Communism vs Capitalism Sticky


#401

[QUOTE=“snoge, post: 349257, member: 6022”]But I’m not sure whether it’s possible to achieve communism without a vanguard party, given all the changes that would need to be overseen, and having vanguard party leads to a USSR-style dictatorship more often than not.[/QUOTE]

A socialist state is not the same as the [SIZE=4]Leninist concept of the Vanguard. Lenin saw the party not as an organic, democratic political manifestation of the proletariat, but as an elitist [/SIZE]bureaucratic[SIZE=4] clique that would give direction to the revolution. Trotsky for example compared the working class to steam that mindlessly drives the pistons of the revolution, but this steam needs to be directed by an intellectually advanced segment of the proletariat. Leninist vanguardism is inherently authoritarian yes, but anti-Bolshevik Marxism has always rejected this. Rosa Luxemburg was one of the first to [/SIZE]emphasize[SIZE=4] the need for mas worker democracy over an elite vanguard, and this idea was generally the mainstream Marxist view until Lenin deviated to the right. I agree a democratic [/SIZE]institution[SIZE=4] is [/SIZE]necessary[SIZE=4] to help organise and provide order to the revolution, but I retain the orthodox Marxist view of this institution as democratic, transparent and designed to help communities organise themselves so it can wither away.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=“snoge, post: 349257, member: 6022”]
Besides, even if communism could be achieved, a society where everyone was economically equal would mean everyone had a relatively low quality of life.[/QUOTE]

Communism is not extreme economic egalitarianism (as in the redistribution of economic wealth by the state), it is a socioeconomic system where the means of production are placed in the hands of the community. This has the effect of abolishing class as we know it (at least in the Marxist view) and creating a relatively ‘equal’ society. This would not lead to low quality of life in my opinion, although my ventures into neo-/post-Marxist literature has made me question the fundamental analyses that are used to reach such a conclusion.


#402

[QUOTE=“ConservativeMatt, post: 349114, member: 6000”]In my opinion the reason communism leads to authoritarian and totalitarian regimes is due to the fact the government controls nearly everything, state ownership of industry, food production and distribution etc etc. so the person (or peoples) in charge of such state have the ability to scare and to create a Cult of Personality just because [B]there aren’t any elections[/B].[/QUOTE]
This is utterly false:

"[B]ARTICLE 134.[/B] Members of all Soviets of Working People’s Deputies–of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., the Supreme Soviets of the Union Republics, the Soviets of Working People’s Deputies of the Territories and Regions, the Supreme Soviets of the Autonomous Republics, and Soviets of Working People’s Deputies of Autonomous Regions, area, district, city and rural (station, village, hamlet, kishlak, aul) Soviets of Working People’s Deputies–are chosen by the electors on the basis of universal, direct and equal suffrage by secret ballot.

[B]ARTICLE 135.[/B] Elections of deputies are universal: all citizens of the U.S.S.R. who have reached the age of eighteen, irrespective of race or nationality, religion, educational and residential qualifications, social origin, property status or past activities, have the right to vote in the election of deputies and to be elected, with the exception of insane persons and persons who have been convicted by a court of law and whose sentences include deprivation of electoral rights." -1936 Constitution of the USSR

“[B]ARTICLE 131.[/B] All citizens, with the legal capacity to do so, have the right to take part in the leadership of the state, directly or through their elected representatives to the bodies of People’s Power, and to participate, for this purpose and as prescribed by law, in the periodic elections and people’s referendums through free, equal and secret vote. Every voter has only vote.
[B]ARTICLE 132.[/B] All Cubans over 16 years of age, men and women alike, have the right to vote except those who:
a) are mentally disabled and have been declared so by court;
b) have committed a crime and because of this have lost the right to vote.” -Cuban Constitution of 1976, with all amendments to 2002

"[B]Article 86.[/B] All citizens of the People’s Republic of China, who have reached the age of eighteen, have the right to vote and stand for election, irrespective of their nationality, race, sex, occupation, social origin, religious belief, education, property status, or length of residence, except insane persons and persons deprived by law of the right to vote and stand for election.
Women have equal rights with men to vote and stand for election.

