Capitalism vs Comunism team debate

[Incongruous]

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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

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.

[Incongruous]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

[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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.

[Incongruous]

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.

[lenin96]

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.

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

[Fragony]

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

[Kralizec]

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.

[Vuk]

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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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

[Vuk]

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. 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.

[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)

[Kralizec]

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Vuk]

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.

[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...

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.

[Vuk]

"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...

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

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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.

[Vuk]

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.

t...t...t...t...t...typical....ATPG

I never said that my definitions were superior to yours or that I knew better than you. My entire point is that we all have our own ideas about it and think that we are right, but they are different. As such a discussion would be impossible without defining the terms before hand. What you just said is 'you pick the terms, BUT if they are not my terms, I do not debate'. ei, you just said your terms or nothing. That is the attitude I am talking about. Why not let historical and political debate shape the terms we use to something realistic that we can both agree on?

[Askthepizzaguy]

t...t...t...t...t...typical....ATPG

I never said that my definitions were superior to yours or that I knew better than you. My entire point is that we all have our own ideas about it and think that we are right, but they are different. As such a discussion would be impossible without defining the terms before hand. What you just said is 'you pick the terms, BUT if they are not my terms, I do not debate'. ei, you just said your terms or nothing. That is the attitude I am talking about. Why not let historical and political debate shape the terms we use to something realistic that we can both agree on?

You implied I didn't know what I was talking about when it came to capitalism, and you also refuse to define your terms, as such the debate, for me, is over. It never happened and apparently, won't.

Others can have fun with this; it's pretty much getting tiresome for me now. Unsubscribed.

[Vuk]

You implied I didn't know what I was talking about when it came to capitalism, and you also refuse to define your terms, as such the debate, for me, is over. It never happened and apparently, won't.

Others can have fun with this; it's pretty much getting tiresome for me now. Unsubscribed.

You missed my entire point. I was not saying that I was righter than you, but simply that from my perspective I was, and that from your perspective you were. I was trying to point out how definitions can vary so much by people. To be honest, my blood pressure is high already and I have had enough of this too. Also, I think it is waaaay to broad a subject without clear goals and rules that really could not work. Best of luck to whoever wants to try.

[Fragony]

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ennui.htm

[Rhyfelwyr]

ATPG we are not quibbling over terms here, if you want to know what communism is you have to actually read the defining works of the ideology, not look up a couple of lines in a dictionary.

You still haven't commented on my post about how communism is in no way an extreme form of socialism, and you should not treat it as such.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

84 posts and still arguing definitions....


Closed: \'klōzd\ 1. This thread is done.