Capitalism vs Comunism team debate

Hello people,

I was wondering if there were interested people that want to take place in a (hopefully) near time debate. I was looking at the social groups of teh org and I saw a Communist/Socialist group and a "Orgah Capitalist Lounge". It would bve agood idea for me if both grups got more people and they discussed how great yer ideology is. The Group owner should post in the Debate thread, and the other discusses and replies and so on.

Do you support the idea?

Caius

A debate would be interesting, although I think few people would identify with the purest forms of either ideology. Usually a combination is best, depending upon the specific circumstances of the country or region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

A debate would be interesting, although I think few people would identify with the purest forms of either ideology. Usually a combination is best, depending upon the specific circumstances of the country or region.

---

that's technically true, since modern economies are quite different from the laissez-faire spirit of the 19th century. Modern socialists (they continue to exist for some reason) still call them capitalist though.

And according to most of them, the Soviet Union etc. weren't really socialist either. I suppose that socialism really is a utopia, existing only in the minds of people who post on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

that's technically true, since modern economies are quite different from the laissez-faire spirit of the 19th century. Modern socialists (they continue to exist for some reason) still call them capitalist though.

And according to most of them, the Soviet Union etc. weren't really socialist either. I suppose that socialism really is a utopia, existing only in the minds of people who post on the internet.

---

Actually, socialism was supposed to be transitory state, because real communism was supposed to be an utopia, kinda like Star Trek 23th century earth - there's no money and there's everything in abundance. All "communist" countries thought of themselves socialist (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) because there was still a long way to go to reach that utopia that was pure communism...

Quote:

---

Actually, socialism was supposed to be transitory state

---

In Marx' theory about socialism, yes. Marx' vision of a communist society was more or less the same as that of anarchists - the key difference being that anarchists didn't see the need for a transitionary state.

Most self-described socialists in western Europe are just rebels without a clue though, who view Marx as something of an icon.

If you could get any team of people to agree on a definition of their own ideology, then sure.. but otherwise...

I mean, some of the discussions we were having in the Socialist/Communist group were getting pretty heated because we could not agree on Authoritarian Socialism.

אני לא יודע

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

אני לא יודע

---

English only in the Backroom, please.

This is not, as Louis would contend, cultural fascism, but because moderators can't ensure that you are following the rules.

For example, I can try a translator which will tell me the above means "I don't know". But maybe the translator doesn't know? More to the point, why am I wasting my Sunday morning trying to figure out what you meant? :wink:

Thank you kindly

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I mean, some of the discussions we were having in the Socialist/Communist group were getting pretty heated because we could not agree on Authoritarian Socialism.

---

I don't think they got heated (example?), and if you are reffering to my comments on imperialism being useful, I regret those.

war in lalaland I like

I don't like discussing how "great my ideology is".

I much prefer to discuss of much yours stink ~;)

Besides, my ideology is my own. It's not shared with anyone else. It's not written down in any book, and changes almost constantly. I'm a socialist, but since socialism isn't a religion set in stone, trying to agree with others what socialism really is, is futile.

Someone PM Jag. That's one team dealt with. :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Someone PM Jag. That's one team dealt with. :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

---

And GawainOfOrkney in opposition. We could replay 2005 & 2006, LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

English only in the Backroom, please.

This is not, as Louis would contend, cultural fascism, but because moderators can't ensure that you are following the rules.

For example, I can try a translator which will tell me the above means "I don't know". But maybe the translator doesn't know? More to the point, why am I wasting my Sunday morning trying to figure out what you meant? :wink:

Thank you kindly

:bow:

---

oops. sorry. forgot i was typing in hebrew.
(on an israeli forum right before i posted here. :embarassed:)

I'd take either side in this debate.

Whichever team wants me can have me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Actually, socialism was supposed to be transitory state, because real communism was supposed to be an utopia, kinda like Star Trek 23th century earth - there's no money and there's everything in abundance. All "communist" countries thought of themselves socialist (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) because there was still a long way to go to reach that utopia that was pure communism...

---

But communism also had all that stuff about abolishing the state. Something Star Trek has in abundance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I'd take either side in this debate.

Whichever team wants me can have me.

---

Follow your ideas and ideals.

I suggest people who want to take place that join the groups that will participate.

Arguing for the capitalism side will be tougher, methinks. I'll do my best.

What exactly is the debate topic? Traditionally there is usually a proposition or statement that needs to be argued over, right?

You won't be alone, everyone should help eachother to give the best ideas evar to make a good statement.

Quote:

---

What exactly is the debate topic? Traditionally there is usually a proposition or statement that needs to be argued over, right?

---

There could be a question that opens the debate. Both sides give an opening statement about what is the main idea regarding the question. That is the way it could start.

The topic should focus every aspect of the ideologies. Of course, there won't be "pure ideologies", there are different oppinions about one ideology.

It would be too easy and tempting to argue for communism at this point. Capitalism is getting a bad rap.

I think it would be a challenge for me to argue the capitalism side, knowing it's pitfalls myself. However, I like a challenge!

Ok, first of all, let me just say that if there were such a debate, there would first need to be an agreement on terminology, or it would go nowhere. Second of all, it would need to be kept down to a small number of participants so as not to get too hectic and impossible to navigate or reply too. If other members wanted to make comments, they could PM participants about it. Thirdly let me say that if you are willing to wait a month or so till I am back in the states, I would be willing to participate in such a debate. ~;) In the meantime though, I think the argument should be kept out of the social groups. Sorry for taking so long Caius, I was on holiday to Pecs over the weekend. (went to some good wine tastings :yes:)

I'd suggest:

Each team has a spokesperson, and each team takes turns.

Someone should moderate it, someone who isn't very political but enjoys watching a debate and can enforce the debate rules fairly.

Quote:

---

Each team has a spokesperson, and each team takes turns.

---

I thought I said that, but I didn't express the idea well.

Quote:

---

Sorry for taking so long Caius

---

The idea started yesterday.

BTW, I proposed the social group ideas because there you can post and others can see it, it is way better than the PM system because if one replies and forget one, there will be a huge disorganization, and therefore, the spokesman will have to take a lot of time to get all the replies. Maybe creating other Social group?

we could do this over skype, and record it maybe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

we could do this over skype, and record it maybe?

---

That would not reflect on the issues so much as the debater's oratory skills. It would be better to have a format where people could spend time researching and structuring their arguments and considering and debunking their opponents. It would be a lot fuller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

That would not reflect on the issues so much as the debater's oratory skills. It would be better to have a format where people could spend time researching and structuring their arguments and considering and debunking their opponents. It would be a lot fuller.

---

No debate should ever take place outside the written form, preferably with an editor.

TV debates are a nightmare. I'm proud to say that I haven't watched a single one of them since the early autumn of 2005.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No debate should ever take place outside the written form, preferably with an editor.

TV debates are a nightmare. I'm proud to say that I haven't watched a single one of them since the early autumn of 2005.

---

Oh heck yeah.

A debate, if it is to contain thoughts, must be more than shouting and grandstanding and listening to oneself talk.

Written only! It's the only way to get things done.

Quote:

---

Someone PM Jag. That's one team dealt with.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

And GawainOfOrkney in opposition. We could replay 2005 & 2006, LOL.

