Capitalism v Communism

[smf]

imao yes blame the embargo on communism failing again

First time I'd seen "in my arrogant opinion"

I'm not a huge fan of any communist system that has ever been implemented, but then that goes for capitalism too.

I think some people get too caught up in the ideology compared to what the effects are.

Both are flawed, IMO a mix of capitalism with socialism is probably the best system we can implement right now. So you use taxation from those who benefit from capitalism and use it to help those who aren't able to benefit. It's just a pity that there are enough assholes who benefit that they try to stop it.

Communisim
https://twitter.com/SchirrmannR/status/1414567616975446018

Capitalism

 

[Foxi4]

I'm not a huge fan of any communist system that has ever been implemented, but then that goes for capitalism too.

I think some people get too caught up in the ideology compared to what the effects are.

Both are flawed, IMO a mix of capitalism with socialism is probably the best system we can implement right now. So you use taxation from those who benefit from capitalism and use it to help those who aren't able to benefit. It's just a pity that there are enough assholes who benefit that they try to stop it.

The problem I have with this notion is the fact that, by and large, everyone benefits from capitalism. The point of contention on the left is that some benefit more than others since capital, much like a magnet, tends to attract more capital - not a rule, but it happens often enough. The main complaint is the wage gap, which neglects to mention that the overall standard of living has improved across the board. We're in the single most prosperous moment in history - the rates of poverty are minimal, income mobility is high and there are plenty of opportunities to both ascend and descend the income ladder. Whether a cold-blooded capitalist like myself likes it or not, some people will be outpriced out of the market or their jobs will simply become obsolete in the coming decades, so I'm not necessarily opposed to investment in reskilling as well as a modicum of a safety net - the left calls it UBI, I much prefer Friedman's Negative Income Tax, which seems like a more worthwhile implementation of the same basic idea. I don't see a reason to tax low income earners at all, and those who are actively searching employment should definitely be helped along the way, as long as they're actually trying instead of sitting on their hands. As far as January 6th is concerned, I don't see the relation between the population being miffed that the rules of the election game were changed mid-way through the second half, in 2019, and capitalism as an economic system. The difference between those protestors and the ones in Cuba or Venezuela is the fact that ours have something to eat, which is a pretty relevant factor. Whether their grievances were valid or not is not for me to judge - it's regrettable that they stormed the Capitol, that's illegal, and I hope they're prosecuted to whatever extent of the law seems appropriate to the prosecutors. That's immaterial to the subject matter though - Capitalism didn't do that.

 

[Deleted User]

The problem I have with this notion is the fact that, by and large, everyone benefits from capitalism. The point of contention on the left is that some benefit more than others since capital, much like a magnet, tends to attract more capital

So you admit that as true. Again, I've talked about this multiple times. Companies, large amounts of money, politicians, can't get into office without money. Companies fund politicians that match their ideology. You also can't have everyone benefit in capitalism. It's called dialectics. