Capitalism v Communism

[Xzi]

Question: y'all realise there is a whole spectrum - or rather multi-dimensional spectrum of ideology in between those two, right? From democratic socialism to social democracy and even to some forms of libertarianism.

The world isn't black and white and political ideology isn't binary, even though American media and some others like to portray it.

Indeed, I'm a democratic socialist myself. The role I've been playing here has less been to show the superiority of communism, and more been to show that capitalism has roughly the same amount of flaws, and even some of the exact same flaws as communism. Capitalism's needless/preventable death count is about the same too, even putting just the British and US empires together.

 

[KingVamp]

Leftist liberalism just seems like stepping stones towards social democracy.

 

[pustal]

Our two-party system also contributes to the false dichotomy.

I have to agree with that. A choice between two options is hardly ever a real choice. And the thing is they are mainly two capitalist parties. Well, they used to be until one of them just became a party without platform.

Indeed, I'm a democratic socialist myself. The role I've been playing here has less been to show the superiority of communism, and more been to show that capitalism has roughly the same amount of flaws, and even some of the exact same flaws as communism. Capitalism's needless/preventable death count is about the same too, even putting just the British and US empires together.

Yeah, the problem is that both systems concentrate power too much. While pure capitalism concentrates power on who has the most resources, communism has a clear hierarchy and although it is supposed to put the collective above the self, the problem is, the person that reaches the top is usually the one who puts himself in front of the collective, and uses this same idea against the collective.

I consider myself a social democrat and I though I voted nationally always on social democratic parties (not on our Social Democratic party, mind you, that went neoliberal on the last decades, mind you), but have always voted on the communist party on our local town elections. Because Communism seems a wonderful idea on the small scale, inserted in a democratic context where it has to answer to higher powers. And they've done wonderful work for the community.

Leftist liberalism just seems like stepping stones towards social democracy.

They are close sometimes. I think they are ideals that had different origins but converged to the same thought: a clear need of a social state to serve as the basis for society and take care of things like health, education and other basic needs, that supports a free market to lead the country into innovation and progress. I'd say the biggest difference is that social democrats believe in a tighter regulation of that market in order to keep it free and prevent monopolies and oligarchies or powers capable of undermining the State.

 

[Foxi4]

By the metric that roughly two-thirds of our deaths were completely preventable, along with an even greater percentage of infections. Even BoJo the clown thought twice about the way he was handling the pandemic after he caught COVID. But not our plague rat in chief, he just tripled down on the stupidity, which is a big part of what lost him the election.

But alas, ended up with a worse result per capita.

Prejudice toward neo-nazis and religious fundamentalists/extremists who would strip us of all our rights in a heartbeat is more righteous than prejudice toward groups simply trying to live their lives. That's just the way it is. If you choose live your life every day according to hateful and exclusionary ideology, nobody owes you anything, least of all tolerance.

If their ideas truly are so repugnant, you should have no trouble at all refuting them in public debate. If the ideas are detrimental, they would not take root in an otherwise perfectly tolerant society. The paradox of tolerance does not pass even the most basic sniff test, it's internally inconsistent and the end result is not a logical consequence of the premise. It's not the dumbest thing Popper ever proposed, but it's up there.

Yeah I'm aware there are leftist libertarians, though many are embarrassed to identify as such for the same reasons you are. Easier to just call yourself an anarchist and explain things through that framing.

I'm not embarrassed to describe myself as a libertarian, I simply have some disagreements with the mainstream libertarian movement. Lolbertarian seems to be a more appropriate label for a cynical absurdist.

It's not good when the United States makes up about 4% of the world's population, but it makes up 19% of the world's COVID-19 cases and 16% of the world's COVID-19 deaths. Some time before the former president left office, the United States made up closer to 25% of the world's COVID-19 deaths.

You talk about some numbers being "meaningless when comparing countries of vastly different size," but you are ignoring that most of these numbers of meaningless when comparing countries of vastly different population densities. Bahrain, Maldives, and Gibraltar are some of the world's most densely populated areas (#6, #9, and #5 respectively), so it makes sense that they are among the top 10 countries with regard to COVID-19 cases per million. The United States is #15 on the list of COVID-19 cases per million, but it's #185 on the list of countries by population density.

You can have some fun with these resources on how the United States, and the former administration, utterly failed in its response to COVID-19. The United States, with a population that is 4% of the world's population, should have made up less than 4% of the world's COVID-19 cases, not significantly more than 4% of the world's COVID-19 cases.

We know there are very specific things the former president could have done to mitigate the effects of COVID-19, but he didn't do them, and we know there are things he did that exacerbated the problem. China and India both have the United States beat when it comes to population and population density, but the United States beats both countries significantly when it comes to COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 cases per million. I'm not sure how it could be more objective than that.