---

HA, those were the times, me and Gawain pretty much turned every thread into a capitalism vs communism debate! :) I miss that guy, hope he is all good.

Anyway, you would have to define what exactly the 'teams' were arguing about.

Quote:

---

Anyway, you would have to define what exactly the 'teams' were arguing about.

---

I'd suggest the economy and social aspects of both ideologies, but you guys can choose one also ;)

Looks like it gained interest. Do we shall start? How do you organize?

Post nick and ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

Looks like it gained interest. Do we shall start? How do you organize?

Post nick and ideology.

---

If I will be involved in this (which I think to some extent is probable) it will have to wait till the end of this month when I get home. Otherwise I cannot participate.

https://i44.tinypic.com/2im9ocn.png

I think capitalism wins. Especially when you take into account that China hardly even pretends anymore.

That's a false argument though. I could use your standard of proof to prove that Islam is the correct faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

https://i44.tinypic.com/2im9ocn.png

I think capitalism wins. Especially when you take into account that China hardly even pretends anymore.

---

And this is why the debate would not work... few people on the left would be willing to defend any of the countries illustrated as Communist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

And this is why the debate would not work... few people on the left would be willing to defend any of the countries illustrated as Communist.

---

I don't defend militant one-party communist states. However I will defend interventionist economics and progressive socialism. I hereby volunteer to take the side that is opposed to a totally free market and limited government, just to give you guys someone to argue with, under the following conditions:

1. Remember, I am a moderate, not a capitalist or a Marxist. I won't defend radical political figures I disagree with. And don't attribute other arguments for socialism or communism to me, debate what I have to say.

2. None of you are pure capitalists anyway. So I won't be arguing for pure communism or pure socialism or whatever.

3. Define your terms according to a dictionary we both agree upon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

And this is why the debate would not work... few people on the left would be willing to defend any of the countries illustrated as Communist.

---

I think we disproved that statement last time we had the Stalin debate. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I think we disproved that statement last time we had the Stalin debate. ~;)

---

I don't recall that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I don't recall that.

---

It wasn't you I was referring to. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

It wasn't you I was referring to. :bow:

---

Now I'm just confused :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Now I'm just confused :dizzy2:

---

Give me a few moments and I can start talking in code as well. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Give me a few moments and I can start talking in code as well. ~:)

---

Didn't you know that all Socialists were trained in code-breaking? It helps us when sending messages to our comrades in North Korea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

That's a false argument though. I could use your standard of proof to prove that Islam is the correct faith.

---

No, you could not.

It is a pretty good argument, since those countries are run by real commies, not those wishy washy lfties we have here in the West. Real commies know how to ventilate heads...

You are not advocating communism are you? Who the heck would given its laughable failure over the past hundred years. True capitalist countries are just as good at killing people, but they are the masters of the world now, while Churchill is regarded as a hero, Stalin is regarded as something akin to Hitler and Lenin a two faced hypocrite with fascist inclinations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

Lenin a two faced hypocrite with fascist inclinations.

---

Not this again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Not this again...

---

Well, we don't need to have "this" again, however it seems that some people actually think that Lenin was great guy who cared about the "people".

The first thing men like Lenin do, is proclaim from the rooftops their love of the people, before killing vast numbers of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

True capitalist countries are just as good at killing people, but they are the masters of the world now, while Churchill is regarded as a hero, Stalin is regarded as something akin to Hitler and Lenin a two faced hypocrite with fascist inclinations.

---

As good or bad as Churchill may have been, he is responsible for the deaths of many, many less people than Hitler, Lenin, or Stalin.

Quote:

---

I think capitalism wins. Especially when you take into account that China hardly even pretends anymore.

---

Yet there are people that still defend the ideology. And people have an excellent reason to condemn capitalism with the crisis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

And people have an excellent reason to condemn capitalism with the crisis.

---

I can't see that, to be honest. Most people have still held up fairly well with the economic crisis, and being honest, capitalism with the economic crisis is still a lot better than communism without one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

Yet there are people that still defend the ideology. And people have an excellent reason to condemn capitalism with the crisis.

---

Now let me see someone prove that the crisis is the result of Capitalism, and that Communism (or a state aspiring to it) could do any better. If anything, I think that the crisis we are having is a darned good example of why we need to move back to a purer form of Capitalism. I could start a 50000 year debate on that though, and it is not what this is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Now let me see someone prove that the crisis is the result of Capitalism, and that Communism (or a state aspiring to it) could do any better.

---

Economy - Problem

No economy - No problem

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:wink: All in jest, of course.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But seriously...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

No, you could not.

It is a pretty good argument, since those countries are run by real commies, not those wishy washy lfties we have here in the West. Real commies know how to ventilate heads...

You are not advocating communism are you? Who the heck would given its laughable failure over the past hundred years. True capitalist countries are just as good at killing people, but they are the masters of the world now, while Churchill is regarded as a hero, Stalin is regarded as something akin to Hitler and Lenin a two faced hypocrite with fascist inclinations.

---

Uh, yes I could. If the argument is, because communism is unpopular or on the decline, that makes it the wrong ideology, then I could argue conversely since Islam is the most popular single religion on Earth and continually on the rise, that makes it the correct religion.

You can see how absurd Argumentum ad populum is. That's a terrible standard of proof. And those countries aren't run by real commies, they are typically theocracies. There's a huge difference. I'm not advocating communism, no... I'm not advocating a totally free market either. Both are extremist ideals which don't actually work.

Part of my conditions for accepting the advocacy of (well, not really communism, but socialism) was that I would not have my positions compared to the wacko extremists like Stalin and Lenin. If one argues that if you're a socialist, you must therefore adhere to say, national socialism, and are therefore a lover of Nazis, that's a fallacious argument; something akin to strawman and ad hominem, specifically Reductio ad Hitlerum. If someone is a socialist or a communist, they may advocate nonviolent means of political change, and they might insist that the state only control the vital sectors of the economy, and simply ensure that everyone has bread and water and housing and medicine, not necessarily control everything the economy does. Which, might I add, is not that different from our "free market" economy here in the United States, where we have food stamps, public water and sanitation, government housing, and Medicare.

So... you know there's not a whole lot of difference. Our so-called free market is almost exactly halfway between free market and state control. So when people hyperventilate over returning to Clinton era tax rates and call it the end of capitalism, I feel like shipping them off to Cuba so they understand the difference between socialism and communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Which, might I add, is not that different from our "free market" economy here in the United States, where we have food stamps, public water and sanitation, government housing, and Medicare.

So... you know there's not a whole lot of difference. Our so-called free market is almost exactly halfway between free market and state control. So when people hyperventilate over returning to Clinton era tax rates and call it the end of capitalism, I feel like shipping them off to Cuba so they understand the difference between socialism and communism.