[B]Article 56.[/B] Deputies to the people’s congresses of provinces, cities directly under the central authority, counties, and cities divided into districts are elected by people’s congresses at the next lower level; deputies to the people’s congresses of cities not divided into districts, and of city districts, hsiang, nationality hsiang, and towns are directly elected by the voters." -The Constitution of the People’s[/URL] [URL=‘http://e-chaupak.net/database/chicon/1954/1954bilingual.htm#g’]Republic of China (1954)

"[B]Article 66: [/B]

All citizens who have reached the age of 17 have the right to elect and to be elected, irrespective of sex, race, occupation, length of residence, property status, education, party affiliation, political views or religious belief.
Citizens serving in the armed forces also have the right to elect and to be elected.
A person who has been disenfranchised by a Court decision and a person legally certified insane do not have the right to elect or to be elected." -Constitution of the DPRK


#403

[QUOTE=“Kyte314, post: 349690, member: 1298”]This is utterly false:

"[B]ARTICLE 134.[/B] Members of all Soviets of Working People’s Deputies–of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., the Supreme Soviets of the Union Republics, the Soviets of Working People’s Deputies of the Territories and Regions, the Supreme Soviets of the Autonomous Republics, and Soviets of Working People’s Deputies of Autonomous Regions, area, district, city and rural (station, village, hamlet, kishlak, aul) Soviets of Working People’s Deputies–are chosen by the electors on the basis of universal, direct and equal suffrage by secret ballot.

[B]ARTICLE 135.[/B] Elections of deputies are universal: all citizens of the U.S.S.R. who have reached the age of eighteen, irrespective of race or nationality, religion, educational and residential qualifications, social origin, property status or past activities, have the right to vote in the election of deputies and to be elected, with the exception of insane persons and persons who have been convicted by a court of law and whose sentences include deprivation of electoral rights." -1936 Constitution of the USSR

“[B]ARTICLE 131.[/B] All citizens, with the legal capacity to do so, have the right to take part in the leadership of the state, directly or through their elected representatives to the bodies of People’s Power, and to participate, for this purpose and as prescribed by law, in the periodic elections and people’s referendums through free, equal and secret vote. Every voter has only vote.
[B]ARTICLE 132.[/B] All Cubans over 16 years of age, men and women alike, have the right to vote except those who:
a) are mentally disabled and have been declared so by court;
b) have committed a crime and because of this have lost the right to vote.” -Cuban Constitution of 1976, with all amendments to 2002

"[B]Article 86.[/B] All citizens of the People’s Republic of China, who have reached the age of eighteen, have the right to vote and stand for election, irrespective of their nationality, race, sex, occupation, social origin, religious belief, education, property status, or length of residence, except insane persons and persons deprived by law of the right to vote and stand for election.
Women have equal rights with men to vote and stand for election.

[B]Article 56.[/B] Deputies to the people’s congresses of provinces, cities directly under the central authority, counties, and cities divided into districts are elected by people’s congresses at the next lower level; deputies to the people’s congresses of cities not divided into districts, and of city districts, hsiang, nationality hsiang, and towns are directly elected by the voters." -The Constitution of the People’s[/URL] [URL=‘http://e-chaupak.net/database/chicon/1954/1954bilingual.htm#g’]Republic of China (1954)

"[B]Article 66: [/B]

All citizens who have reached the age of 17 have the right to elect and to be elected, irrespective of sex, race, occupation, length of residence, property status, education, party affiliation, political views or religious belief.
Citizens serving in the armed forces also have the right to elect and to be elected.
A person who has been disenfranchised by a Court decision and a person legally certified insane do not have the right to elect or to be elected." -Constitution of the DPRK[/QUOTE]
Sure they vote to the people’s assembly or their version of that, but the real power in all these states is with the elite.


#404

[QUOTE=“ConservativeMatt, post: 349773, member: 6000”]Sure they vote to the people’s assembly or their version of that, but the real power in all these states is with the elite.[/QUOTE]
Where do you think the “real power” in the West is…?


#405

[QUOTE=“Kyte314, post: 350306, member: 1298”]Where do you think the “real power” in the West is…?[/QUOTE]
With the democratically elected parliaments.


#406

[QUOTE=“snoge, post: 349139, member: 6022”]Yes. They tried to achieve communism, but the trouble is that to do that you need a vanguard one-party state to oversee the transition.This gives them ridiculous amounts of power to themselves, and they decide they’d rather not give it up. This has happened in many countries, most notably the USSR. The only country where communism has been remotely successful is Cuba.[/QUOTE]
Not all versions of communism propose a vanguard party esque institution


#407

[QUOTE=“ConservativeMatt, post: 350341, member: 6000”]With the democratically elected parliaments.[/QUOTE]

Which must, by necessity, ensure the survival of capitalism. A system run in the interests of the “elite,” (I prefer “bourgeois,” or “ruling class,” but whatever).

Also, the USSR and every other so-called communist state (“communist state,” is an oxymoron anyway) had wage labour, markets and private property relations. That’s capitalism.


#408

What if I said neither?


#409

[QUOTE=“Alias, post: 350352, member: 2875”]Not all versions of communism propose a vanguard party esque institution[/QUOTE]

But I’m not sure you can get close to achieving communism without some sort of central planning, and that requires a vanguard Communist party, which then becomes totalitarian. This is one of the problems with communism.


#410

[QUOTE=“Rare, post: 350511, member: 6382”]What if I said neither?[/QUOTE]

Well, then what do you prefer?


#411

Personally, i am a pure capitalist. I could never live in a communist society by chose, and i find every aspect of communism absurd. However, i can see the imminent implosion of the capitalist system. I dont know if any of you are familiar with animal farm by George Orwell, but i can see that as a reality. Capitalism, one day, will create such a massive class divide that revolutionaries will be born. Communism, i feel, cannot be achieved without an anarchist approach, democratic socialism is a load of pish. I dont want this to happen, but inevitably it will. I cant remember who it was, but some Chinese bloke once said that a great society would go through something like 8 stages of change. I have a shite memory so i cant remember most of them, but anarcho-communism was straight after capitalism. Reality, and the understanding of reality is the philosophy that i live around, so there you go. Out goes capitalism, along with a large chunk of the populus in a gory civil war, and in a new communist England, with a seperate Wales. Scotland and N.Ireland will be long gone. Give it 100 years and that will be the situation. Or atleast, i think.


#412

It seems that I am the minority voice on this thread but i’ll give my 2 cents.

Capitalism is (to paraphrase the Oxford definition), an system where by individuals can privately own and invest in industry rather than the state.
As we most likely come from the UK, USA or somewhere within Europe or almost anywhere in the world, we see capitalism and traits of a capitalistic society everywhere from the ads we see to the magazines we read to the websites we go on. At the bottom of a business is the workers, the clerks and the manual laborers. The low / low-middle class cogs in the machine. At the top we have the one or few people who own the company. Call them CEOs or Fat cats, these guys set the whole thing up and live lives of luxury from it. The perceived problem with a capitalistic society is the huge wealth disparity within that society.

Now this is my second post here and I don’t want to mess up the process of showing a picture with an ineffective URL so I’ll run this down: The top 1% of wealthy citizens in the USA have 33.8% of the wealth distribution in the US. Middle class and lower class - the 99% - have 33.7% and 28.5% respectively. That’s [I]huge. [/I]The french aristocracy before the revolution couldn’t boast such a feat. With such a large gap in a country universally viewed as a paradise (In the Anglo-sphere at least) surely a system which eliminates such an issue would be the step forward, right?

Step in Communism. The state shall have control over industry and all land to be owned by the community. In short; the government
takes over the capitalist’s job and the poor are now treated as equals by society at large. “This is the solution!” one could say. Many would agree too. In fact, so many people agreed that not 100 years ago this system was tested out many times over the century. Every single one failed. At best the country either re allowed privately owned companies (21st cent China), became a withered shell of the country’s past (N. Korea) or at worst resulted in a destructive regime that killed tens of millions (USSR, 20th cent China) The problem with communism was that it didn’t make everyone equally rich. [I]It made everyone equally poor.[/I]

Eliminate capitalism in the US today. Minus the chaos, you will find all the capitalists with a worthy brand will flee the country with their fortune and never come back. They will reinvest and relocate in a safer country where the state won’t steal their money and land. Of course this would wreck the USA’s economy beyond recognition, the reason why America is in so much debt isn’t because they are making money. No, they are making trillions. It is just that they are able to spend beyond their means. This clearly would be unacheivable without the fat cats.

“But hold it. There’s this new guy who will fix all of our problems and will make this country glorious now that the chains are broken from our corporate overlords. His name is Mr. [insert Stalin, Zedong, Pot, Puppet]!” “Now everyone has a job. Even Tom who now has been relocated to the far end of the country 1000 miles from here!” Communism also doesn’t factor in that people are lazy and won’t want to do work. If (minus the welfare state phenomena) you are lazy in a capitalist country you will go hungry. In a Communist system like that which has been in the past, you get forced labour / imprisonment / even worse.

Too long; didn’t read version: Communism while seemingly a great system for the common man, has no place in 21st century society and culture. But please, tell me about your new brand of Communism that has never been tried before and will definatley work. Just give me time to sell my shares first.


#413

[QUOTE=“SewerMedic, post: 353416, member: 6440”]
Step in Communism. The state shall have control over industry and all land to be owned by the community. [/quote]

Not really a communist society as communism advocates for a classless society. If a state exists, then that means there is a class above the rest, so there is no state in communism.

The problem with communism was that it didn’t make everyone equally rich. [I]It made everyone equally poor. [/I]

Communism advocates for a moneyless society as well, so thus the notion that communism advocates to make everyone equally rich is also incorrect.

In a Communist system like that which has been in the past, you get forced labour / imprisonment / even worse.

Again, this implies that there is some above class to force someone into labor, which is not communism.

Too long; didn’t read version: Communism while seemingly a great system for the common man, has no place in 21st century society and culture.

It’s rather unfortunate that you have a very poor understanding of communism.

But please, tell me about your new brand of Communism that has never been tried before and will definatley work.

It could, but I feel @oli[/USER] [USER=2382]@A341[/USER] or [USER=2875]@Alias would be much better at explaining how it would than I could.


#414

My flair kind of speaks for itself.

I’m not saying that there aren’t faults to every system, but the benefits outweigh the harms by a VAST margin.


#415

It seems even comrades also not pointing the devil face of capitalism. I have an one word answer for capitalism - profit. As of now 1% of richers having the wealth that equals remaining 99% of worlds population. It seems among that 99% more than 45% are gng bed in hunger. This idea of profit is leading them to suck the land water, destroying forests for ores and minerals, using the small countries as their dustbins to dispose electrical wastes, encouraging wars to divert people along with religion issues, privatisation of education , medicine and water and extinction of species(thought that human can do anything).


#416

[QUOTE=“James Tutton, post: 109456, member: 3044”]Capitalism actually works, communism doesn’t.[/QUOTE]

None of the countries where socialism became the dominant ideology had the conditions Marx recognized as necessary to attain socialism and by extension Communism.


#417

I believe in the free market, and humans rights to trade but i think it needs environmental and fair trade regulations.


#418

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


#419

[QUOTE=“lake avenue, post: 391213, member: 3521”]@StrangeSignal because you asked for elaboration but I don’t wish to derail the thread

First, lets look at the reasons that ‘Communist’ governments (I know they weren’t really communist, just bear with me here) [I]in the past[/I] did not work.

  1. No such thing as private property. If you owned land, animals, whatever, they became property of the people (read as: the state) To add insult to injury, you had to feed the animals they took from you. Practicing religion was generally forbidden. They generally confiscated religious property and propagated atheism.

  2. It robbed ambition and drive from people. You either worked or went to jail. Sounds great until you realize that you aren’t really able to get any luxuries from your work. The ‘rich’ got there by stealing property and getting bribes. Everyone working for the state meant that they had no ‘owner’ they had to answer to. Forced work meant that you could technically just slack off all day.

  3. Corruption was incredibly high, so much so that simple things required bribes. You could bribe teachers and officials to raise your child’s grades. You typically didn’t show up to a doctor’s office without gifts.

  4. Borders were closed and you generally could not travel to non-communist nations. If you had to, you were forced to leave one of your children behind so that you had to come back. If you left anyway, they would seize your property and interrogate you family. If you then returned, you were just thrown in a jail for however long they wanted. No due process.

  5. Most professionally skilled people moved out when they could before the borders closed (to protect their earned property), and hospitals and clinics were generally understaffed.

  6. Western media was forbidden.

  7. Schools brainwashed children with pro-communist propaganda.

  8. Groceries were very hard to actually get. You had to stand in line for hours to get basic groceries like bread and fruit.

  9. Students were required to work at fields when not in school

  10. People were openly spied on. Spoke up against the government? Kiss your ass goodbye. If you didn’t die, you were in a gulag. If your neighbor didn’t like you, all he had to do was say you were expressing anti-government beliefs. If you didn’t instantly get thrown in a gulag you were put on every single fucking ‘list’ that existed.

  11. Athletes that didn’t perform better than those outside communist countries were punished for making the countries look bad

  12. The entire system collapsed when the government went bankrupt. People revolted, but at that point the communist party didn’t have anything left to steal. They just handed over the keys after destroying everything, shrugging and saying “oh well.”

Now, let’s look at some issues with implementation in the present.

  1. Communism, generally, removes most individual incentive. Some people think it’s a benefit, since it would eliminate greed and wealth inequality.

  2. Removing private property removes incentive to maximize its use. If nobody “owns” it, nobody has a strong incentive to take care of it.

  3. Prices are a perfect way to signal supply and demand in an economy. It’s impossible for a central planner to determine the preferences of each individual, though free pricing can.

My preface is just going to be that Production =/= Prosperity.

Price mechanism in a free market maximizes the productive output of a given good because it maximizes how many people are participating in the market. At the “sweet spot” of prices, the most people will buy, and the most people will sell a given item. Communism breaks this price mechanism. This causes stunted output. All else being equal, mass price control in an economy will simply lower the output of an industry significantly. This lowers the per capita output significantly. This, down the line, eventually results in lower quality of life.

All that we and everyone that knows what they’re talking about knows is that, in practice, not just on paper, price controls and other similar policies fail to achieve prosperity, and instead, diminish output.

@New Classicist miss anything?

The less-crazies on the communist side, in my opinion, are the anarchists. Communists believe the fastest way to achieve equality is to have the state seize all private property and forcibly redistribute it. Anarchists believe that once the state seizes all property, those in power won’t want to redistribute it, which seems the much more likely case. The best chance of a communist government actually achieving prosperity would be in a post-scarcity world, so that everyone can [I]actually[/I] have everything they want, and be equal. This can’t happen any earlier because that would mean that a government is forcibly attempting to change the stage of a society, in the case of Maoist China, forcibly change from a feudal society to a capitalist society, and then to a socialist society, and in the case of the USSR, change the stage of society immediately to a socialist society. This can’t work, simply because states naturally produce classes as much as classes produce states, so a socialist state can’t whither away and die for a communist society so long as wealth needs distributed, and the examples at the very top of this post show what happens when a government attempts to forcibly change the stage of an economy and society.

So, in closing, communism is better described as what will inevitably happen when we’re so advanced that we’re into a post-scarcity world, and not something that can actually be achieved in the present.[/QUOTE]

You missed labor theory of value being demonstrably false, but that sums up most of the major issues, I think.


#420

[QUOTE=“lake avenue, post: 391213, member: 3521”]First, lets look at the reasons that ‘Communist’ governments (I know they weren’t really communist, just bear with me here) [I]in the past[/I] did not work.[/QUOTE]

That’s the first problem, right here. You are taking as an example state-capitalist countries, which not only didn’t employ socialization of the workplace, they were also very restrictive, thus I deduce that most of the points will be a straw man. Socialism itself, or at least most of its branches, accepts [B][I]democracy on the workplace[/I][/B]. Neither capitalism nor state-capitalism accept that. Not to mention Communism, which is completely different and has never been achieved. None of the Soviet-type countries reflect what the full form of Socialism or Communism are, and they instead employed state-capitalism as a form to achieve Socialism on the future [U](on their own words)[/U], but they never managed to do it.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society[/URL]

  1. As I am aware of, the USSR didn’t expropiate animals from the people, they only expropiated the seeds of grain.
    Practicing religion [I]wasn’t[/I] forbidden, that’s a completely ridiculous statement. They had a feud with the Church as an [I]institution[/I], because of the power it had, but they didn’t abolish ‘belief’ properly speaking. It was completely okay to be religious even in Stalin’s USSR, but you couldn’t use it as an excuse for not doing something.
    Stalin outlawed the church because of the power it had inside his country, but I am not sure of the procediments of all the other Soviet-type countries. Cuba, Albania and the ex-Yugoslavia are still religious, despite one of them still having a Sovet-type government and the other two having had one.

  2. One of the most common mistakes is to consider money as the only motivator behind human affairs. It surely plays an important role in the Western society, but it’s far from being the only one.
    The problem with [I]centralized planning[/I] is that, while they destroyed the capitalist system of private property, they created another system based on the supremacy of the government and the property of the boureaucracy. Socialism itself advocates [I]decentralized planning[/I]. Several famous socialists like George Orwell, Leon Trotsky, and socialist economists like Oskar Lange and Otto Neurath talked about the importance of leaving the boureaucracy out of economic plans in a socialist society.

  3. This is obviously an extreme exaggeration, I would be glad if you could give a good source for this. There were, indeed, some problems with bribes in the USSR, especially after the 60’s, but these were due mostly to the low payments. You are also making this argument while conviniently ignoring the existance of bribes in modern capitalist countries as well.

  4. And that’s a common case of State-terrorism, in almost any country that employs it. The core behind the issue was the stalinist idea of “Socialism in One Country” and “Left-Wing Nationalism”, by which they combined the already degenerated system they had with a form of nationalism and militarism that easily matches that of the fascist states. This is not inherent to Socialism. Quite the contrary, most forms of Socialism stand [I]against[/I] it.

  5. The Marxist though defines two different forms of property: [I]private property over the means of production[/I] (factories, real estate, etc), and [I]personal property[/I], otherwise known as consumer goods. Expropiation of consumer goods is something Marx himself stood against, and it can be seen in the first pages of [I]The Communist Manifesto.[/I]
    While the USSR did have a problem with understaffed hospitals, other countries, and Cuba above all, never had this problem…

  6. And that is their problem. They didn’t have to do it, but it could be argued that they didn’t want their countries to be turned into comsumer societies too. In any case, freedom of speech is a common subject inside Socialism, and Marx himself stood for it.

  7. This is another exaggeration. Guess whom is also receiving propaganda, given that you have so many disinformation?
    The case is obvious for countries like North Korea, but it was less so in Eastern European countries, with the great exception of Belarus and Russia. The Western countries also had lots of anti-communist propaganda everywhere as well.

  8. And this is because of their [I]centralized system[/I]. Trotsky wrote about the problems of a centralized economy, mentioning that the boureaucracy could never be powerful enough to manage an economy due to their limitations and their inability to calculate every economic process everywhere. An actual decentralized economy wouldn’t suffer from this. However, Russia didn’t have the problem of bread lines well generalized until the 80’s.

  9. Which are your sources? It wouldn’t surprise me from Cambodia or Vietnam, but as far as I am aware of, the USSR never followed such a policy.

[QUOTE=“lake avenue, post: 391213, member: 3521”]People were openly spied on. Spoke up against the government? Kiss your ass goodbye.[/QUOTE]
State-terrorism. Common in the Soviet-type countries supporting nationalism, but non Soviet-type socialist countries, like Yugoslavia, didn’t accept this. You are somehow implying that any country following any type of Socialism would follow such policies.

[QUOTE=“lake avenue, post: 391213, member: 3521”]If you didn’t instantly get thrown in a gulag you were put on every single fucking ‘list’ that existed.[/QUOTE]
Those “death lists” were implemented by Stalin and signed by himself during the purges, but Lenin never did such a thing. This is due to Stalin being the dangerous sociopath he consistently showed he was. Had Trotsky taken the control of the USSR as it was originally planned by Lenin, this obviously wouldn’t have happened.

  1. That right there came out of someone’s ass. From where the heck in this crazy world did you pull that stuff from?

  2. This assumes that what caused the USSR’s demise was an economic crash; it could as well keep existing until today if it received some reforms. Gorbachev himself states that what caused the crisis was the increasing fragmentation between the countries of the Union. Perestroika was made by Gorbachev in order to allow better political manageament of the Union, but it only exacerbated the existing conflicts between its members. The desintegration of the Union created a disaster that the CPSU could no longer hold on, thus causing the failure of the whole system.

Let’s take a look at the other part.

1.Socialism never advocated [I][B]equality of outcome[/B][/I], instead it advocates [I][B]equality of opportunity[/B][/I]. The very definition of Socialism given by Marx specifically states that retribution would be based [B][I]according to each one’s contribution[/I][/B], thus there would be no reason to repay everyone equally. [U]Socialism would not destroy inequality, it would simply make it far less influent. [/U]Communism is different in the sense that the advances in the productive forces would allow for distribution based on need rather than for contribution, but this is only possible after the limitations of the productive forces are solved by society. Read the definitions below.