This shouldn't be news to a biologists, but that's not how diseases spread. The virus didn't magically teleport to every single country on the planet simultaneously - different areas were affected to a different extent at different times. There's around 14 countries that, so far, have reported *zero* cases of COVID19 because no carriers of the virus traveled to them before air travel was shut down. If your logic held any water, that'd mean those countries had an excellent COVID response. In reality, they're either sparsely populated or just not a popular destination. That's neither here nor there - as far as the death rate is concerned, the U.S. isn't doing too poorly, which was my point. Not great, but far from "the worst".

Leftist liberalism just seems like stepping stones towards social democracy.

Strongly disagree. Social democracy is all about the rule of a majority, libertarianism, be it on the left or on the right, is more about self-determination with minimal rule from on high. They converge in some areas of policy, but have completely different ideas on how it should be implemented.

 

[Lacius]

as far as the death rate is concerned, the U.S. isn't doing too poorly, which was my point. Not great, but far from "the worst".

That's thanks in large part to the vaccination program of the current administration.

 

[Foxi4]

That's thanks in large part to the vaccination program of the current administration.

You mean the vaccination program of the previous administration that the current administration is continuing. That's not really a subject for this thread, unless you'd like to spin the vaccination discussion in the direction of private pharma versus national programs.

 

[Lacius]

You mean the vaccination program of the previous administration that the current administration is continuing. That's not really a subject for this thread, unless you'd like to spin the vaccination discussion in the direction of private pharma versus national programs.

We don't have to continue this topic, but you should read up on the former administration's lack of a vaccination plan detailed in the GAO report I referenced in one of my previous posts.

 

[Foxi4]

We don't have to continue this topic, but you should read up on the former administration's lack of a vaccination plan detailed in the GAO report I referenced in one of my previous posts.

I believe we had the same exchange in a different thread in the past, there's no need to derail a thread about capitalism and communism to retread the same waters.

 

[Xzi]

If their ideas truly are so repugnant, you should have no trouble at all refuting them in public debate.

Yes, genocide is universally repugnant. That doesn't mean I should have to waste my time or breath "debating" its "merits."

If the ideas are detrimental, they would not take root in an otherwise perfectly tolerant society.

That's horse shit and you know it. Some people are always going to be quick to embrace ideas that seem beneficial to themselves and maybe the group they identify with, but detrimental to everybody else.

 

[Foxi4]

Yes, genocide is universally repugnant. That doesn't mean I should have to waste my time or breath "debating" its "merits."

If all you have to offer in terms of a rebuttal is matching the force of an argument with the argument of force then your ideology is weak. The very idea behind tolerance is allowing others to think or believe in things that you might potentially find repugnant or otherwise objectionable. You don't have to associate with people you fundamentally disagree with (although if you want to spread your ideology, you probably should), but that doesn't give you a carte blanche to intervene in their private life. According to Popper, it absolutely does, which is the antithesis of tolerance.

Popper operates on the unproven assumption that intolerance will spread, as opposed to diminish in the presence of overwhelming tolerance. He provides no evidence for that, he merely presents it as a given. That's a serious flaw in his thought process. I find communism repugnant, but I don't go around punching communists. The forbidden fruit is often the sweetest - if certain thoughts or ideas are considered prohibited, they're automatically more attractive, particularly to people who are not satisfied with the status quo. You're doing your enemies a favour.

Not that it makes a difference since Popper's thought experiment operates on a faulty premise - a perfectly tolerant society wouldn't have an intolerant faction, so deliberating on this swiss cheese of an idea is a waste of time anyway.

That's horse shit and you know it. Some people are always going to be quick to embrace ideas that seem beneficial to themselves and maybe the group they identify with, but detrimental to everybody else.

People will always be quick to embrace ideas that are beneficial to themselves and the group they identify with, period. You don't have to tack malice on top of that statement, as it isn't necessarily intended. If you tell me that you're going to give me $200, I will be quick to embrace that as a great idea. I won't necessarily ask you where that $200 came from, I don't need to know that you robbed someone earlier to get it. If I thought that far ahead, I might have some moral objections, but $200 is $200, good for me.

 

[Xzi]

Not that it makes a difference since Popper's thought exercise is contradictory just in the premise alone - a perfectly tolerant society wouldn't have an intolerant faction, so deliberating on this swiss cheese of an idea is a waste of time anyway.

The only way to ever achieve a "perfectly tolerant society" would be to tolerate everything EXCEPT intolerance. That is indeed a given, and I'm not sure how to explain it any clearer than that.

You don't have to tack malice on top of that statement, as it isn't necessarily intended.

The path to hell yada yada. You know the saying.

If you tell me that you're going to give me $200, I will be quick to embrace that as a great idea. I won't necessarily ask you where that $200 came from, I don't need to know that you robbed someone earlier to get it. Had I thought that far ahead, I might have some moral objections, but $200 is $200, good for me.

I would definitely have some questions. Nothing's free under capitalism, and scammers/con men are more prevalent than ever.

 

[KingVamp]

Strongly disagree. Social democracy is all about the rule of a majority, libertarianism, be it on the left or on the right, is more about self-determination with minimal rule from on high. They converge in some areas of policy, but have completely different ideas on how it should be implemented.

Not sure how it is about the rule of a majority, when it is about giving more social services to everyone. In practice, this specific ideal of libertarianism only creates a new high with corporations on top or, in other words, the rule from a minority.

 

[Foxi4]

The only way to ever achieve a "perfectly tolerant society" would be to tolerate everything EXCEPT intolerance. That is indeed a given, and I'm not sure how to explain it any clearer than that.

Society as a collective is not necessarily a reflection of individuals, rather it's a sum of prominent parts. There obviously has to be a transitional period where the level of intolerance is non-zero. If you are intolerant of that intolerance, you yourself are intolerant. The actual solution is dialogue and debate - engaging with people who don't agree with you to sell them on your ideas, as opposed to persecuting against them. By being intolerant of the intolerant, you are not eliminating the problem - you're reinforcing their beliefs. They believe that they are, in some fashion, persecuted against, and you prove that they are correct by persecuting against them. I don't know how much clearer that can be. It is significantly more effective to demonstrate that the intolerant person in the village is foolish than it is to proclaim yourself to be tolerant while holding a pike with someone's head on top of it - the latter makes you look foolish.

The path to hell yada yada. You know the saying.

Hell is other people.

I would definitely have some questions. Nothing's free under capitalism, and scammers/con men are more prevalent than ever.

False, as demonstrated earlier in the thread.

Not sure how it is about the rule of a majority, when it is about giving more social services to everyone. In practice, this specific ideal of libertarianism only creates a new high with corporations on top or, in other words, the rule from a minority.

Another statement with no supporting evidence. Corporations don't legislate, the government legislates. Libertarians enjoy personal liberty and de facto believe that the size and scope of the government should be minimal so that it cannot legislate to the detriment of their personal lives. They're not replacing the rule of the government with the rule of corporations, they are minimising the ability of third parties to impose their rule upon them.

 

[Xzi]

By being intolerant of the intolerant, you are not eliminating the problem - you're reinforcing their beliefs.

Intolerance and ignorance go hand-in-hand, anything you bother saying to them will reinforce their beliefs because they were never really listening in the first place. Fascists have never and will never debate in good faith.

 

[Foxi4]

Intolerance and ignorance go hand-in-hand, anything you bother saying to them will reinforce their beliefs because they were never really listening in the first place. Fascists have never and will never debate in good faith.

Do Communists debate in good faith?

 

[Deleted User]

By being intolerant of the intolerant, you are not eliminating the problem - you're reinforcing their beliefs

Then you must not be aware of the paradox of intolerance. I've gone through this before in the past.
Basically, tolerating people who are intolerant often leads to those who tolerate to be harmed. See Nazi Germany.

 

[Xzi]

Do Communists debate in good faith?

Yes. Some like to try to gloss over atrocities committed by authoritarian communist leaders/dictators, but if you approach the conversation from the right angle you can get them to own up to the fact that there's definitely a better way. Fascists won't be straight with anyone except for other fascists.

 

[Foxi4]

Then you must not be aware of the paradox of intolerance. I've gone through this before in the past.
Basically, tolerating people who are intolerant often leads to those who tolerate to be harmed. See Nazi Germany.

Yes, I'm completely unaware of it, we've only been discussing it for the last few pages.

 

[Deleted User]

Do Communists debate in good faith?

first, xzi isn't a communist. democratic socialist, and a actual socialist/communist is a bit different. More so higher regulation rather than throwing out the entire system with some socialist ideas like healthcare and UBI thrown in. But still nonetheless a capitalist system. Meanwhile communists and socialists rather just throw out the entire system since we believe it doesn't work, that it's flaws are inherit to it's economic system and cannot be corrected.

As for do we debate in good faith. Yes. Otherwise I wouldn't be spending countless hours here. If something can convince me that communism doesn't work, I'll happily listen. However I have seen multiple bullet holes in so many arguments against it.

 

[Foxi4]

first, xzi isn't a communist. democratic socialist (...)

I know @Xzi very well, I know he's not a dummy.