---

Thank you for admitting that we are indeed turning into a socialist country. :bow:
You yourself, sir, do not understand the difference between a socialist and a communist country. Cuba is NOT a communist country, it simply is trying to pursue Communism. It is an extreme socialist country (as was the USSR). One of the key ideas of the American system of government is that you could not allow too much power in a small number of hands, because it would lead to abuse. That is what happens in "communist" (no such thing) countries, regardless of whether it started peaceful or not. When a group of people take control, they can do whatever the heck they want. It may be simply economic exploitation, or it could be massacres. Government and economy are inseparable, as they define each other, which is why I refer to the economic system in the States and the government in the States as the same thing. Your right, pure Capitalism IS an idealist thing, and it has never and can never be realized because people are not perfect. The closer we are to that ideal though, the better. We may know we can never attain it, but we should always strive to keep as close as possible, not say "It is impossible! Let's become socialists!". It is Capitalism that has improved living for people across the world and take us to the state where the poor now adays for most part live better than most people 100 years ago, not socialism.
Communism is idealistic also, but the ideal of communism is to give the government power instead of limiting government power. It comes down to which ideal is better. Evil people find their way everywhere, but they can do a heck of a lot more damage and have much more control in a communist or socialist country with concentrated power. The Federal Government should ensure fair play, but nothing else in the economy. Bad businesses should fall, and good businesses should rise. Poor people over all live a LOT better today than 100 years ago, and it is Capitalism that has done that. If you want to help the poor, socialism is not the answer. Socialism only makes/keeps them dependent on the government, and gives ambitious people great opportunity to exploit and enslave them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

You yourself, sir, do not understand the difference between a socialist and a communist country.
[...]
Communism is idealistic also, but the ideal of communism is to give the government power instead of limiting government power.

---

Now you are showing that you yourself are unaware of what Communism in actuality is. Per Karl Marx's own views (which surely must be relevant in any reasonable debate over communism), the Superstructure of society is determined by the prevailing modes of production. Part of the Capitalistic Superstructure is the nation-state and as such with the destruction of the Base (That is to say the relations of production) the nation-state will be destroyed too. As such to claim that Communism is giving the government all the power is to commit a basic fault - that is to assume that it is a Statist ideology, which it most certainly is not. Indeed you just have to look at The Communist Manifesto for two prime examples of Marx's thoughts on this:

The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
[...]
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff.

So please, before you make sweeping generalisations about an ideology, take the time to research its ideas more thoroughly.

NB - this is not by way of defending Communism (Though I find that there is much worth defending in the ideology), this is simply to say that people have some broad misconceptions about the ideology and that these need to be dispelled before any meaningful discussion and debate can be had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Now you are showing that you yourself are unaware of what Communism in actuality is. Per Karl Marx's own views (which surely must be relevant in any reasonable debate over communism), the Superstructure of society is determined by the prevailing modes of production. Part of the Capitalistic Superstructure is the nation-state and as such with the destruction of the Base (That is to say the relations of production) the nation-state will be destroyed too. As such to claim that Communism is giving the government all the power is to commit a basic fault - that is to assume that it is a Statist ideology, which it most certainly is not. Indeed you just have to look at The Communist Manifesto for two prime examples of Marx's thoughts on this:

The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
[...]
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff.

So please, before you make sweeping generalisations about an ideology, take the time to research its ideas more thoroughly.

NB - this is not by way of defending Communism (Though I find that there is much worth defending in the ideology), this is simply to say that people have some broad misconceptions about the ideology and that these need to be dispelled before any meaningful discussion and debate can be had.

---

lol, I see we are interpreting the same thing in two different ways CA. As I said, definitions will need to be worked out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Thank you for admitting that we are indeed turning into a socialist country. :bow:

---

Not "turning into", we have been ever since the federal government and the state governments started taxing our incomes and using them for state projects, like almost every other government on earth. That's soft socialism.

Quote:

---

You yourself, sir, do not understand the difference between a socialist and a communist country.

---

ORLY?

What if I did, wouldn't that just make you feel... silly?

Quote:

---

Cuba is NOT a communist country, it simply is trying to pursue Communism.

---

Splitting hairs. If their nation is a state controlled economy with a one party system and an authoritative repressive regime, and they self-identify as Communist, that makes them... Communist.

Tada!

According to the Wiki page on Cuba, the government of Cuba is a Socialist Republic,
Single-party Communist state. Sounds like you do not understand the difference between a socialist and a communist country, but if I said that, I would be being presumptuous. Maybe it was just a long series of typographical errors on your part.

Quote:

---

It is an extreme socialist country (as was the USSR).

---

Yes, and it is also a communist state. If they weren't communist, why on Earth would they call themselves such, and why on Earth would every right-winger in the country call them Communists? Even the left-wingers admit they are Communist. It's not a big secret. It's a series of tubes.

Quote:

---

One of the key ideas of the American system of government is that you could not allow too much power in a small number of hands, because it would lead to abuse.

---

Like the abuses at Abu-Ghraib? Or Guantanamo Bay? Or warrantless wiretapping? Or legitimizing torture? Or hiring Blackwater and letting them run roughshod over Iraq? Trust me our government allows plenty of power into a small number of hands, and it does lead to abuse.

Quote:

---

That is what happens in "communist" (no such thing) countries,

---

I think you've been proved wrong in that there are no communist countries. If you look at the map Sheogorath provided, I see a few which are communist by definition.

Quote:

---

regardless of whether it started peaceful or not. When a group of people take control, they can do whatever the heck they want.

---

This is true for any system of government, and has been demonstrated countless times throughout history. It's also true for anarchy.

Quote:

---

It may be simply economic exploitation, or it could be massacres.

---

And capitalist countries never exploited people economically? Such as big corporations engaging in massive fraud or Ponzi schemes or credit card companies engaging in abusive practices which require current legislation in order to stop? Or how about those massacres, surely a capitalist country like the United States never carpet bombed anyone, engaged in Shock and Awe, destroyed people and vegetation using Agent Orange, or dropped a Nuke on anyone. Nope... no economic exploitation, no massacres, in any nation besides Communist nations, which by the way don't exist according to you, and let's also ignore the Nazis and the Fascists and the British Empire and.... :bounce:

Quote:

---

Government and economy are inseparable, as they define each other, which is why I refer to the economic system in the States and the government in the States as the same thing. Your right, pure Capitalism IS an idealist thing, and it has never and can never be realized because people are not perfect. The closer we are to that ideal though, the better.

---

So you would advocate dismantling the military because it is not a capitalist enterprise? Or perhaps ending all welfare and medical care for the sick, poor, and the elderly? Or perhaps ending our federally mandated interstate highway system? Or perhaps letting capitalists such as drug lords rule over our borders? Or perhaps having a capitalist police force which only responds to crimes if you can pay the police? Or fire response and emergency personnel who respond to the rich people first and insist on fees and monthy payments and interest?

See, we have plenty of ways of reducing the size of government and becoming more capitalist and free-market oriented, and if capitalism is such an ideal, and progressing towards that ideal is always better, why not cut these useless programs?

Quote:

---

We may know we can never attain it, but we should always strive to keep as close as possible, not say "It is impossible! Let's become socialists!".

---

We don't have to become that which we already are.

Quote:

---

It is Capitalism that has improved living for people across the world and take us to the state where the poor now adays for most part live better than most people 100 years ago, not socialism.

---

Tell that to the elderly who cannot get any medicine without the government's help. Tell that to the college student who improved his life through government loans and grants. Tell that to yourself when you drive on the interstate. Tell that to the victims of crimes who sought and found justice thanks to the government's police system, court system, and penal system. Tell that to the homeless who found assistance through outreach programs. Tell that to everyone who trusts in the military to defend this country.

