Communism vs Capitalism Sticky


#321

No he did not get elected, he was appointed to the Chancellorship by Von Papen and then after his death took the presidency and abolished all other political parties, before establishing himself as Fuhrer. However we’re getting off topic, the point stands that Capitalism is not necessarily Democratic, the two are often linked but it is possible to have undemocratic capitalism.


#322

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 231329, member: 4807”]No he did not get elected, he was appointed to the Chancellorship by Von Papen and then after his death took the presidency and abolished all other political parties, before establishing himself as Fuhrer. However we’re getting off topic, the point stands that Capitalism is not necessarily Democratic, the two are often linked but it is possible to have undemocratic capitalism.[/QUOTE]

The NAZI’s did however win the 1933 election, therefore he had the right to exercise the power.


#323

He won the 1933 election which meant the could accept the chancellorship, however he did not have the authority to claim the presidency. Furthermore the president had the final say over who received the chancellorship and many argued that it was the back stairs intrigue more than the election results that helped Hitler there.

But as I said we’re are getting off topic. If you want to start another thread to take this to the history thread I’ll gladly discuss this further.


#324

[QUOTE=“Chrome, post: 231216, member: 3050”]Freedom, yeah, that has very little to do with communism and capitalism. Capitalism isn’t inherently “free” just look at China.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, the People’s Republic of China, no communist themes at all.

I also just said that it was USED by the freest nations on earth, not the cause of them, but it still stands to reason that you don’t get many ‘free’ countries using communism.


#325

[QUOTE=“Sizzle Montyjing, post: 231421, member: 4047”]Ah yes, the People’s Republic of China, no communist themes at all.
[/quote]They don’t act communist, they don’t implement remotely communist policies, and they don’t even claim to be Maoist at all.

Continuing to claim that China is, in any way, communist is absurd.

I also just said that it was USED by the freest nations on earth, not the cause of them, but it still stands to reason that you don’t get many ‘free’ countries using communism.

That’s because it was mostly implemented in extremely poor, rural countries which weren’t exactly known for liberalism before their respective revolutions. Russia was a complete disaster beforehand - much of it was in practically medieval stasis.


#326

[QUOTE=“John Optegrove, post: 231426, member: 1254”]They don’t act communist, they don’t implement remotely communist policies, and they don’t even claim to be Maoist at all.

Continuing to claim that China is, in any way, communist is absurd.

That’s because it was mostly implemented in extremely poor, rural countries which weren’t exactly known for liberalism before their respective revolutions. Russia was a complete disaster beforehand - much of it was in practically medieval stasis.[/QUOTE]
It’s not absurd, they’ve got the vibe, the stars, the oppression and the hypocrisy that make communism what it is!! Not to mention that sweet, sweet style.


#327

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

Wouldn’t say its fair to say “forced”, Bolsheviks at times warned against pre-mature revolution. The purpose of the revolutionary party is to promote class consciousness and propagate struggle aswell as being the defenders and educators of Marxist ideas amongst the working class


#328

I would argue that you don’t get any free Communist (or more accurately Socialist countries) largely because as has been stated they were never very free in the first place. Furthermore to implement ones utopia (IE for Socialists a truly Communist world), one must stop other from attempting to achieve their contradictory utopias.

Capitalism may allow for greater freedoms but that freedom comes at a cost.


#329

[QUOTE=“Stub_Bohs, post: 231582, member: 4276”]Wouldn’t say its fair to say “forced”, Bolsheviks at times warned against pre-mature revolution. The purpose of the revolutionary party is to promote class consciousness and propagate struggle aswell as being the defenders and educators of Marxist ideas amongst the working class[/QUOTE]

One of the key principles of Leninism is that the revolution was forced, it was not the spontaneous revolution from the proletariat that Marx advocated for. Furthermore pure Marxism states that there is no need for such a revolutionary elite because the proletariat will develop its own political and class consciousness.


#330

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 231620, member: 4807”]One of the key principles of Leninism is that the revolution was forced, it was not the spontaneous revolution from the proletariat that Marx advocated for. Furthermore pure Marxism states that there is no need for such a revolutionary elite because the proletariat will develop its own political and class consciousness.[/QUOTE]

Forced by historical circumstances not by the party. There was alot unrest in Russia and while not an ideal socialist consciousness in society, decisive revolutionary action had to be taken or else be left behind by history


#331

[QUOTE=“Stub_Bohs, post: 231623, member: 4276”]Forced by historical circumstances not by the party. There was alot unrest in Russia and while not an ideal socialist consciousness in society, decisive revolutionary action had to be taken or else be left behind by history[/QUOTE]

Whilst one can argue that other factors influenced these modifications to Marxism, the question is would it not have been better to wait for the revolution as Marx said it would? The party could have chosen to follow the traditional strict advocated for by Marx and in doing so could have still achieved their aims simply over a longer time frame. Let us not forget that in addition to this there was no class-consciousness amongst the majority of the population, that the majority of the population were also peasants not proletarians. Marx stated that he doubted a Communist revolution would occur in Russia because it had yet to go through the historical stage of Capitalism the precursor to Socialism and then Communism.

These are major modifications to the doctrine and many have argued that it was these modifications that lead to the atrocities and failings of the USSR.


#332

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 231630, member: 4807”]Whilst one can argue that other factors influenced these modifications to Marxism, the question is would it not have been better to wait for the revolution as Marx said it would? The party could have chosen to follow the traditional strict advocated for by Marx and in doing so could have still achieved their aims simply over a longer time frame. Let us not forget that in addition to this there was no class-consciousness amongst the majority of the population, that the majority of the population were also peasants not proletarians. Marx stated that he doubted a Communist revolution would occur in Russia because it had yet to go through the historical stage of Capitalism the precursor to Socialism and then Communism.

These are major modifications to the doctrine and many have argued that it was these modifications that lead to the atrocities and failings of the USSR.[/QUOTE]

Russia was ripe for revolution waiting was no guarantee in the circumstances improving who knows when the next opportunity might be ( world wars dont happen often ), workers in petrogrand were ready any way . I would argue that the modifications were to a degree inadequate to deal with the enormous task ahead, of building socialism in a mostly feudal country, help was needed from the working class in more advanced countries it never came


#333

Whilst the workers in Petrograd were ready for change, they were not necessarily ready for Communism as Marx would have it (i.e. they wanted change but were not class conscious which they needed to be for a communist revolution). Many supported the Provisional Government under Kerensky and were interested in having a pluralist democracy.

The Revolution and Communism were forced it is a case of the educated being able to shape and control the uneducated. We’ve seen it from ancient Athens with demagogues but I would argue that the Russian Revolution is best example.


#334

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 231173, member: 4807”]
The first time that this ideology was ever ‘implemented’ was Russia after the deposition of Tsar Nicholas II.
[/QUOTE]
Incorrect, ever heard of the Paris Commune?

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 231173, member: 4807”] 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.

[…]

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.
[/QUOTE]
This is a very crude analysis. While Stalinism is usually in reference to Stalin’s policies directly, it also has some actual ideological depth, notably his concept of “socialism in one state”. The claim that it centers around “solidifying Stalin’s absolute hold on the reigns of power” is utter BS.

Comparing Maoism so closely to Stalinism is even more absurd. Its ideological depth is way deeper than that of Stalin’s, even prompting a major shift from Marxism-Leninism to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 231173, member: 4807”]
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.
[/QUOTE]
They are called Communist states because they adhere to the ideological movement of Communism, not because they have a communist mode of production. In actuality they either have a socialist or perhaps still capitalist mode of production. Still they are called Communist.

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 231173, member: 4807”]
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.
[/QUOTE]
No, it is simply a system defined by the existence of capital, free trade or not.

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 231173, member: 4807”]
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.[/QUOTE]
Hardly so. I would recommend looking into the concept of “primitive communism”.

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 231173, member: 4807”]
There are many benefits to capitalism, primarily the system is more productive, innovative and incentivises hard work.[/QUOTE]
Give me a good reason why the existence of the bourgeoisie makes this true.

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 231173, member: 4807”]
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).
[/QUOTE]
Religious communism is a thing. @John Optegrove

And trust me, there are plenty of intolerant capitalist societies…


#335

Capitalism results in the demonization of the working class along side oppressive values of the working class a the lower class are forced to work for less and oppressed by the wealthy minority who can rule over the common worker. Communism however is hard to perfect and yes in an idealistic situation all are equal but the pigs :P. However, going along from my Orwell reference in most communist systems there is always someone better than you as greed and corruption is innate in man kind as portrayed in Animal Farm as not everyone is equal with others having more money, power, accessibility to good and services etc.

therefore I would call my self a realistic communist, and therefore, a socialist really as free markets are excellent to produce money and advance in technology. Thus in my personal opinion, advances in science and technology are far more important than social ideologies as science and technolgy are in my opinion the greatest thing in society over any ideological value.


#336

How do economies primarily based through services, which in the capitalist system, run large trade deficits with other countries for actual goods (food, metal, etc), successfully transition to socialism or communism?


#337

Both ideas of capitalism and communism are good, I just prefer capitalism.


#338

[QUOTE=“JWaller, post: 255521, member: 1206”]How do economies primarily based through services, which in the capitalist system, run large trade deficits with other countries for actual goods (food, metal, etc), successfully transition to socialism or communism?[/QUOTE]

Errr they usually don’t historically…

If you look to history there has never been a Communist revolution as advocated for by Marx. I mean the main examples are Mao’s China and Lenin’s Russia but both of them modified the doctrine to suit the conditions they faced.

But generally regarding foreign trade or foreign debts they simply forget about them. Historically all Socialist/Communist states (as far as I’m aware, with the possible exception of Cuba) have attempted to reach a state of autarky.


#339

[QUOTE=“RickyMcMoney, post: 109995, member: 2996”]Is it not obvious? Socialism disproportionately helps the poor. Capitalism disproportionately helps the rich.
Of course if I were poor I would still try to become rich, but I would be much more welcome to socialism and willing to resort to it.[/QUOTE]
You. I like you. Your honesty earnd you points.

That said, I’ll vote communism as I essentially subscribe to the most good for the most people and communism strives for that, being for the working class and all.


#340

I’ll vote capitalism, communism is too extreme for my taste, lets try market socialism?