Capitalism v Communism

[chrisrlink]

right now we have a paralyzed (legislative wise) Government cause bipartisanship is out the freaking window communism comes with risk (such as a dictator rising to power),which is what is most associated with communism even though communism is the economic model i mean I'm all for rejoining the UK for all I care (even though Queen Elizabeth II is basicly just a figure head nothing more their parliament gets shit done yes England/UK was a dbag back 3-400 years ago but in todays time there is more freedoms in the UK than ever before

 

[Foxi4]

If everyone received goods and services based on the "To each according to his contribution" rule, all of you would be dead. Unsurprisingly, that's how communism usually works out in practice. I say usually because there's a hypothetical communism that could work, but nobody's observed it yet. Meanwhile, capitalism lifted the world out of poverty and fed the planet to such an extent that developed countries have more food than we can possibly eat - we destroy some 30% of it because we're picky. Bruised apple? Blergh.

 

[Seliph]

If everyone received goods and services based on the "To each according to his contribution"

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is the full unabridged quote if that's what you're referring to.

 

[Foxi4]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is the full unabridged quote if that's what you're referring to.

The latter is Marx, the former is a pre-Marx concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

 

[Seliph]

The latter is Marx, the former is a pre-Marx concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Ah, true. I'm most familiar with the Marx quote since that's the more commonly used phrase.

 

[Foxi4]

Ah, true. I'm most familiar with the Marx quote since that's the more commonly used phrase.

Marx wasn't that original. He was a bum who coasted off of sponsors, then died in poverty and ridden by disease. A fitting end.

 

[Seliph]

Marx wasn't that original. He was a bum who coasted off of sponsors, then died in poverty and ridden by disease. A fitting end.

He had quite a few original ideas. Otherwise no one would've really heard of him I'd expect. Of course, no idea is truly original but Marx undeniably contributed a great amount to Communist theory along with his many contemporaries.

In addition, he certainly didn't die in poverty though his health was indeed poor. His estate at time of death was worth $250 which is equivalent to a little more than $25,000 now, not a terrible sum. He was however stateless when he died since many governments of the time didn't like him (for speaking out against them of course).

No one claims Marx or his ideas are perfect, and to pretend like either is perfect is silly. What is also silly is to act like Marx and his works did nothing or were in any way insignificant or invalid. There is a lot of undeniable truth to his work, you just have to actually read it instead of having it all filtered through political pundits who clearly dislike him.

Regardless, there is no shame in dying in poverty. Many people do die in poverty every day and it's a sad thing to see in our system of apparent abundance where we destroy "some 30 percent" of our food that could be used to prevent such deaths, both nationally and internationally. Some of the strongest people I know and have learned from are or have been at one point deeply impoverished. Poverty has nothing to do with character but is an inevitable feature of a system designed to siphon the labor from the poorest to the richest, a system that prioritizes profit over all else, even human lives.

 

[Foxi4]

He had quite a few original ideas. Otherwise no one would've really heard of him I'd expect. Of course, no idea is truly original but Marx undeniably contributed a great amount to Communist theory along with his many contemporaries.

In addition, he certainly didn't die in poverty though his health was indeed poor. His estate at time of death was worth $250 which is equivalent to a little more than $25,000 now, not a terrible sum. He was however stateless when he died since many governments of the time didn't like him (for speaking out against them of course). Regardless, there is no shame in dying in poverty. Many people do die in poverty every day and it's a sad thing to see in our system of apparent abundance where we destroy "some 30 percent" of our food that could be used to prevent such deaths, both nationally and internationally.

There's no shame in dying poor or sick. In the case of Marx it's simply just deserts. As for the originality versus popularity argument, you do not necessarily need to introduce new ideas to be remembered, you simply need to popularise them. We see that time and time again, actually. In the case of Communism Santa, his ideas weren't novel. They were, however, widely publicised. Regarding the destruction of food, the market is fickle and logistics are a bitch. It is far better to overproduce than to starve as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Xzi]

Meanwhile, capitalism lifted the world out of poverty and fed the planet to such an extent that developed countries have more food than we can possibly eat - we destroy some 30% of it because we're picky.

It's not just because "we're picky," capitalists also have us destroying food to keep the homeless from receiving free meals. The stuff at grocery stores that's one day past the 'sell by' date gets bleach dumped on it. Which is how hundreds of people die from starvation in the US every year despite our abundance of food.