You love capitalism in it's purest form? Recall if you will a bit of history: the wealthy industrialists who made a huge fortune on the backs of the poor, without safety regulations, exploiting child laborers, and paying them a pittance everyday, with conditions that made them die young, and the government who did nothing about it. That's pure capitalism. It's pretty much what they do in China... oh wait! I thought they were Communist. I guess it turns out that extreme capitalism (anarchy) is the same thing as extreme communism (totalitarianism) because they are both bad for us and they both involve abuses of human rights, and they both create a system of wealth only for the elite class.

Quote:

---

Communism is idealistic also, but the ideal of communism is to give the government power instead of limiting government power.

---

The ideal of communism is to have equality for the masses and have shared property amongst all people, but it doesn't meet that ideal, does it? The ideal of capitalism is to have freedom for the masses and a path towards prosperity for all people, but it doesn't meet that ideal, does it? In more idealistic forms, either ideology results in a super-class of people who oppress the rest, either the government does, or the corporations do. They end up resulting in the exact same thing. One big corporation which abuses everyone in a hierarchical command structure.

Quote:

---

It comes down to which ideal is better.

---

Neither ideal is better. They are extremes.

Quote:

---

Evil people find their way everywhere, but they can do a heck of a lot more damage and have much more control in a communist or socialist country with concentrated power.

---

Organized crime, drug lords, corruption, fraud, legal defense teams, control over the media by owning media conglomerates, monopolizing utilities and rental properties and businesses so that the consumer has no protections, exploiting child labor and allowing the sick and the elderly to suffer and die. That is a world run by wealth, not civil rights and government protections.

Quote:

---

The Federal Government should ensure fair play, but nothing else in the economy.

---

Define fair play? That sounds awfully socialist to me. That's not at all a concept that exists in capitalism. Capitalism is whatever the free market allows; he who bids highest for that which is being sold, he who bids lowest as a price for goods and services offered. Buy low, sell high, get rich or die trying.

Quote:

---

Bad businesses should fall, and good businesses should rise.

---

Define good or bad in this context? A good business is a profitable one? So, loan sharks are good businessmen? Those who buy up a bunch of property, and due to their monopoly on the system artificially inflate their price, and then sell them off, having contributed nothing to our society except create more inflation, that's good business?

Quote:

---

Poor people over all live a LOT better today than 100 years ago, and it is Capitalism that has done that.

---

Wrong, 100 years ago we had capitalism, and the poor had no protections, no safety regulations, no welfare, and no unemployment or insurance. Now they live in much more progressive conditions. Government intervention and social engineering has "done that".

And even more socialist nations like Sweden have even better standards of living. How many weeks of vacation? Free education, free healthcare? Capitalism didn't provide them with squat.

Quote:

---

If you want to help the poor, socialism is not the answer.

---

How are the sick and the infirm and the mentally unstable and the underage and the unemployed going to prosper without government intervention? Not everyone is made of money. If you want to help the POOR, idealistic capitalism is not the answer.

Quote:

---

Socialism only makes/keeps them dependent on the government, and gives ambitious people great opportunity to exploit and enslave them.

---

Capitalism only makes/keeps them dependent on the business class, who can fire them at any time without giving a reason, and if they cannot work for whatever reason, then they are out of luck, eh? Capitalism gives ambitious people great opportunity to exploit and enslave them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Splitting hairs. If their nation is a state controlled economy with a one party system and an authoritative repressive regime, and they self-identify as Communist, that makes them... Communist.


According to the Wiki page on Cuba, the government of Cuba is a Socialist Republic,
Single-party Communist state. Sounds like you do not understand the difference between a socialist and a communist country, but if I said that, I would be being presumptuous. Maybe it was just a long series of typographical errors on your part.


Yes, and it is also a communist state. If they weren't communist, why on Earth would they call themselves such, and why on Earth would every right-winger in the country call them Communists? Even the left-wingers admit they are Communist. It's not a big secret. It's a series of tubes.

Communism is something that these states strive for, but have never attained. They are referred to (incorrectly) as 'communist' because they strive for communism.

Like the abuses at Abu-Ghraib? Or Guantanamo Bay? Or warrantless wiretapping? Or legitimizing torture? Or hiring Blackwater and letting them run roughshod over Iraq? Trust me our government allows plenty of power into a small number of hands, and it does lead to abuse.

Quote:

---

Not "turning into", we have been ever since the federal government and the state governments started taxing our incomes and using them for state projects, like almost every other government on earth.

---

... You are right, power has been getting too concentrated, and that is why we should be striving torward limiting the power of government, NOT increasing it!

I think you've been proved wrong in that there are no communist countries. If you look at the map Sheogorath provided, I see a few which are communist by definition.

China is about as communism as my :daisy:. Cuba does not live up to it either. It is only 'communist' in that it is striving to be truely communist.

This is true for any system of government, and has been demonstrated countless times throughout history. It's also true for anarchy.

The point is though that with a government like the US government it is a looot harder for special interests to control the people and a lot easier for the people to take control back. That is because of the checks and balances.

And capitalist countries never exploited people economically? Such as big corporations engaging in massive fraud or Ponzi schemes or credit card companies engaging in abusive practices which require current legislation in order to stop? Or how about those massacres, surely a capitalist country like the United States never carpet bombed anyone, engaged in Shock and Awe, destroyed people and vegetation using Agent Orange, or dropped a Nuke on anyone. Nope... no economic exploitation, no massacres, in any nation besides Communist nations, which by the way don't exist according to you, and let's also ignore the Nazis and the Fascists and the British Empire and.... :bounce:

As I said myself, I am talking about the US system, not the British Empire. And you may want to do your homework, Nazi Germany was a socialist state. As I said, not government is perfect, but compare what happened in the US to what happened in the USSR! The point is that it is a lot HARDER for special interests and ambitious people to take control and the level of control they have is much more limited in a country like the US than in a communist country.

So you would advocate dismantling the military because it is not a capitalist enterprise? Or perhaps ending all welfare and medical care for the sick, poor, and the elderly? Or perhaps ending our federally mandated interstate highway system? Or perhaps letting capitalists such as drug lords rule over our borders? Or perhaps having a capitalist police force which only responds to crimes if you can pay the police? Or fire response and emergency personnel who respond to the rich people first and insist on fees and monthy payments and interest?

Infrastructure, military? Those are things that are in the US constitution!! They are the duties of the Federal Government!

See, we have plenty of ways of reducing the size of government and becoming more capitalist and free-market oriented, and if capitalism is such an ideal, and progressing towards that ideal is always better, why not cut these useless programs?

A Capitalist government does not try to get rid of the government (look up anarchy), it tries to keep it small and efficient. It is supposed to be a well trimmed body that performs its functions (and its functions are very important), but it is NOT supposed to wander into areas or take power that is not its own. And, it is supposed to stay small and efficient.

We don't have to become that which we already are.



Tell that to the elderly who cannot get any medicine without the government's help. Tell that to the college student who improved his life through government loans and grants. Tell that to yourself when you drive on the interstate. Tell that to the victims of crimes who sought and found justice thanks to the government's police system, court system, and penal system. Tell that to the homeless who found assistance through outreach programs. Tell that to everyone who trusts in the military to defend this country.

lol, most of what you said ARE basic, important functions that the Federal Government is supposed to carry out in an idealistic Capitalist country. You seem to be of the opinion that Capitalism is Corporate Anarchy, it is not. Capitalist countries need governments, they are just small and efficient. They are supposed to take care of law and order, infrustructure, and military defense.

You love capitalism in it's purest form? Recall if you will a bit of history: the wealthy industrialists who made a huge fortune on the backs of the poor, without safety regulations, exploiting child laborers, and paying them a pittance everyday, with conditions that made them die young, and the government who did nothing about it. That's pure capitalism. It's pretty much what they do in China... oh wait! I thought they were Communist. I guess it turns out that extreme capitalism (anarchy) is the same thing as extreme communism (totalitarianism) because they are both bad for us and they both involve abuses of human rights, and they both create a system of wealth only for the elite class.

lmao, so now you admit that you think Capitalism is anarchy. :P Capitalism is Capitalism, there is no such thing as 'extreme Capitalism'. If you really think it is anarchy, then I suggest that you read up a bit on it. What does Adam Smith say about it BTW? Have you ever read the Wealth of Nations? Perhaps that would help you a bit in understanding Capitalism. The government is supposed to protect the basic rights of individuals and corporations. That does not mean that they need to feed the starving children (that would be socialism), but that they will stop the starving children from being exploited so that they have a fair chance. Fair play (ei, protecting basic rights) IS the job of the government in a Capitalist country. Stopping things like child labour is the job of a capitalist government. Feeding unfortunate children with food bought with the tax payer's money is socialism. One seeks to protect rights, the other to make circumstances equal.

The ideal of communism is to have equality for the masses and have shared property amongst all people, but it doesn't meet that ideal, does it? The ideal of capitalism is to have freedom for the masses and a path towards prosperity for all people, but it doesn't meet that ideal, does it? In more idealistic forms, either ideology results in a super-class of people who oppress the rest, either the government does, or the corporations do. They end up resulting in the exact same thing. One big corporation which abuses everyone in a hierarchical command structure.

lol, but it is the job of a communism government to distribute this wealth and property and to regulate everything. That is where it fails. (and without it, you have anarchy, not communism) And you saying that people in Capitalist countries (like the US) have the same control and freedom as people in 'communist' countries (such as the USSR or Cuba) is absurd! Neither are perfect, but Capitalism makes life soo much better. Look at what happened in Hungary in the late 70's early 80's. That is a perfect example.

Neither ideal is better. They are extremes.

ok...have fun on the beaches in Cuba.

Organized crime, drug lords, corruption, fraud, legal defense teams, control over the media by owning media conglomerates, monopolizing utilities and rental properties and businesses so that the consumer has no protections, exploiting child labor and allowing the sick and the elderly to suffer and die. That is a world run by wealth, not civil rights and government protections.

The government is supposed to protect the rights of the people and businesses in a Capitalist government! Give the government the power to redistribute wealth (which it has been getting an increasing amount of in the states) and it abuses the power more and more. And BTW, whine all you like, but people are doing better in the States (which as we both admit is slipping ever farther from its ideal (do to people like you who think it is an unrealistic and dangerous one)) than they do in 'communist' countries or socialist countries where the government thinks it is their duty to take care of everyone.

Define fair play? That sounds awfully socialist to me. That's not at all a concept that exists in capitalism. Capitalism is whatever the free market allows; he who bids highest for that which is being sold, he who bids lowest as a price for goods and services offered. Buy low, sell high, get rich or die trying.

Wow... :P (again, I highly suggest reading the Wealth of Nations) The government is NOT supposed to redistribute wealth or 'buy out' companies, or help those in trouble, or anything like that. They are supposed to protect basic rights, and that is all. If a business gets bought out, too :daisy: bad for it. If a business dies, too :daisy: bad for it. If a person goes broke, too bad. A Capitalist government ensures that everyone's rights are protected, and that is all.

Define good or bad in this context? A good business is a profitable one? So, loan sharks are good businessmen? Those who buy up a bunch of property, and due to their monopoly on the system artificially inflate their price, and then sell them off, having contributed nothing to our society except create more inflation, that's good business?

I mean succesful ones and ones that do not infringe on people's rights.

Wrong, 100 years ago we had capitalism, and the poor had no protections, no safety regulations, no welfare, and no unemployment or insurance. Now they live in much more progressive conditions. Government intervention and social engineering has "done that".


And even more socialist nations like Sweden have even better standards of living. How many weeks of vacation? Free education, free healthcare? Capitalism didn't provide them with squat.

Wrong, we didn't have a perfect form then, and don't now. We learned through trial and error that greater steps have to be taken to ensure people's basic rights are safe. An important thing though, the right to the pursuit of happiness, not the right to happiness. That is the difference between socialism and communism. A capitalist government protects your right to work for wealth, and if you are lucky and work hard enough you can earn it. A socialist government thinks that if you do not have enough, they need to give it to you. You are sounded increasingly ignorant to me when you say that Capitalism hasn't done any good. Do you have any idea at all how much the standard of living improved world-wide due to Capitalism? By economies becoming that much stronger, people were able to buy a lot more, have access to a lot more, and competition sparked invention. The world advanced more in the last 300 years than it has in the 1000 years before that! And look what Britains quasi Capitalist system did for the world? Sure, it resulted in the exploitation and death of many (I am not arguing for 'British Capitalism', because the word is an oxymoron), but the elements of Capitalism in it allowed conditions around the world to improve immensely as world economies improved. Needless to say that in a country with minimalist government (the US) where free speech is allowed, look at all the advancements in society have been made? If it weren't for the US, life now would probably feel something like it did 300 years ago.

How are the sick and the infirm and the mentally unstable and the underage and the unemployed going to prosper without government intervention? Not everyone is made of money. If you want to help the POOR, idealistic capitalism is not the answer.

Give the poor opportunitty, not bread. Bread makes them dependent on you, and now you have a control over them. When they have opportunitty and can get things for themselves, they are a lot less dependent and have a lot more freedom. Sick, infirm? Charity. It is NOT the job of government to do that. If you are concerned about the sick, then you should get involved with charity organizations (and set an example!), not the government. You say Capitalism is not the answer for the poor? My life refutes your statement. My dad died when I was barely old enough to work, and I had a family of 5 siblings and mother to support. We had VERY little money when my dad was alive as it was, and were certainly not what you would call "made of money". My two sisters and I got jobs and have been working ever since. We are no longer depending on our continued poverty to get our bread. With all three of us working we have been able to enjoy a much better standard of living than we would have with government support, and all three of us have either graduated or will be this year. My other brothers are now working and two are going to college. I took out my first loan this year, and until then had been paying with my own money. Capitalism works.

Capitalism only makes/keeps them dependent on the business class, who can fire them at any time without giving a reason, and if they cannot work for whatever reason, then they are out of luck, eh? Capitalism gives ambitious people great opportunity to exploit and enslave them.

