QUOTE=“CrearBIn, post: 225880, member: 4489”]How would this revolution work, it’s purely ideological.[/QUOTE]

By revolution I mean a full change in how society and the economy work not just a change in government yes its ideological, we have a certain way we would like to see thing happen but how exactly a revolution would work would depend on circumstances


#312

I apologize if this has already been said, but I would like to join the discussion in some way. :slight_smile:

Without any other words, I’ll get started.

Capitalism, in my opinion, is the superior system to Communism, simply for the fact that Capitalism guarantees the basic individual rights of all people without infringing upon the rights of others, so long as that Capitalist system is that of true laissez-faire economics. There are two parts to this argument, the first defining what exactly are rights, and the second actually explaining how Capitalism secures these necessary rights and Communism is blatantly against them. This argument really only works for those who believe people should have individual rights. I believe that everyone has unalienable rights as human beings to liberty and prosperity, in however way they deem, so long as it does not infringe upon other peoples’ liberty and prosperity.

What are rights? Rights are the actions you are naturally allocated to secure your own liberty and prosperity. It has everything to do and nothing to do with any sort of supreme being at the same time (depending on how you stand on the issue of religion). A right may be any simple act, from keeping property, to defending yourself against those who wish to bring you harm. These rights, in my opinion, are completely unalienable. The only regulation of rights is that one may not use those rights to infringe upon the rights of others.

Now that my stance there has been cleared up, I’ll get into why Capitalism is a superior system to Communism. The simplest explanation is that, while some people thrive and others do not in a true Capitalist system, everyone has the equal right to build their own nature around themselves. They have their own self-determination and regulation to live their lives the way they want to. Does this mean it is easy? By all means, not necessarily. But, it guarantees those people to the fruits of their own labors. In a Communist system, people share the fruits of everyone’s labor equally. What Communism really lacks is the fact that it usually requires some form of involuntary governance in order to force the will of the people. If it did not require force, then the mutual exchange of the fruits of one’s labor would not necessarily be “communist”, but would actually be a Capitalist exchange, as all parties are benefited and no one has been deprived. Correct me if I am wrong on that assumption. :slight_smile:

Now, Capitalism can only work in this way if it is laissez-faire. It cannot work properly if it is regulated in such a way that would deprive people of their right to their own ventures. Nonetheless, a forced Communist system is inferior to a natural state of socioeconomy created by the mutual will of all parties involved.


#313

As a student of history I would examine the two ideologies thusly.

Communism: A system of socio-political organisation created by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

The first time that this ideology was ever ‘implemented’ was Russia after the deposition of Tsar Nicholas II. This is the traditional reading of history, however the system implemented in Russia was not Communism as advocated for by Marx’s and Engels’ instead it was a modified variation of the ideology known as Leninism, created by Vladimir Lenin in order to harness the power of the uneducated Russian peasantry. After the institution of Leninism we saw the infamous reign of Stalinism, and in China a parody of Stalinist ideology by Mao in Mao Zedong Thought.

All these variations however are not what one might regard as ‘pure Marxist Communism’, there are key subtle adaptations made to the ideology and it can be argued that many of the key failings and criticisms of Communism may instead be attributed to these ideological modifications.

Leninism: Key modifications to Marxism here include: that the revolution should be forced and led by a revolutionary vanguard of professional revolutionaries.

Stalinism: Major modifications to Marxism here, primarily the modifications relate to solidifying Stalin’s absolute hold on the reigns of power. Therefore the main alterations include the increase in levels of state control, forced collectivisation and the ruthless elimination of all opponents.

Maoism: Mao largely followed the Stalinist model, so the points above are all relevant, however one can argue that in regards to the cult of personality and government control over the work force Mao had greater control.

Therefore it is very difficult to compare the actualities of Communism and Capitalism, since it can be argued that there has never been a Communist state in the strictest sense. Especially when we further consider that according to Marx Communism was a state in which there was no government and that such an apparatus would simply wither away. In order to be accurate we should instead say that Communist states are Socialist states, the type of state according to Marx that was the prelude to a Communist state.

Capitalist: A state centred around the idea of free trade and industry in the hands of private individuals, common traits also associated with Capitalism include democracy and pluralism but this is not always the case.

Capitalism has been a system of socio-political organisation throughout the vast span of history, to the extent that many would argue it is humanities default state. As has already been mentioned Capitalism when run from a laissez faire position, combined with democracy and toleration is largely regarded as the ideal at least in Western societies.

There are many benefits to capitalism, primarily the system is more productive, innovative and incentivises hard work. Furthermore it allows for a greater degree of personal freedom and tolerance (Marxism for example decrying Religion as ‘The oppiate of the masses’ is an example of the ideologies intolerance).

But it is also necessary to consider the many failings of Capitalism, largely that it is an uncaring ideology. Those who cannot compete, cannot contribute and even some of those who do find themselves in pitiful conditions. Capitalism is a heavily biased ideology favouring a fortunate few over the large majority of people. It is important to remember that Socialism and Marxism both developed from a resentment for Capitalism and how it allowed for the abuse of the masses by the upper class elite.

From this we can conclude that both ideologies have flaws, but that it also impossible to make a balanced assessment because whilst we have Capitalist societies we have no true Communist societies nor have we ever had any. From this fact alone however, many have claimed the inherent superiority of Capitalism. But if we conduct our comparison from an imperial standpoint this is like comparing an existing machine to a theoretical one, i.e. it is impossible to determine which of the machines is the better until the hypothetical one has been created. One might then argue that we could make an ideological comparison in place of practical one, whilst this is somewhat true this idea too is flawed. The preeminent issue here is defining Capitalist Ideology, there are innumerable variations of Capitalism present both in our modern world and throughout history, so against which of these do we compare Communism?


#314

[QUOTE=“Sizzle Montyjing, post: 225928, member: 4047”]You may not like it, but Capitalism is the system in place in the freest nations on earth.[/QUOTE]

Freedom, yeah, that has very little to do with communism and capitalism. Capitalism isn’t inherently “free” just look at China.

[QUOTE=“L The Unknown, post: 225958, member: 4571”]Capitalism as its the most efficient.[/QUOTE]

Not always.


#315

[QUOTE=“Chrome, post: 231216, member: 3050”]Not always.[/QUOTE]

Capitalism is built around the idea of democracy.


#316

[QUOTE=“L The Unknown, post: 231279, member: 4571”]Capitalism is built around the idea of democracy.[/QUOTE]

Capitalism isn’t inherently democratic.


#317

I am inclined to agree with Chrome. Whilst many modern capitalist societies are democratic, historically this has not always been the case. For example to some extent Nazi Germany was capitalist and they were certainly not democratic.


#318

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 231291, member: 4807”]I am inclined to agree with Chrome. Whilst many modern capitalist societies are democratic, historically this has not always been the case. For example to some extent Nazi Germany was capitalist and they were certainly not democratic.[/QUOTE]

Democracy should be about the process of securing the consent of people, for those who are qualified to make the correct decisions. Last time i checked, Hitler got that consent.


#319

Hitler certainly did no such thing, whilst it is true that many of his policies appealed to people, I am highly doubtful that he could have secured power based on an election alone. There are other significant factors that played a role, the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Enabling act, the Night of the Long Knives and the SA and SS played a key role. Furthermore democracy is about securing the consent of the people, it is not about extorting that consent by force as was often the case.


#320

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 231313, member: 4807”]Hitler certainly did no such thing, whilst it is true that many of his policies appealed to people, I am highly doubtful that he could have secured power based on an election alone. There are other significant factors that played a role, the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Enabling act, the Night of the Long Knives and the SA and SS played a key role. Furthermore democracy is about securing the consent of the people, it is not about extorting that consent by force as was often the case.[/QUOTE]

Did he or did he not get elected democratically, even though he may of abused the democratic power.