Capitalism vs Comunism team debate

**Caius** · 05-03-2009, 00:04

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

**Rhyfelwyr** · 05-03-2009, 00:06

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.

**Kralizec** · 05-03-2009, 02:13

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.

**Sarmatian** · 05-03-2009, 02:29

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...

**Kralizec** · 05-03-2009, 02:41

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.

**CountArach** · 05-03-2009, 07:29

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.

**lars573** · 05-03-2009, 16:42

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.