This applies to a lot of other items and commodities as well. Unsold Jordans are burned to keep the supply limited and the value of existing pairs higher.

 

[MaxToTheMax]

Mixed economies that lean more to individual prosperity rather than the prosperity of companies is probably the best economy we could have under capitalism. Basically a liberal version of capitalism would be pog.

 

[Seliph]

In the case of Marx it's simply just deserts.

Why?

his ideas weren't novel.

Sure they were, many academics both contemporary and past have dedicated their careers to exploring his theories and applying them to real life. Like all good science not only does it have the backing of historical precedent but the continued application and study by academics to this day. Your statement is simply blatantly wrong and reflects a lack of knowledge in regard to actual Marxist theory.

It is far better to overproduce than to starve as far as I'm concerned.

I agree this is certainly correct but I find it rather troubling that in our system that rapidly overproduces so many things we still have so many people starving and dying in the streets while the abundance is reaped by the richest and most powerful people in the world.

 

[Foxi4]

It's not just because "we're picky," capitalists also have us destroying food to keep the homeless from receiving free meals. The stuff at grocery stores that's one day past the 'sell by' date gets bleach dumped on it. Which is how hundreds of people die from starvation in the US every year despite our abundance of food.

This applies to a lot of other items and commodities as well. Unsold Jordans are burned to keep the supply limited and the value of existing pairs higher.

If you want to incentivise companies to give away stock for free, you can ask the government to purchase and distribute it, or you can give them a tax break per donation - seems like a win-win to me. You're not entitled to any company's product, regardless of how poor you are. It's a good thing we're enjoying the highest living standards in recorded history so that we can have this conversation about apparent "unfairness" based on the false assumption that corporations shouldn't destroy products that they legally own and can do whatever they want with.

Why?

He's partially responsible for popularising an inherently unfair ideology that led to the creation of large swathes of totalitarian systems of government, which in turn killed hundreds of millions of people over the course of the last century in planned executions or through systemic starvation. His grave ought to be an outhouse. The fact that he has a tombstone at all is an insult to anyone living east of Berlin, as well as in large sections of South America.

Sure they were, many academics both contemporary and past have dedicated their careers to exploring his theories and applying them to real life. Like all good science not only does it have the backing of historical precedent but the continued application and study by academics to this day. Your statement is simply blatantly wrong and reflects a lack of knowledge in regard to actual Marxist theory.

My family lived it. I also studied philosophy extensively, including Marxism, in one of the best universities in my country. I'm simply not a fan because I'm capable of separating things that work from things that don't. Call me whatever you'd like, but uneducated on the subject is not applicable. I have experience with both the theory and the practice.

I agree this is certainly correct but I find it rather troubling that in our system that rapidly overproduces so many things we still have so many people starving and dying in the streets while the abundance is reaped by the richest and most powerful people in the world.

I don't.

EDIT: Since you've edited your post, here's a longer response. Poverty often times has a lot to do with character. Not always, but often.

 

[Xzi]

If you want to incentivise companies to give away stock for free, you can ask the government to purchase and distribute it, or you can give them a tax break per donation - seems like a win-win to me. You're not entitled to any company's product, regardless of how poor you are.

Perfect example of capitalism disregarding the basic humanity of people that it put into poverty in the first place. Very few countries are as aggressively hostile toward the poor and homeless as the US is. Companies shouldn't need to be incentivized to give away food that they were just going to throw out and make no profit on either way.

It's a good thing we're enjoying the highest living standards in recorded history so that we can have this conversation about apparent "unfairness" based on the false assumption that corporations shouldn't destroy products that they legally own and can do whatever they want with.

Lol what a joke. They can't even keep the lights on in Texas, in cold weather or hot. Just a glimpse into the future for the rest of the US if we keep letting snake oil salesmen privatize everything.

 

[Foxi4]

Perfect example of capitalism disregarding the basic humanity of people that it put into poverty in the first place. Very few countries are as aggressively hostile toward the poor and homeless as the US is. Companies shouldn't need to be incentivized to give away food that they were just going to throw out and make no profit on either way.

Why not? It's not your food.

Lol what a joke. They can't even keep the lights on in Texas, in cold weather or hot. Just a glimpse into the future for the rest of the US if we keep letting snake oil salesmen privatize everything.

