Communism vs Capitalism Sticky


#441

[QUOTE=“ShanklinR, post: 409104, member: 1790”]Right, I forgot that suddenly laborers couldn’t make investments. [/QUOTE]

But not without the money to make those investments. My point is that there are a lot more external factors at play than just ‘the market will just solve the problem’.


#442

[QUOTE=“oli, post: 409106, member: 579”]But not without the money to make those investments. My point is that there are a lot more external factors at play than just ‘the market will just solve the problem’.[/QUOTE]
No shit. Increasing regulations kills market entry by increasing start up and operation costs. It’d be much easier for even low level laborers to invest and start their own businesses if market entry was normalized. Your problem here is with institutions, not capitalism.


#443

[B][I]Well, I say, why not both?[/I][/B] As a Voluntaryist I advocate people doing as they please, so long as my natural rights are not violated.
Personally, I would much rather a free market capitalist society due to the obvious successes of capitalism and the blatant failures of communism.


#444

[QUOTE=“ancap_commonsense, post: 409628, member: 7001”][B][I]Well, I say, why not both?[/I][/B] As a Voluntaryist I advocate people doing as they please, so long as my natural rights are not violated.
Personally, I would much rather a free market capitalist society due to the obvious successes of capitalism and the blatant failures of communism.[/QUOTE]
That is the most stunningly ignorant thing ever. Capitalism would never survive without the state. Even a perfectly competitive market suffers a great deal of damage as time progresses, and in an era like this in which top-tier technology is expensive and avaliable for a few, the companies with the larger amount of capital have a bigger advantage than their smaller competitors. Without a state that rules out monopolies and oligarchies, the free market would eventually be degradated into monopolies.
On the other hand, the state acts as a protector of private interests. Private property is impossible to sustain without an impartial force that secures and sustains the property of the owners. Without a state, there is nothing that may stop the destruction or appropiation of someone’s property, and even if the private sector was allowed to have possesion of security forces, then it will be much worse, because private security forces aren’t as impartial as the State is. They may just as well seize other companies’ property to gain benefits. The federal police forces would never be allowed to do that.
The distribution of public services would also be a problem. Public services such as street lights, traffic lights, etc. The state allows citizens to use them for free, as it is not needed nor advisable to charge a fee for using them. If these were privatized and left for the companies to charge money for them, it will simply not work. Imagine that you have to put a coin in a traffic light for it to function and let you pass, or you need to turn on a street light. You can as well do it, but other people may rush that that place and use it too, and nothing stops them from doing it. The opposite also happens; if you are not in a rush and you need to cross a street, you could easily wait for someone to pay for the traffic lights and then pass yourself, and nothing stops you from doing it. This is why there is an agreement that the market is inherently incapable to provide public goods.
Then there is another problem. Suppose that there are two companies selling the same kind of product. One of them uses cheap technology that allows them to fabricate products at a fraction of the cost, but contaminates the enviroment. The other spent its capital in technology that doesn’t contaminate, but the result was a rise on the price of the product. The contaminating industry produces large amounts of enviromental pollution that causes detrimental effects to society, but as its products are cheaper, it sells much more than the other company. The other company spent its resources on enviromentally-friendly technology, but its high costs mean that buyers will avoid their product because they are much more expensive, thus making it hard for this company to compete. These are called “externalities”, because the price system doesn’t translate the good or bad side effects the process of production has in society. The only way these externalities can be “internalized” (i.e. returned to the market enviroment) is by state intervention, as the state can charge a tax to the contaminating company for enviromental pollution, and can subsidize the enviromentally-friendly company to help it lower the cost and make an incentive towards enviromentally sustainable technologies. Without the state, externalities would be extremely difficult or impossible to address.

I hope I made it clear. Free-market Capitalism, if not Capitalism by itself, wouldn’t survive without a state. This is why anarcho-capitalism is easily the most overrated and ridiculous of all political stances.


#445

[QUOTE=“StrangeSignal, post: 409637, member: 6563”]That is the most stunningly ignorant thing ever. Capitalism would never survive without the state. Even a perfectly competitive market suffers a great deal of damage as time progresses, and in an era like this in which top-tier technology is expensive and avaliable for a few, the companies with the larger amount of capital have a bigger advantage than their smaller competitors. Without a state that rules out monopolies and oligarchies, the free market would eventually be degradated into monopolies.
On the other hand, the state acts as a protector of private interests. Private property is impossible to sustain without an impartial force that secures and sustains the property of the owners. Without a state, there is nothing that may stop the destruction or appropiation of someone’s property, and even if the private sector was allowed to have possesion of security forces, then it will be much worse, because private security forces aren’t as impartial as the State is. They may just as well seize other companies’ property to gain benefits. The federal police forces would never be allowed to do that.
The distribution of public services would also be a problem. Public services such as street lights, traffic lights, etc. The state allows citizens to use them for free, as it is not needed nor advisable to charge a fee for using them. If these were privatized and left for the companies to charge money for them, it will simply not work. Imagine that you have to put a coin in a traffic light for it to function and let you pass, or you need to turn on a street light. You can as well do it, but other people may rush that that place and use it too, and nothing stops them from doing it. The opposite also happens; if you are not in a rush and you need to cross a street, you could easily wait for someone to pay for the traffic lights and then pass yourself, and nothing stops you from doing it. This is why there is an agreement that the market is inherently incapable to provide public goods.
Then there is another problem. Suppose that there are two companies selling the same kind of product. One of them uses cheap technology that allows them to fabricate products at a fraction of the cost, but contaminates the enviroment. The other spent its capital in technology that doesn’t contaminate, but the result was a rise on the price of the product. The contaminating industry produces large amounts of enviromental pollution that causes detrimental effects to society, but as its products are cheaper, it sells much more than the other company. The other company spent its resources on enviromentally-friendly technology, but its high costs mean that buyers will avoid their product because they are much more expensive, thus making it hard for this company to compete. These are called “externalities”, because the price system doesn’t translate the good or bad side effects the process of production has in society. The only way these externalities can be “internalized” (i.e. returned to the market enviroment) is by state intervention, as the state can charge a tax to the contaminating company for enviromental pollution, and can subsidize the enviromentally-friendly company to help it lower the cost and make an incentive towards enviromentally sustainable technologies. Without the state, externalities would be extremely difficult or impossible to address.

I hope I made it clear. Free-market Capitalism, if not Capitalism by itself, wouldn’t survive without a state. This is why anarcho-capitalism is easily the most overrated and ridiculous of all political stances.[/QUOTE]

List of Anarcho-Capitalist Societies:
[LIST]
[]Celtic Ireland (650-1650)
[
]Icelandic Commonwealth (930 to 1262)
[]Rhode Island (1636-1648)
[
]Albemarle (1640’s-1663)
[]Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681-1690)
[
]The American “Not so Wild” West - various locations
[/LIST]
“An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms” - HH Hoppe


#446

[QUOTE=“ancap_commonsense, post: 409639, member: 7001”]List of Anarcho-Capitalist Societies:
[LIST]
[]Celtic Ireland (650-1650)
[
]Icelandic Commonwealth (930 to 1262)
[]Rhode Island (1636-1648)
[
]Albemarle (1640’s-1663)
[]Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681-1690)
[
]The American “Not so Wild” West - various locations
[/LIST]
“An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms” - HH Hoppe[/QUOTE]
I think it’s difficult to identify any society as a capitalist one when it’s pre-industrial and dominantly agrarian. The one exception, The ~Wild West~, is ironic considering the boom towns of olde were only made possible through government incentive to stake land out on the side of railroads.


#447

[QUOTE=“ancap_commonsense, post: 409639, member: 7001”]List of Anarcho-Capitalist Societies:
[LIST]
[]Celtic Ireland (650-1650)
[
]Icelandic Commonwealth (930 to 1262)
[]Rhode Island (1636-1648)
[
]Albemarle (1640’s-1663)
[]Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681-1690)
[
]The American “Not so Wild” West - various locations
[/LIST]
“An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms” - HH Hoppe[/QUOTE]
The first two are shown as taking place before capitalism even existed, which is a heavy contradiction. The “Wild West” never had any specific set of laws, but it wasn’t entirely anarchic and parts of it were organized into more centralized structures, and the “Holy Experiment” was an utter failure due to internal dissent. I could not find relevant information about the other two, but as @Gratis argued, non-industrial societies can barely be said to serve as models for your system. For the reasons I stated before, it would fail on a modern, industrialized market system.

Now, if you excuse me, these are some examples of anarchism in practice (the original red/black anrchism):
[LIST]
[*]The Shinmin Territory, 1929-1932, successful until destroyed by the Bolsheviks.

[*]The Free Territory, 1918-1921. It had a population of seven million and its own army, which helped it to survive most of the Ukranian War of Independence, but was destroyed by the Bolsheviks.

[*]Revolutionary Catalonia, 1936-1937, successful until destroyed by the Stalinists, eventually being taken over by the fascists.

[]The Paris Commune of 1871, successful until destroyed by the French Army.
[
]Anarchist Aragón, 1936-1939. It succeeded in establishing cooperative industries until destroyed by the fascists.
[]Shanghai People’s Commune, established in 1967 during the January Revolution. Eventually destroyed by Mao Zedong.
[
]Owen’s experiment in New Harmony.
[/LIST]
Contemporary examples include:
[LIST]
[]Anarchist Nation
[
]Acorn Community
[]Freetown Christiania is another example, although the Danish government is not particularly happy of having them there.
[
]Stapleton Colony
[*]Twin Oaks Community
[/LIST]
Communism and Anarchism are ideas following the same goal of a free, collective society, but unlike Anarchism, marxist theory considers Socialism to be a necessary intermediate stage to the development of a classless, stateless communist society. Such a society, Marx argued, could only be possible after the technical and structural problems of the means of production were overcome (in post-scarcity), so socialists/communists usually consider that a state would be temporarly needed, until society would no longer necessitate a state for anything, and it will began to wither away.

Also, the quote is completely irrelevant. Private property is dependant on their owners, so one owner can easily use its private security to attack or put pressure to others to obrain benefits, if there is no state preventing it.


#448

[QUOTE=“Gratis, post: 409662, member: 5225”]I think it’s difficult to identify any society as a capitalist one when it’s pre-industrial and dominantly agrarian. The one exception, The ~Wild West~, is ironic considering the boom towns of olde were only made possible through government incentive to stake land out on the side of railroads.[/QUOTE]

Not exactly. They were stateless societies with a majority of capitalist elements such as private law.

[QUOTE=“StrangeSignal, post: 409664, member: 6563”]The first two are shown as taking place before capitalism even existed, which is a heavy contradiction. The “Wild West” never had any specific set of laws, but it wasn’t entirely anarchic and parts of it were organized into more centralized structures, and the “Holy Experiment” was an utter failure due to internal dissent. I could not find relevant information about the other two, but as @Gratis argued, non-industrial societies can barely be said to serve as models for your system. For the reasons I stated before, it would fail on a modern, industrialized market system.

Now, if you excuse me, these are some examples of anarchism in practice (the original red/black anrchism):
[LIST]
[*]The Shinmin Territory, 1929-1932, successful until destroyed by the Bolsheviks.

[*]The Free Territory, 1918-1921. It had a population of seven million and its own army, which helped it to survive most of the Ukranian War of Independence, but was destroyed by the Bolsheviks.

[*]Revolutionary Catalonia, 1936-1937, successful until destroyed by the Stalinists, eventually being taken over by the fascists.

[]The Paris Commune of 1871, successful until destroyed by the French Army.
[
]Anarchist Aragón, 1936-1939. It succeeded in establishing cooperative industries until destroyed by the fascists.
[]Shanghai People’s Commune, established in 1967 during the January Revolution. Eventually destroyed by Mao Zedong.
[
]Owen’s experiment in New Harmony.
[/LIST]
Contemporary examples include:
[LIST]
[]Anarchist Nation
[
]Acorn Community
[]Freetown Christiania is another example, although the Danish government is not particularly happy of having them there.
[
]Stapleton Colony
[*]Twin Oaks Community
[/LIST]
Communism and Anarchism are ideas following the same goal of a free, collective society, but unlike Anarchism, marxist theory considers Socialism to be a necessary intermediate stage to the development of a classless, stateless communist society. Such a society, Marx argued, could only be possible after the technical and structural problems of the means of production were overcome (in post-scarcity), so socialists/communists usually consider that a state would be temporarly needed, until society would no longer necessitate a state for anything, and it will began to wither away.

Also, the quote is completely irrelevant. Private property is dependant on their owners, so one owner can easily use its private security to attack or put pressure to others to obrain benefits, if there is no state preventing it.[/QUOTE]

I’m not anti-ancom, I’d simply prefer a capitalist society! The quote is relevant and I think you’re ignoring that in order to “attack or put pressure on others”, that would imply that your victim…
[LIST=1]
[]Doesn’t have a private protection service of their own
[
]That any rational human being would weigh the risks to the potential benefits
[*]Assuming #1 is true, #2 would lead to the attack not happening at all
[/LIST]


#449

communism can be good in some ways but does not always last long,mainly because they forget what communism actually is and start to oppress the people,same goes to socialism.capitalism is more effective in lasting because they know what they are doing all the time and always try to make the right decisions.


#450

what capitalism needs to do is to treat everyone equally.


#451

What Communism needs to do is to treat everyone like human beings. It is beyond me how anyone could endorse what has been proven to be the most destructive ideology of the past century.

When does idealism end and insanity begin? Certainly a long time ago for your ilk.


#452

[QUOTE=“Merkwürdigliebe, post: 426257, member: 7188”]What Communism needs to do is to treat everyone like human beings. It is beyond me how anyone could endorse what has been proven to be the most destructive ideology of the past century.[/QUOTE]

It wasn’t perfect, but there were other conditions that lead to the brutality of the revolutions other than the ideology.

The funny thing is that the USSR and China both go against historical materialism and the Marxist view of class development. Neither Marx nor Engels would have believed that Russia or other third world countries could foster socialism, and truth be told, they weren’t wrong.


#453

[QUOTE=“Merkwürdigliebe, post: 426257, member: 7188”]What Communism needs to do is to treat everyone like human beings. It is beyond me how anyone could endorse what has been proven to be the most destructive ideology of the past century.[/QUOTE]
In reality, according to the marxist theory, communism[/URL] as a social and economic system is unattainable even with modern technology. Socialism, which according to Marx is an intermediate stage, inherently requires a revolution to happen on a capitalist country. The fact that the most successful leftist revolutions occurred in countries which did not have the means to sustain such system forced their leaders to act against the principles of socialism and develop political structures composed by boureaucratic organizations responsible for economic planning (a [URL=‘https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy’]“command economy”), which is one of the reasons of their eventual collapse.

While more progressive socialists like Luxemburg from the Communist Party of Germany and the De Leonists quickly argued [I]against[/I] the USSR because of its draconian authoritarianism, opression of civil rights and economic centralization, it was the argument of Lenin and Stalin that such criticism of the USSR does not take in count the simple fact that it wasn’t an industrialized country with a proper democratic sytem, and its development went outside of what the marxist dialectical theory would predict in an industrialized nation. Hence, according to Marxism-Leninism, the need to create “Socialism-In-One-Country”[/URL] single-party systems and state-capitalism before achieving socialism with economic democracy (which in the end they proved unable to reach) was primordial to turn a technologically retarded country into a socialist power, and most leftist revolutions, like the ones in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia and North Korea followed the Marxist-Leninist authoritarian approach. This is why [I]most [/I]socialist revolutions ended in authoritarian countries instead of the [URL=‘https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_Association’]“progressive international alliance” socialism traditionally seeks to establish. It’s not a failure inherent of marxism, or socialism, or communism, but the specific political and social circumstances which led to the creation of these authoritarian nations. If you look a the Paris Commune, Salvador Allende’s Chile or, partially, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, they went through different paths without devolving into soviet authoritarianism. Saying that all of socialism has the responsible for those authoritarian countries just because they decided to follow Marxism-Leninism is a misinterpretation of what socialism actually is and what its many branches stand for.

Take a look at the modern Socialist Party USA[/URL]. It has almost nothing in common with what the [URL=‘https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union#Ideology’]CPSU was.


#454

[QUOTE=“Merkwürdigliebe, post: 426257, member: 7188”]What Communism needs to do is to treat everyone like human beings. It is beyond me how anyone could endorse what has been proven to be the most destructive ideology of the past century.
[/QUOTE]

I sure hope you’re ready for the wonderful world of “all of the states taken over by communists were false perversions of actual communism”, and the doubly fantastic “it mainly failed because the host nations that were hijacked weren’t strong enough to survive the parasite”


#455

Communism and Capitalism both have their flaws.

Communism has been tainted by the USSR and China, Capitalism has been tainted by big businesses and cheap labour.

But if you delve deep into the ideologies, in communism you see an equal society where working class people succeed and in capitalism you have people the freedom to set up their own business and make their living off it as well as economic freedoms.


#456

[QUOTE=“Ricky, post: 426320, member: 2996”]I sure hope you’re ready for the wonderful world of “all of the states taken over by communists were false perversions of actual communism”, and the doubly fantastic “it mainly failed because the host nations that were hijacked weren’t strong enough to survive the parasite”[/QUOTE]

Except. you know, actually having read Marx would have told you this.

And this is coming from a Fascist who’s vehemently opposed to Communism.


#457

[QUOTE=“Wolf, post: 426330, member: 3029”]Except. you know, actually having read Marx would have told you this.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think Marx’s economic theory has any actual validity to begin with, and if it was doomed to fail from the start then more shame on those who turned Russian, Chinese, and other societies upside down to attempt their impossible fantasies only to have their movements co-opted by megalomaniac dictators.


#458

Voted Communism, because it was made out of respect for all human beings. It might not work but the theory is selfless. Capitalism is for the rich and the greedy. It is made for one man to be seen as better than another.


#459

Capitalism!


#460

[QUOTE=“GráinneH, post: 432133, member: 1485”]Voted Communism, because it was made out of respect for all human beings. It might not work but the theory is selfless. Capitalism is for the rich and the greedy. It is made for one man to be seen as better than another.[/QUOTE]

Well obviously Communism is better ideally. But it’s never going to happen :confused: