Pure communism or Pure capitalism??

Capitalism. I would rather not break my back working to pay for everyone else.

Hahaha, as if pure communism would ever work

lostrib

Assume for a second that Marx's theory was perfect in practice and that pure capitalism was to be applied as well (privatisation of everything). They both work like they say they do on paper. Which one would you prefer? In communism, you are guaranteed a decent standard of living with your quality in life moving up as the society progresses as a whole. In pure capitalism you are not guaranteed anything, but you have the chance to move forward and backwards as well (alone, however). Which society would you prefer?

BossPerson

If the rich in a pure capitalist state were forced to give up more money to help the lower classes obtain a decent standard of living I would choose pure capitalism. Now for that to work well, we'd have to completely abolish drugs/alcohol so everyone lived a sober life and it would be harder for the less fortunateto turn to drugs/alcohol. Then they would be more thankful for what they receive to help them live a better life. (yeah wishful thinking is what it is *cracks a beer*)

Communism in a perfect world.

Neither work at the moment, both are being exploited by corrupt individuals within the governing factions. In a perfect world, I would prefer living in a Communist state. I would rather that everyone be considered equal, and have access to their rights as such.

Capitalism rewards profit, profit takes away from the (nation in question's) economy and privatizes it in the form of equity for an individual. If that individual decides to purchase something, that equity is released to the economy once again. The problem with that system is that profit can build to the point where the amount of funds needed to pay for various expenses is dwarfed by surplus. That reduces the total amount of funds available to everyone else, which promotes poverty in extreme cases. Cases somewhat relating to the current climate of the United States of America.

In a perfect Communist state, those funds are equally distributed to prevent any kind of poverty. This way, there is no need for crime, since everyone (should be) well enough off. This is the appeal towards Communism for me, it's a more polished system. The problem with Communism in this reality, is that humans aren't nurturing beings by default. We would rather reward ourselves more than others, we feel the need to have what others don't have.

What human nature needs to be for Communism to work, is to be caring and selfless. This is the way it is, anything else is just the by product of our nature telling us that we should be greedy, selfish individuals. It's a defence mechanism triggered by opposition to our hard wiring.

I've always thought arguments in favor of "pure communism" to be absurd. It can't happen without voiding one's volition and still requires the suspension of disbelief, so... what's the point of even theorizing? That being said, the choices are a presumably pure communist state versus a presumably pure capitalist state.

On one hand, you have an assumed impossibility, on the other hand, you have a system in which there are no safeguards against monopolies, resulting in continually decreasing competition. As market competition is a key tenet of capitalism, it stands to reason that a "pure" capitalist state is also likely impossible.

If forced to choose between these two equally improbable (if not impossible) societies, I'd select the one in which I retain my ability to determine my own path and enjoy the fruit of my labor.

Okay, let's go through the vital part of this topic:

"Assume for a second that Marx's theory was perfect in practice and that pure capitalism was to be applied as well (privatisation of everything). They both work like they say they do on paper."

Okay, I'll explain this.

Marx's theory was perfect in practice, that means we're to discard the following things:

• Human nature: if Marx is right, it's malleable and tied up in productive actions. Arguments concerning human nature would not be applicable if Marx's theory was correct. It is also odd to object on the grounds of productivity: human nature would always be productive.
• Historical circumstance: if Marx is right, history works in stages called epochs and is teleological. If we manage to reach "pure communism", it is the end of human history in a way. The very transitions from capitalism to socialism, and socialism to communism is progress.
• Class interests and class conflict: if Marx is right, the bourgeoisie will be slowly disadvantaged until it becomes a part of the proletariat
• the State: the State would wither away, it only served as a vehicle for the dominant class interests. Once class interests are gone, the State is useless.
• Arguments concerning laziness: Marx predicts an "equal liability of all to work" if the prolertariat ever come to hold political power. That'd probably hold true for a communist society as well. I'm skeptical of the claim that people would be tolerated for laziness in a Marxian communist society, seeing as I'm presupposing Marx was correct.

"Pure" capitalism however, is nothing so fantastic or elaborate. We'd likely be able to just live as we do now, with less material security for the lower earners and unemployed of us. Possibly also more gains for the most fortunate among us (though, that is not really a change at all). We can also attempt to theorize how such a society would look without much of a hassle. It is not the end of history and all class conflict, it is nothing spectacular.

As such, I find the question somewhat suspect: who wouldn't choose communism if Marx was correct?

Most people do not choose it because it seems flawed in its historical conceptualization and its implementation: not because they don't want to live in the end of history. As such, ways to get around the question, as mentioned many times in the thread is to ignore the premise of the thread and the not presuppose that Marx was correct.

So yes, I conclude that I would choose pure communism under the OP's terms. There's really no reason I can see not to do so.

So yes, I conclude that I would choose pure communism under the OP's terms. There's really no reason I can see not to do so.T_P_O

So yes, I conclude that I would choose pure communism under the OP's terms. There's really no reason I can see not to do so.

T_P_O

People just hate the word "communism" in any context, so they don't hesitate to opt for "pure" capitalism instead. Oh well.

definitely pure capitalism

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]So yes, I conclude that I would choose pure communism under the OP's terms. There's really no reason I can see not to do so.ghoklebutter

The prejudice that some people may have to communism as a concept is obvious, yes; to some extents, it's understandable.

I think the more pertinent issue here is probably that people do not grasp that as Marx and Engels wrote, they weren't aiming to have some sort of ideal society that everyone would voluntarily patricipate in. They both claimed "that communism is not an ideal which will be imposed upon reality" -- rather, communism is the final stage of a teleological development and progression of history. Doesn't matter if you don't want communism or whether some people see it as too idealistic: if Marx is right, it's going to happen anyway. That's going to be the end of history.

You'd think with orthodox Marxism being pretty much a bunch of intellectual dinosaur bones, people would be able to see something so obvious. Yet, I guess somewhat unsurpisingly, that is just as unlikely as Marx being correct about historical development.

The whole point of my last post was to show that the choice we're given is somewhat suspicious, between the end of human history and equal security/liability with abundant goods... and then, just as we have things now, just a weebitnastier if you're already in an unfortunate position. That's not really a fair question, to be frank.

tl;dr this whole thread is weirdly predicated on Marx being rightand objections which should not be pertinent due to thatare flying around like mad

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]

So yes, I conclude that I would choose pure communism under the OP's terms. There's really no reason I can see not to do so.

ghoklebutter

People just hate the word "communism" in any context, so they don't hesitate to opt for "pure" capitalism instead. Oh well.

It doesn't help the case when so much of the communist movement is more based on geopolitical alignment than ideology. I've seen many people claim that communism has never existed, but yet defend regimes that are communist/socialist in name only.

[QUOTE="IllestPenguin"]

Communism in a perfect world.

Neither work at the moment, both are being exploited by corrupt individuals within the governing factions. In a perfect world, I would prefer living in a Communist state. I would rather that everyone be considered equal, and have access to their rights as such.

Capitalism rewards profit, profit takes away from the (nation in question's) economy and privatizes it in the form of equity for an individual. If that individual decides to purchase something, that equity is released to the economy once again. The problem with that system is that profit can build to the point where the amount of funds needed to pay for various expenses is dwarfed by surplus. That reduces the total amount of funds available to everyone else, which promotes poverty in extreme cases. Cases somewhat relating to the current climate of the United States of America.

In a perfect Communist state, those funds are equally distributed to prevent any kind of poverty. This way, there is no need for crime, since everyone (should be) well enough off. This is the appeal towards Communism for me, it's a more polished system. The problem with Communism in this reality, is that humans aren't nurturing beings by default. We would rather reward ourselves more than others, we feel the need to have what others don't have.

What human nature needs to be for Communism to work, is to be caring and selfless. This is the way it is, anything else is just the by product of our nature telling us that we should be greedy, selfish individuals. It's a defence mechanism triggered by opposition to our hard wiring.

Vuurk

Only the $600 trillion derivatives market.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]People just hate the word "communism" in any context, so they don't hesitate to opt for "pure" capitalism instead. Oh well.Vuurk

The prejudice that some people may have to communism as a concept is obvious, yes; to some extents, it's understandable.

I think the more pertinent issue here is probably that people do not grasp that as Marx and Engels wrote, they weren't aiming to have some sort of ideal society that everyone would voluntarily patricipate in. They both claimed "that communism is not an ideal which will be imposed upon reality" -- rather, communism is the final stage of a teleological development and progression of history. Doesn't matter if you don't want communism or whether some people see it as too idealistic: if Marx is right, it's going to happen anyway. That's going to be the end of history.

You'd think with orthodox Marxism being pretty much a bunch of intellectual dinosaur bones, people would be able to see something so obvious. Yet, I guess somewhat unsurpisingly, that is just as unlikely as Marx being correct about historical development.

The whole point of my last post was to show that the choice we're given is somewhat suspicious, between the end of human history and equal security/liability with abundant goods... and then, just as we have things now, just a weebitnastier if you're already in an unfortunate position. That's not really a fair question, to be frank.

tl;dr this whole thread is weirdly predicated on Marx being rightand objections which should not be pertinent due to thatare flying around like mad

In a perfect Communist state, those funds are equally distributed to prevent any kind of poverty. This way, there is no need for crime, since everyone (should be) well enough off. This is the appeal towards Communism for me, it's a more polished system. The problem with Communism in this reality, is that humans aren't nurturing beings by default. We would rather reward ourselves more than others, we feel the need to have what others don't have.