This dude. My man, they *have lights*. Cubans are driving cars from the 70's, or convert them into rafts to escape all the prosperity.

 

[CMDreamer]

Just as everything that has "two" -or more- possible sides, it all depends on what suits you the best.

Each individual has their own capabilities and habilities, so each one can or can't do something specific, so each system will work better for them or not, but it doesn't mean one is better than the other, at least not on a general basis, because there are few universal knowledge and most of it is based con agreements between the parts.

Like truth, justice, good or bad, a nice weather, the "best" color, the "best" car, and so on.

Also, like this point of view.

 

[Foxi4]

Just as everything that has "two" -or more- possible sides, it all depends on what suits you the best.

Each individual has their own capabilities and habilities, so each one can or can't do something specific, so each system will work better for them or not, but it doesn't mean one is better than the other, at least not on a general basis, because there are few universal knowledge and most of it is based con agreements between the parts.

Like truth, justice, good or bad, a nice weather, the "best" color, the "best" car, and so on.

Also, like this point of view.

There are also people who can't do anything. We call them Communists, because that's the only system that (only theoretically) behooves them.

EDIT: What I do like is your focus on individualism, and how certain modes of living suit other people differently. If only there was a system that approved and promoted that, some kind of ideology that emphasised personal liberty and allowed everyone to live their lives however they want without government interference. We should be so lucky.

 

[Xzi]

Why not? It's not your food.

Because it actually takes more time and effort to destroy it than it does to just throw it away? Time and effort that employees could be spending on literally anything else? It doesn't even make sense from the perspective of naked greed. It only makes sense from the perspective of hatred and malice, and why the fuck would you hate people that you've never met before?

This dude. My man, they *have lights*. Cubans are driving cars from the 70's, or convert them into rafts to escape all the prosperity.

Americans go to Cuba for both vacations and affordable healthcare. That's despite the fact that the US successfully isolated the country from the rest of the world for decades. Just imagine what the country would be like if we hadn't done so much to sabotage it, along with every other country that democratically elects a socialist leader.

 

[Foxi4]

Because it actually takes more time and effort to destroy it than it does to just throw it away? Time and effort that employees could be spending on literally anything else? It doesn't even make sense from the perspective of naked greed. It only makes sense from the perspective of hatred and malice, and why the fuck would you hate people that you've never met before?

You literally imagined this scenario all by yourself. You have this idea in your head that people who make these decisions personally hate you. People who make those decisions don't know or care that you exist. If you want Jordans, you can pay for them. If you can't pay for them, to the tune of whatever the Jordans maker is asking, maybe you're not destined to have Jordans - settle for Sketchers.

Americans go to Cuba for both vacations and affordable healthcare. That's despite the fact that the US successfully isolated the country from the rest of the world for decades. Just imagine what the country would be like if we hadn't done so much to sabotage it, along with every other country that democratically elects a socialist leader.

Cuba has some lovely views, and shopping for healthcare is a smart financial decision. I live in the UK, but I get my dental done in Poland because it's cheaper and better. Privately, mind - not using the crappy national service. Americans are dunking on Cubans even in Cuba, and the dollars they inject into their economy by doing so allow that country's continued existence.

 

[CMDreamer]

There are also people who can't do anything. We call them Communists, because that's the only system that (only theoretically) behooves them.

EDIT: What I do like is your focus on individualism, and how certain modes of living suit other people differently. If only there was a system that approved and promoted that, some kind of ideology that emphasised personal liberty and allowed everyone to live their lives however they want without government interference. We should be so lucky.

Yes, Capitalists can do a lot, I get your point... I prefer seeing subjects as even-handed as I can, without allowing my very own personal living conditions take part of my context. It might not be the best to do, but has proven very useful for me.

In that theoretical "lucky" life -as you describe it-, everyone would be happy, but guess what, that's not possible...

 

[Foxi4]

Yes, Capitalists can do a lot, I get your point... I prefer seeing subjects as even-handed as I can, without allowing my very own personal living conditions take part of my context. It might not be the best to do, but has proven very useful for me.

In that theoretical "lucky" life -as you describe it-, everyone would be happy, but guess what, that's not possible...

I was thinking more about libertarianism in general. If people want to live in more or less sustainable communes, I have no problem with that as long as I'm not required to participate in their hairbrained scheme. I'll even trade with their community, if they produce anything of value to me.