  1. This is bullocks. In a real socialist society, these would be owned collectively by the people who work on them. Collectives are uncommon in modern society, but they usually work very well; here in Argentina we have the case of the[I] “recovered factories”[/I], which are factories in which there are no bosses and the workers have all the control. These workers argue that production has actually gone up and accidents went down now that no one puts pressure on them to work and they have a reason to care about production, since now it has an [I]inherent value[/I] to them.
    [URL]http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/argentina-recovered-factory-movement[/URL]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers’_self-management#The_f.C3.A1bricas_recuperadas_movement

  2. Socialism itself never advocated central planning; Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists and Maoists usually do. Non-Market Socialism uses calculation methods different to that of Capitalism, normally based on natural units or [I]calculation-in-kind[/I], but the form of these differ according to different branches. Market Socialism uses similar methods to those of Capitalism, but with horizontal collectives.

[QUOTE=“lake avenue, post: 391213, member: 3521”]Price mechanism in a free market maximizes the productive output of a given good because it maximizes how many people are participating in the market. At the “sweet spot” of prices, the most people will buy, and the most people will sell a given item. Communism breaks this price mechanism. This causes stunted output. All else being equal, mass price control in an economy will simply lower the output of an industry significantly. This lowers the per capita output significantly. This results in lower quality of life.

All that we and everyone that knows what they’re talking about knows is that, in practice, not just on paper, price controls and other similar policies fail to achieve prosperity, and instead, diminish output.

The less-crazies on the communist side, in my opinion, are the anarchists. Communists believe the fastest way to achieve equality is to have the state seize all private property and forcibly redistribute it. Anarchists believe that once the state seizes all property, those in power won’t want to redistribute it, which seems the much more likely case. The best chance of a communist government actually achieving prosperity would be in a post-scarcity world, so that everyone can [I]actually[/I] have everything they want, and be equal. This can’t happen any earlier because that would mean that a government is forcibly attempting to change the stage of a society, in the case of Maoist China, forcibly change from a feudal society to a capitalist society, and then to a socialist society, and in the case of the USSR, change the stage of society immediately to a socialist society. This can’t work, simply because states naturally produce classes as much as classes produce states, so a socialist state can’t whither away and die for a communist society.[/QUOTE]

I can’t tell the size of the straw man in this whole part :eek:. Since you obviously don’t have a clear distinction between Socialism and Communism, nor how they are connected, here it is:

Socialism: social and economic system characterised by [I]social ownership[/I] and control of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market form. Non-market Socialism involves the use of engineering and technical criteria centered on [I]calculation performed in-kind[/I], functioning [U]under different economic laws[/U] than those of Capitalism, rather than relying on factor markets, money and financial decisions. The goal is to produce an economic mechanism that circumvents the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system. By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets, and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to the operation of [I]socially-owned enterprises[/I] and the allocation of capital goods between them.

Communism: social and economic system and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a Ccommunist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the [I]common ownership[/I] of the means of production and the [B]absence of social classes, money, and the state.[/B] Communism is a specific stage of socioeconomic development [U]predicated upon a superabundance of material wealth, which is postulated to arise from technological advances in the productive forces[/U]. This would allow for [I]distribution based on need[/I] and social relations based on [U][I]freely-associated individuals[/I][/U]. In this respect Communism is differentiated from Socialism, which, out of economic necessity, restricts access to articles of consumption and services[I] based on one’s contribution.[/I]

According to Marxist theory, the superabundance of wealth created by society would allow for a communist society to exist, where there is no money, no social classes, nor a state. This, according to Marx, would be the stage of higher development of human society (upper-stage communism), identical to the concept of [B][I]post-scarcity[/I][/B].

As a result, Anarchism, with its collectivization and stateless form, is close of being a hybrid between Socialism and Communism; a society which still does not have enough productive forces to allow distribution based on need, but one in which there is no state. This is the reason for why it is possible for socialists and anarchists to work together many times; the major difference being that anarchists want to destroy the state because they see the idea of a government as inherently oppresive while Marxism sees it as the manifestation of the class struggle, in which the State serves as the defender of the interests of the bourgeoisie class and to defend their private property, and consider that the State at its present form would cease to exist once the class system is done away even if a central system of organization remains, which anarchists are against.

@A341 You said you had some doubts about Communism. I hope this would clear some of them.

With all due respect, I won’t defend another straw man; this was lame. Better luck next time.