What human nature needs to be for Communism to work, is to be caring and selfless. This is the way it is, anything else is just the by product of our nature telling us that we should be greedy, selfish individuals. It's a defence mechanism triggered by opposition to our hard wiring.

IllestPenguin

First, crime will exist even with economic well-being.

Second, your appeal to human nature is wrong, because you are assuming that human nature is always fixed and impossible to change. On the contrary, human nature is malleable to a great degree, and we aren't entirely selfish. While society does not literally create human behavior, it shapes behavior and personality profoundly. Moreover, our desire for things that others have is significantly influenced by the consumerist culture, which is of course not a necessary part of society. So a social change will be instrumental to the adapation to a system like communism.

Your view of communism is cursory and superficial. There are better objections to communism than the "human nature" one.

The flaw with communism is that Marx was WRONG. Vuurk

Historical materialism is one of the greatest philosophical achievements in mankind's history. But, yeah, you are Vuurk. There's no point arguing with people who actually choose illiteracy as a way of life.

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]The flaw with communism is that Marx was WRONG. LordQuorthon

Historical materialism is one of the greatest philosophical achievements in mankind's history. But, yeah, you are Vuurk. There's no point arguing with people who actually choose illiteracy as a way of life.

neither, pure communism leaves almost everyone poorer , but pure capitalism can lead to pretty significant inequality, where some are horrendously poor, while a few others are very rich.

Capitalism should be the base , but not pure capitalism.

Isn't historical materialism unfalsifiable? Anyway, I approve of your view of Vuurk.ghoklebutter

More than likely, yes. It does make social investigation far less messy. That alone is commendable, don't you think?

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] Isn't historical materialism unfalsifiable? Anyway, I approve of your view of Vuurk.LordQuorthon

More than likely, yes. It does make social investigation far less messy. That alone is commendable, don't you think?

I suppose that the employment of interpretivism in lieu of positivism could be fruitful in Marxist historical analysis, though I probably have no idea what I'm saying. :Vghoklebutter

We are using big words to make Vuurk's head hurt.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] I suppose that the employment of interpretivism in lieu of positivism could be fruitful in Marxist historical analysis, though I probably have no idea what I'm saying. :VLordQuorthon

We are using big words to make Vuurk's head hurt.

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]The flaw with communism is that Marx was WRONG. LordQuorthon

Historical materialism is one of the greatest philosophical achievements in mankind's history. But, yeah, you are Vuurk. There's no point arguing with people who actually choose illiteracy as a way of life.

Maybe it's less of a matter of whether or not Marx's view to history is wrong, but rather if his vision of the future will pan out. The fact of the matter (and of all economics) is that resources (and the means of production by extension) are scarce and there is always much more demand than there is supply. That creates inequality and people/states/orgnanizations that are more well endowed and competitive than others if only by exploitation, luck, and timing. It's just the way it is.

The only way I see communism going anywhere is if tangible and natural resources as things stand become irrelevant. That's going to require many more quantum leaps in energy, computing power, and many other fields that probably don't even exist yet.

[QUOTE="IllestPenguin"]

In a perfect Communist state, those funds are equally distributed to prevent any kind of poverty. This way, there is no need for crime, since everyone (should be) well enough off. This is the appeal towards Communism for me, it's a more polished system. The problem with Communism in this reality, is that humans aren't nurturing beings by default. We would rather reward ourselves more than others, we feel the need to have what others don't have.

What human nature needs to be for Communism to work, is to be caring and selfless. This is the way it is, anything else is just the by product of our nature telling us that we should be greedy, selfish individuals. It's a defence mechanism triggered by opposition to our hard wiring.

ghoklebutter

First, crime will exist even with economic well-being.

Second, your appeal to human nature is wrong, because you are assuming that human nature is always fixed and impossible to change. On the contrary, human nature is malleable to a great degree, and we aren't entirely selfish. While society does not literally create human behavior, it shapes behavior and personality profoundly. Moreover, our desire for things that others have is significantly influenced by the consumerist culture, which is of course not a necessary part of society. So a social change will be instrumental to the adapation to a system like communism.

Your view of communism is cursory and superficial. There are better objections to communism than the "human nature" one.

Even the most basic tangible resource needs for a large, ever growing world far exceeds the resources available, at least for an indefinite time period. That's why I am very skeptical of communism working as long as tangible resources are finite and human sustainability depends on them. Resources are divided in different countries, with different levels of stability, and different means of producing them by different organizations. It would be a messy and futile effort to try to equalize the [tangible] means of production, and even then, power will tend to tend to re-concentrate.

Divorcing communism from current use and geopolitical considerations, I do believe its time may come yet. But like I said, it's going to take a lot of technological development and several entire paradigm shifts in thinking before it is feasible and accepted. One cannot come before the other, and the approach must be gradual and slow. And even then, this will probably be markedly different than what Marx envisioned.

Pure, working communism is effectively a perfect world. Anyone who wouldn't want that is clearly blinded by their bias. The poll is quite frankly embarrassing.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"] Even the most basic tangible resource needs for a large, ever growing world far exceeds the resources available, at least for an indefinite time period. That's why I am very skeptical of communism working as long as tangible resources are finite and human sustainability depends on them. Resources are divided in different countries, with different levels of stability, and different means of producing them by different organizations. It would be a messy and futile effort to try to equalize the [tangible] means of production, and even then, power will tend to tend to re-concentrate. Divorcing communism from current use and geopolitical considerations, I do believe its time may come yet. But like I said, it's going to take a lot of technological development and several entire paradigm shifts in thinking before it is feasible and accepted. One cannot come before the other, and the approach must be gradual and slow. And even then, this will probably be markedly different than what Marx envisioned. ghoklebutter

If pure communism or pure capitalism worked the way they do in the TC's hypothetical scenario, definitely pure communism. Guaranteeing everybody a decent standard of living is more improtant than my own freedom to get rich.

In the real world, an impure version of capitalism (meaning it's tempered with a good dose of socialism) is the best system.

The flaw with communism is that Marx was WRONG. Honestly he should not even be given the credit that he has received. Maybe I should conceive some ridiculous eutopic ideology and write a book on it. I'll get to be rich and famous....Vuurk

Yes, he appears to have been wrong. If you've read either of my posts, you'd know I'm not saying he's right, just that if we stay on topic we have to presuppose that he was right: thus leading to a pretty rad world. Presupposing that he was right also makes many arguments flying around this thread pretty trite, seeing as they wouldn't be applicable any more.

I'm arguing why the question we're given seems daft, not why Marx was right. Don't jump the gun. :/

Communism. I will start off by saying that we have no example of communist countries in our history: the U.S.S.R., Cuba and other nations people enjoy calling erroneously communist were actually socialist. With that said:

Pure Communism.

You don't need to necessarily agree with communism to see that a pure capitalism economy model would never be good. The deficient or handicapped would be left behind, as would the diseased and incapable. If by some stroke of misfortune an elderly person lost what he had accumulated to guarantee a decent living during his twilight years, he'd either work it out or be doomed to die without any decent care for his needs. Companies would go on a rampant of exploitation and would increase the condition we know as 'wage slavery' to a whole new level. While I see current capitalist models as viable (not perfect or even particularly good), a society ruled by capitalism would not function.

Per the responses you can tell who's a liberal and who's a conservative. One wants a handout and regardless of never really going anywhere, you're guaranteed to get paid. The other sticks to personal responsiblity and wants the chance to prove themselves and make something of themselves and have the chance at a good living. The only thing holding you back from success is yourself.

I can see who the lazy ones are. Gotta love socialism. :P

we'd have to completely abolish drugs/alcohol Mikey132

Per the responses you can tell who's a liberal and who's a conservative. One wants a handout and regardless of never really going anywhere, you're guaranteed to get paid. The other sticks to personal responsiblity and wants the chance to prove themselves and make something of themselves and have the chance at a good living. The only thing holding you back from success is yourself.

I can see who the lazy ones are. Gotta love socialism. :P

Sunfyre7896

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]The flaw with communism is that Marx was WRONG. Honestly he should not even be given the credit that he has received. Maybe I should conceive some ridiculous eutopic ideology and write a book on it. I'll get to be rich and famous....Vuurk

Yes, he appears to have been wrong. If you've read either of my posts, you'd know I'm not saying he's right, just that if we stay on topic we have to presuppose that he was right: thus leading to a pretty rad world. Presupposing that he was right also makes many arguments flying around this thread pretty trite, seeing as they wouldn't be applicable any more.

I'm arguing why the question we're given seems daft, not why Marx was right. Don't jump the gun. :/

So you are agreeing that I can just make up some **** eutopic future for our society and it could be considered a great achievement and success to mankind? What makes his ideas so special and a successful? His ideas are flawed and are not possible. You can keep riding him though...

Vuurk

It's remarkable. You always find a way to make system wars' first page look like a portion of the Internet.

A smart portion*

My edit button doesn't work.

YEAH LOL BRO LOL ROFL @ TEH COMMI TREEHUGGER AND DER COMMUNIST PINK FANTASY LOL ROFL BRO GO FREEDOM MURRICA #1 JESUS BLESS FREEDOM AND CAPITALISM BRO ITS LIKE DEY ARE TOTALLY IGNORANT LOL K BRO BYE BROFIST

Pure capitalism, easily.