Total BS. Capitalism gives the common people opportunitty they would not have in a Communist government to work for themselves, to start their own business. This in turn creates other options for people who need employment. People are and have been freerer in America than any people have ever been in history. The government is supposed to prevent businesses from infringing on people's rights. If you really think that you are a slave to corporations, why don't you go to Cuba and talk to them about it? Wait, I'm sorry, they are slaves who cannot talk about things like that. If the people in the US wanted a Nazi government, they could vote for Nazi politicians and have it. If they wanted a Communism government they could vote for Communism politicians who could then start amending the Constitution. That is power. That is power that people have never had before. If you do not have economic freedom, you do not have ANY freedom. If you are dependent on someone else for your food, you gotta do what they say. "don't bite the hand that feeds you" The government should NOT be the hand that feeds you, you should feed yourself.

---

That said, we are kind of having the debate ahead of time. Maybe we should wait till I get back and can actually have some sources. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

lol, I see we are interpreting the same thing in two different ways CA. As I said, definitions will need to be worked out.

---

We are not interpreting the same thing at all - you are simply incorrect about believing Communism is a Statist ideology because there is no grounds for that belief. If you can find any of Marx or Engel's writings that show that then I will be wiling to admit that the point is debatable.

I don't believe you shall find any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Uh, yes I could. If the argument is, because communism is unpopular or on the decline, that makes it the wrong ideology, then I could argue conversely since Islam is the most popular single religion on Earth and continually on the rise, that makes it the correct religion.

You can see how absurd Argumentum ad populum is. That's a terrible standard of proof. And those countries aren't run by real commies, they are typically theocracies. There's a huge difference. I'm not advocating communism, no... I'm not advocating a totally free market either. Both are extremist ideals which don't actually work.

Part of my conditions for accepting the advocacy of (well, not really communism, but socialism) was that I would not have my positions compared to the wacko extremists like Stalin and Lenin. If one argues that if you're a socialist, you must therefore adhere to say, national socialism, and are therefore a lover of Nazis, that's a fallacious argument; something akin to strawman and ad hominem, specifically Reductio ad Hitlerum. If someone is a socialist or a communist, they may advocate nonviolent means of political change, and they might insist that the state only control the vital sectors of the economy, and simply ensure that everyone has bread and water and housing and medicine, not necessarily control everything the economy does. Which, might I add, is not that different from our "free market" economy here in the United States, where we have food stamps, public water and sanitation, government housing, and Medicare.

So... you know there's not a whole lot of difference. Our so-called free market is almost exactly halfway between free market and state control. So when people hyperventilate over returning to Clinton era tax rates and call it the end of capitalism, I feel like shipping them off to Cuba so they understand the difference between socialism and communism.

---

...

Umm, Islam is not the most popular single religion on Earth. To actually try and acertain the correct number of Muslims and the growth of Islam would be impposible, since in some Islamic countries it is not legally recognised tha one could be part of any non-Islamic religions.

We are not talking about socialism, as is often the problem with these discussions people retreat from the ideal of communsim because it is an utterly comptemptable form of governing and one which has proven to be both impossible to implement properly and a catasrophic failure. I am going to compare communist views to those men whom ruled communist countries because ethey are the real world example, not some high flown ideological, unreal point of reference. It is entirely the fault of modern commies if they wish to continue to perpetuate the hateful and dangerous ideals of communism, in a world which has clearly wanted rid of them for some time, that is why nearly all commies are university students. Ever think one of them has worked in a factory?

Now, if you are taking up the argument of socialism then I would not argue against you and would agree with you on many points, but the debate says communism which as you said, is an extremism.

Oh and, I didn't talk about Nazism, but fascism, something very akin to what Lenin was running in Russia.

ATPG despite myself being a firm believer in the welfare state, I'm with Vuk in that a communist country has never existed. And I don't mean 'pure' communism, as obviously there has been no 'purely' capitalist state either.

Those countries which Hawks like to call communist and tell us they have people hiding under our beds, those countries never got by the earlier stages of Marx's plan. Before you can become a functioning communist state/entity, you must go through the socialist stage. Contrary to the scare tactics employed by the west throughout the Cold War, communist is not an ideology of big government, in fact it is based on the idea of the withering away of the state. However, that is a gradual process, and first socialism is required to further the 'glorious revolution' and remove all burgeoisie property, placing power in the hands of the workers and finally building a more equal society at first. Obviously, to do such things you need a big government, and that is what all these so called 'communist' countries have had. So it would not really be appropriate to call them communist, since I think its fair enough to say none of them reached that stage. In fact, according to Marx most of 'communist' countries we think of were not even ready for socialism, they had barely had a bourgeoisie revolution to take power out of the old aristocracies, never mind the workers revolution after the process of industrialisation has taken place.

The clost thing the world has seen to communism has probably been various settler communities in the less strictly controlled parts of the New World. Places like Plymouth Colony worked on communist principles (obviously withouth the Marxist industrial overtones) because their circumstances meant that they already began with what the bourgeoisie/proletarian revolutions were meant to achieve, in removing all stolen labour (through feudalism/factory exploitation) and providing a base from which a communist society could be built up. And it worked, for a while at least. Ultimately they were absorbed into the mercantilist world, which was perhaps inevitable, not due to their own failure, but to overwhelming outside influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

Umm, Islam is not the most popular single religion on Earth. To actually try and acertain the correct number of Muslims and the growth of Islam would be impposible, since in some Islamic countries it is ellegal to be part of any non-Islamic religions.

---

http://geography.about.com/od/cultur...arreligion.htm

1) Christians - 2,116,909,552 (which includes 1,117,759,185 Roman Catholics, 372,586,395 Protestants, 221,746,920 Orthodox, and 81,865,869 Anglicans)
2) Muslims - 1,282,780,149
3) Hindus - 856,690,863
4) Buddhists - 381,610,979
5) Sikhs - 25,139,912
6) Jews - 14,826,102
a) Others - 814,146,396
b) Non-Religious - 801,898,746
c) Atheists - 152,128,701

If you consider all of Christianity one religion, then they just edge out the Muslims. However, the vast differences in belief between Anglicans, Orthodox, Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons really should be considered different religions. These numbers are from 2005. I read an article recently which showed that Islam had surpassed Catholicism as the world's most populous religion. If someone could find that article that would be great.

But it doesn't really matter to me. it IS either Roman Catholicism or Islam. And it's ALL beside the point: The point was that being popular does not make you right. And that's kind of a fact, end of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

http://geography.about.com/od/cultur...arreligion.htm

1) Christians - 2,116,909,552 (which includes 1,117,759,185 Roman Catholics, 372,586,395 Protestants, 221,746,920 Orthodox, and 81,865,869 Anglicans)
2) Muslims - 1,282,780,149
3) Hindus - 856,690,863
4) Buddhists - 381,610,979
5) Sikhs - 25,139,912
6) Jews - 14,826,102
a) Others - 814,146,396
b) Non-Religious - 801,898,746
c) Atheists - 152,128,701

If you consider all of Christianity one religion, then they just edge out the Muslims. However, the vast differences in belief between Anglicans, Orthodox, Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons really should be considered different religions. These numbers are from 2005. I read an article recently which showed that Islam had surpassed Catholicism as the world's most populous religion. If someone could find that article that would be great.

But it doesn't really matter to me. it IS either Roman Catholicism or Islam. And it's ALL beside the point: The point was that being popular does not make you right. And that's kind of a fact, end of story.

---

You say Muslims, I say Christians, seems fair enough to me, and means that you are wrong.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

ATPG despite myself being a firm believer in the welfare state, I'm with Vuk in that a communist country has never existed. And I don't mean 'pure' communism, as obviously there has been no 'purely' capitalist state either.

