Communism vs Capitalism Sticky


#341

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 272356, member: 4807”]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I’d agree but say Lenin more so expanded the ideology ( Focusing on thing like the state and how to achieve the revolution ) whereas Mao flipped things and made the peasantry the driving force of the revolution going against one of Marxs theories entirely


#342

[QUOTE=“Aree Wongwanlee, post: 109955, member: 3167”]Communism doesn’t work? Well, we will have to tell that to the millions of people who live in communist countries. Sure, life there isn’t like life in, say, the US, but we have to remember what life was like there before communism.

For example, China. Before communism, they lived under a feudal system. If you are not born into the right family, your chances of getting beyond just surviving is negligible. A lot of peasants starved while the lords feasted. Under communism, the peasants did not starve. That’s why they supported communism. So, for them, communism works.

Now, having said that, I must also say that I do not believe in communism. I am just saying that communism works. It’s sort of like saying that I don’t believe in, say, the Yakuza, but the Yakuza works.[/QUOTE]
Just so you are aware, China’s use of “communism” only works because it has pockets of capitalists territories inside of it like for example, Hong Kong. China’s system of communism only works because it allows capitalism to still work inside the major cities, otherwise it would fail, because communism just doesn’t work on it’s own.


#343

[QUOTE=“Stub_Bohs, post: 272854, member: 4276”]Mao flipped things and made the peasantry the driving force of the revolution[/QUOTE]
Just because Mao himself focused on organizing the peasantry in China doesn’t mean that Maoist thought is specifically one of peasantry, or that Maoists believe the peasantry is “the driving force of the revolution”. Here is an elaboration on this misconception, as well as others (be forewarned though, this guy doesn’t seem to like Trots ;)).

[QUOTE=“Stub_Bohs, post: 272854, member: 4276”]going against one of Marxs theories entirely[/QUOTE]
What theory is this?


#344

[QUOTE=“madisonabigail_, post: 272897, member: 5306”]Just so you are aware, China’s use of “communism” only works because it has pockets of capitalists territories inside of it like for example, Hong Kong. China’s system of communism only works because it allows capitalism to still work inside the major cities, otherwise it would fail, because communism just doesn’t work on it’s own.[/QUOTE]

But china doesn’t have any places where communism is in practice.


#345

Gonna go with responsible capitalism.


#346

Capitalism rewards merit. Communism rewards mediocrity. I prefer merit.


#347

Not entirely true, capitalism may reward merit but the methods by which one accrues merit are extremely unfair.


#348

The answer is obvious, considering the State is incompetent, dangerous, wasteful and threaten to murder you for not complying to its demands.


#349

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 272981, member: 4807”]Not entirely true, capitalism may reward merit but the methods by which one accrues merit are extremely unfair.[/QUOTE]
That is SOMETIMES true, but communism is ALWAYS unfair.


#350

[QUOTE=“Camnator, post: 287655, member: 5425”]The answer is obvious, considering the State is incompetent, dangerous, wasteful and threaten to murder you for not complying to its demands.[/QUOTE]

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/60858744.jpg


#351

[QUOTE=“A341, post: 287671, member: 2382”]http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/60858744.jpg[/QUOTE]
Could you elaborate?


#352

[QUOTE=“Camnator, post: 287672, member: 5425”]Could you elaborate?[/QUOTE]

Communism means a stateless and classless society without individual property, this does not fit in with what you have been describing communism as.


#353

[QUOTE=“A341, post: 287673, member: 2382”]Communism means a stateless and classless society without individual property, this does not fit in with what you have been describing communism as.[/QUOTE]
How would you achieve that without government regulation?


#354

[QUOTE=“Camnator, post: 287675, member: 5425”]How would you achieve that without government regulation?[/QUOTE]

Well that’s essentially the marxist (well most marxists) position of taking state power in order to establish communism. My personal oppinion as an anarcho-communist is establishing communism directly through popular revolution (other communists also advocate for revolution but not to go directly to communism from it).


#355

[QUOTE=“A341, post: 287677, member: 2382”]Well that’s essentially the marxist (well most marxists) position of taking state power in order to establish communism. My personal oppinion as an anarcho-communist is establishing communism directly through popular revolution (other communists also advocate for revolution but not to go directly to communism from it).[/QUOTE]
Hmm, it appears communism, much like anarchy, has several widely accepted definitions. I’ve never heard it put like you have before, but I can’t exactly state with confidence you are wrong, which is why I tend to avoid labels entirely. I’ll have to know more about your beliefs before I could ever make a judgement then! :slight_smile:


#356

[QUOTE=“Camnator, post: 287655, member: 5425”]The answer is obvious, considering the State is incompetent, dangerous, wasteful and threaten to murder you for not complying to its demands.[/QUOTE]

Hence the anarcho-communist opposition to it :wink:
(Among other things)


#357

[QUOTE=“Camnator, post: 287681, member: 5425”]Hmm, it appears communism, much like anarchy, has several widely accepted definitions.[/QUOTE]

I’ve never heard a communist use any definition other than property-less, classless and stateless.


#358

[QUOTE=“Karos, post: 272356, member: 4807”]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.[/QUOTE]

Autarky isn’t really possible for many countries lacking in natural resources.


#359

"They have something whereof they are proud. What do they call it, that which maketh them proud? Culture, they call it; it distinguisheth them from the goatherds.

They dislike, therefore, to hear of ‘contempt’ of themselves. So I will appeal to their pride.

I will speak unto them of the most contemptible thing: that, however, is the last man!"

And thus spake Zarathustra unto the people:

It is time for man to fix his goal. It is time for man to plant the germ of his highest hope.

Still is his soil rich enough for it. But that soil will one day be poor and exhausted, and no lofty tree will any longer be able to grow thereon.

Alas! there cometh the time when man will no longer launch the arrow of his longing beyond man - and the string of his bow will have unlearned to whizz!

I tell you: one must still have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: ye have still chaos in you.

Alas! There cometh the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There cometh the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.

Lo! I show you the last man.

“What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?” - so asketh the last man and blinketh.

The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.

“We have discovered happiness” - say the last men, and blink thereby.

They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one’s neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth.

Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbleth over stones or men!

A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.

One still worketh, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.

One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too burdensome.

No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wanteth the same; everyone is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse.

“Formerly all the world was insane,” - say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby.

They are clever and know all that hath happened: so there is no end to their raillery. People still fall out, but are soon reconciled - otherwise it spoileth their stomachs.

They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.

“We have discovered happiness,” - say the last men, and blink thereby. -

And here ended the first discourse of Zarathustra, which is also called “The Prologue”, for at this point the shouting and mirth of the multitude interrupted him. “Give us this last man, O Zarathustra,” - they called out - “make us into these last men! Then will we make thee a present of the Superman!” And all the people exulted and smacked their lips. Zarathustra, however, turned sad."

-Friedrich Nietzsche [I][B]Thus Spake Zarathustra[/B][/I]


#360

[QUOTE=“Camnator, post: 287655, member: 5425”]The answer is obvious, considering the State is incompetent, dangerous, wasteful and threaten to murder you for not complying to its demands.[/QUOTE]
Free markets are the ones that are incompetent, dangerous, and wasteful