Capitalism vs Comunism team debate

[Caius]

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

Post nick and ideology.

[Vuk]

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.

[Sheogorath]

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

[Askthepizzaguy]

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

[CountArach]

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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[CountArach]

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

I don't recall that.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I don't recall that.

It wasn't you I was referring to.

[CountArach]

It wasn't you I was referring to.

Now I'm just confused

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Now I'm just confused

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

[CountArach]

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.

[Incongruous]

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.

[CountArach]

Lenin a two faced hypocrite with fascist inclinations.

Not this again...

[Incongruous]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[Caius]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[Vuk]

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.

[CountArach]

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: 

All in jest, of course.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But seriously...

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.

[Vuk]

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.
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.

[CountArach]

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.

[Vuk]

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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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?

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.

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.

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.

It comes down to which ideal is better.

Neither ideal is better. They are extremes.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Vuk]

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.

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 . 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....

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 bad for it. If a business dies, too 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

[CountArach]

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.

[Incongruous]

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.

[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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.