Those countries which Hawks like to call communist and tell us they have people hiding under our beds, those countries never got by the earlier stages of Marx's plan. Before you can become a functioning communist state/entity, you must go through the socialist stage. Contrary to the scare tactics employed by the west throughout the Cold War, communist is not an ideology of big government, in fact it is based on the idea of the withering away of the state. However, that is a gradual process, and first socialism is required to further the 'glorious revolution' and remove all burgeoisie property, placing power in the hands of the workers and finally building a more equal society at first. Obviously, to do such things you need a big government, and that is what all these so called 'communist' countries have had. So it would not really be appropriate to call them communist, since I think its fair enough to say none of them reached that stage. In fact, according to Marx most of 'communist' countries we think of were not even ready for socialism, they had barely had a bourgeoisie revolution to take power out of the old aristocracies, never mind the workers revolution after the process of industrialisation has taken place.

The clost thing the world has seen to communism has probably been various settler communities in the less strictly controlled parts of the New World. Places like Plymouth Colony worked on communist principles (obviously withouth the Marxist industrial overtones) because their circumstances meant that they already began with what the bourgeoisie/proletarian revolutions were meant to achieve, in removing all stolen labour (through feudalism/factory exploitation) and providing a base from which a communist society could be built up. And it worked, for a while at least. Ultimately they were absorbed into the mercantilist world, which was perhaps inevitable, not due to their own failure, but to overwhelming outside influence.

---

You're just splitting hairs.

There was an anti-communist movement in the 50's in this country, and anti-communism in Germany is one of the primary factors for the formation of the Nazi party. The Cold War was considered to be between free countries and the communists. Who were the communists, then? What about these people who are part of Communist parties?

You can quibble over "true" communism never having existed, but then I could say that "true" capitalism never existed either and we can just natter over definitions until the discussion gets bland and pointless. If communism never existed, then why are we having this discussion over which is better? Why so much fear over an ideology which is nothing more than a ghost?

Ridiculous. So what if it wasn't 100% "communist". Compared to every other ideology on earth, there are states which are the "most" communist and they are called "Communist" states. Pointless to argue this further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

You say Muslims, I say Christians, seems fair enough to me, and means that you are wrong.

---

I provided evidence that you could in fact be wrong. But until you provide better evidence that I am wrong, you can't say that I am with any credibility.

Quote:

---

I provided evidence that you could in fact be wrong. But until you provide better evidence that I am wrong, you can't say that I am with any credibility.

---

Oh dear.

Not getting it are you, you said Mulsim/Islam, so I said Christian/Christianity.
You went "aha I have him now" and went on about Christian denominations, thus provong in a flash of brilliance that you were right! Well no actually you did not, because you continued to call it Islam, not Sunni, Shia, Wahhabi etc.

So if we continued to use your reasoning, then I can call it Christianity, which means you are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

[SPOIL]You can quibble over "true" communism never having existed, but then I could say that "true" capitalism never existed either and we can just natter over definitions until the discussion gets bland and pointless.

---

I knew you would say that, I knew it!

You are missing my point. You are treating communism as an extreme form of socialism, when it is not. Socialist countries are not just 'slightly communist', they are not communist at all. Communism is an entirely different system, which in the Marxist view is preceeded by socialism out of necessity. Socialism involved the use of big government to prepare the state/entity for the implementation of communism. I am not arguing that by degree a purely communist state has ever existed, I am arguing that there is a very clear line between socialism and communism, indeed they are as distinct to each other as they each are to capitalism. No country in the world has ever been communist, the Cold War was fought between capitalist and socialist ideologies. Of course, plenty of socialist countries have existed, and often they have been unpleasant regimes. But that is as much due to regional circumstances as anything. The nationalists in China would not have been a pleasant bunch if they gained power, and strangely some of the worst elements of the PRC have been caused by a nationalist element not related to socialism, which is by its nature an international ideology. Similary, in Korea the South was a very unpleasant state for a good while after it was spoon fed development funds from the west.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

Oh dear.

Not getting it are you, you said Mulsim/Islam, so I said Christian/Christianity.
You went "aha I have him now" and went on about Christian denominations, thus provong in a flash of brilliance that you were right! Well no actually you did not, because you continued to call it Islam, not Sunni, Shia, Wahhabi etc.

So if we continued to use your reasoning, then I can call it Christianity, which means you are wrong.

---

Oh dear.

Not getting it are you. I'll cede whichever religion you want as the most popular, I don't really care; the POINT was that argument from popularity is a false standard of proof. What is popular does not equal what is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Oh dear.

Not getting it are you. I'll cede whichever religion you want as the most popular, I don't really care; the POINT was that argument from popularity is a false standard of proof. What is popular does not equal what is right.

---

Ah, so you were wrong.

Now onto the argument of popularity as proof, it is more than mere popularity, many countries used to be communist, but no longer. This drop in popularity probabaly has something to do with it not working properly, some might say the use of routine torture regardless of age and gender also has something to do with it as well. When we were discussing religion, we cannot make the comparison, niether Islam or Christianity can be said to have suffered critical drops in popularity and indeed both religions are still growing and will in my opinion continue to do so.
Where is communism going? Nowhere.

Socialism is a completley different issue, socialism has worked out well in many countries, countries which were opposed to communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

This drop in popularity probabaly has something to do with it not working properly, some might say the use of routine torture regardless of age and gender also has something to do with it as well.

---

Are you saying that Communism supports that? I am a Communist and I certainly don't. And about gender, I don't think certain genders should have special treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

Where is communism going? Nowhere.

---

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is strong and is a popular party in Russia according to Wikipedia.
A video Skullheadhq posted in the S/CG.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsENOy2I1II

Lady's and gentlemen, I hereby present the Milton Friedman choir, why talk about free market when you can sing it? That's what I thought.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer...47019713273360

:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

You can quibble over "true" communism never having existed, but then I could say that "true" capitalism never existed either and we can just natter over definitions until the discussion gets bland and pointless.

---

There's a slight problem with the term "capitalist" too. According to Marx it was the phase of development, somewhere after feudalism and right before the socialist revolution. He basically thought that every facet of society was determined by the distribution of property and the innate desire to aquire more wealth- something that only a socialist overhaul could do away with. So capitalism is a very general, very inclusive concept that would describe basically every industrialised society wich isn't socialist. When people call themselves capitalist they usually mean anti-communist.

I consider myself to be a moderate, leaning towards free market liberalism but wouldn't call myself a capitalist. This is partly because of the reason mentioned above and also because I'm often sceptical of companies myself. Companies are innately opportunistic and they're not above screwing the taxpaying consumers by lobbying for government measures wich are beneficial for them in the short run and disadvantegeous for everyone in the long run- protectionism is a case in point, as are infrastructural projects wich turn out to be useless.

That said, it ticks me off when politicians try to lay the blame on bankers or whoever is the scapegoat of the day for "acting irresponsibly". Some say that just because you can exploit the rules doesn't mean you should. I think that's the wrong approach. You have to assume people will be greedy, that they will exploit the rules if it's beneficial for them and devise the rules starting from that premise. I could start a page long post about wich regulations I think are necessary and wich are a burden, but let's just say that I think of myself as pragmatic rather than dogmatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

There's a slight problem with the term "capitalist" too. According to Marx it was the phase of development, somewhere after feudalism and right before the socialist revolution. He basically thought that every facet of society was determined by the distribution of property and the innate desire to aquire more wealth- something that only a socialist overhaul could do away with. So capitalism is a very general, very inclusive concept that would describe basically every industrialised society wich isn't socialist. When people call themselves capitalist they usually mean anti-communist.

I consider myself to be a moderate, leaning towards free market liberalism but wouldn't call myself a capitalist. This is partly because of the reason mentioned above and also because I'm often sceptical of companies myself. Companies are innately opportunistic and they're not above screwing the taxpaying consumers by lobbying for government measures wich are beneficial for them in the short run and disadvantegeous for everyone in the long run- protectionism is a case in point, as are infrastructural projects wich turn out to be useless.

That said, it ticks me off when politicians try to lay the blame on bankers or whoever is the scapegoat of the day for "acting irresponsibly". Some say that just because you can exploit the rules doesn't mean you should. I think that's the wrong approach. You have to assume people will be greedy, that they will exploit the rules if it's beneficial for them and devise the rules starting from that premise. I could start a page long post about wich regulations I think are necessary and wich are a burden, but let's just say that I think of myself as pragmatic rather than dogmatic.

---

When we talk about socialism and communism, let's by all means use Marx's definition, but it is hardly appropriate to use his definition of Capitalism. A Capitalists definition of socialism is going to be inherently negative, as will a socialist's definition of Capitalism. Let us instead use the great document that the founding fathers made, and the works of Adam Smith to help us define Capitalism.

I'd prefer to use an agreed-upon online dictionary to define all our terms, to end the quibbling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I'd prefer to use an agreed-upon online dictionary to define all our terms, to end the quibbling.

---

That is hardly scholarly. They go through the same process we do, and they get their definitions from their sources according to the authors' political inclinations. If we are gonna agree on terms, we are gonna do it on our own terms. :eyebrows: Let the communists define communism and CITE their sources. Then the Capitalists can decide whether to agree on those terms or not. Let the Capitalist define capitalist terms, then let the Communists agree whether to accept them or not. That process is going to be a good 3/4 of the debate, and possibly the most interesting and intense part.

Oh Jesus Mary and Joseph... good Lord, no.

I have no interest in quibbling over the definition of capitalism versus communism. I don't wish to invent definitions nor do I wish to redefine terms which have commonly accepted meanings already. Why is it that people insist on bringing their own bizarre definitions to debates when they know that no one else will agree with their definitions? That renders the discussion futile.

I'll accept any standard definition found in a free dictionary anyone can access, assuming it is at least a marginally credible source (i.e. not Fox News dictionary, nor Air America dictionary, if there were one)

Maybe it's a better idea to let people explain their preferred economic system and divide them in two camps after that.

The problem with agreeing upon a definition for communism is that it is so widely misunderstood, that it is this warped understanding that has become the commonly accepted notion of the ideology.

ATPG please consider my previous post, communism is not simply a more pure or extreme version of socialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Oh Jesus Mary and Joseph... good Lord, no.

I have no interest in quibbling over the definition of capitalism versus communism. I don't wish to invent definitions nor do I wish to redefine terms which have commonly accepted meanings already. Why is it that people insist on bringing their own bizarre definitions to debates when they know that no one else will agree with their definitions? That renders the discussion futile.

I'll accept any standard definition found in a free dictionary anyone can access, assuming it is at least a marginally credible source (i.e. not Fox News dictionary, nor Air America dictionary, if there were one)

---

The problem is that there are NOT commonly accepted definitions. These are things that I hear professors in my university who have their offices right across from each other argue about. Many political and economic pioneers have defined the terms differently, and this is very important, as it can change completely what is being argued about. One side will think that the other side does not have a realistic perception, and the other side will think the same about them. It is completely necessary that we agree on definitions beforehand, and that we do not consult a dictionary. (dictionaries are as unscholarly as you can get. They are people with political preferences, and who are NOT experts on the subject who read different experts and then decide who they agree with more and write that down as the definition. That is demonstrated by almost every dictionary having a different definition. How can it be commonly accepted if the different 'marginally credible' sources cannot agree on it? It is something best defined through debate. The fires of debate will burn the chaff out.

"Let us instead use the great document that the founding fathers made, and the works of Adam Smith to help us define Capitalism.": Why should I? I am far to agree on the US Constitution, especially due to the fact that some of the authors were slaves owners... So, their view on capitalism is a little bit bias...:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

The problem is that there are NOT commonly accepted definitions. These are things that I hear professors in my university who have their offices right across from each other argue about. Many political and economic pioneers have defined the terms differently, and this is very important, as it can change completely what is being argued about. One side will think that the other side does not have a realistic perception, and the other side will think the same about them. It is completely necessary that we agree on definitions beforehand, and that we do not consult a dictionary. (dictionaries are as unscholarly as you can get. They are people with political preferences, and who are NOT experts on the subject who read different experts and then decide who they agree with more and write that down as the definition. That is demonstrated by almost every dictionary having a different definition. How can it be commonly accepted if the different 'marginally credible' sources cannot agree on it? It is something best defined through debate. The fires of debate will burn the chaff out.

---

it's not worth debating.

In the end, in order to have a discussion, we have to agree on terms anyway. So pick your terms and I'll agree to them, or I'll look at your definitions, laugh, and walk away. There is no need for a debate about definitions, I know what words mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Let us instead use the great document that the founding fathers made, and the works of Adam Smith to help us define Capitalism.": Why should I? I am far to agree on the US Constitution, especially due to the fact that some of the authors were slaves owners... So, their view on capitalism is a little bit bias...:sweatdrop:

---

Anyone's view is biased. Yours is, mine is, Marx's was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

it's not worth debating.

In the end, in order to have a discussion, we have to agree on terms anyway. So pick your terms and I'll agree to them, or I'll look at your definitions, laugh, and walk away. There is no need for a debate about definitions, I know what words mean.

---

You know what words mean to you. A lot of words are subjective, as they have been twisted time and again to bend their meaning to one political ideology. As such, many words have meanings specific to a person. From my view point, you have shown in this thread that you have no idea what Capitalism means. I am not saying make words up, but simply try to arrive at the fairest and truest meaning as best we can through discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

You know what words mean to you. A lot of words are subjective, as they have been twisted time and again to bend their meaning to one political ideology. As such, many words have meanings specific to a person. From my view point, you have shown in this thread that you have no idea what Capitalism means. I am not saying make words up, but simply try to arrive at the fairest and truest meaning as best we can through discussion.

---

Fine. Discussion is over. What's the definition of words, since I don't know them?

Fill in the blanks, and then I'll use those definitions and we can have a debate. I'd prefer to skip the "negotiation" aspect of the debate and just debate. Define your terms and I'll use those definitions. My definitions will be the same as yours or I won't debate. Simple. Why is this so hard? Especially since I don't know what I'm talking about. You can just dictate the terms of the discussion since you know what the words mean more than I do. I bow to your superior handling of subjective definitions.

Now, define your terms and let's proceed with the debate. If you don't, I'll use a dictionary and proceed from there without you.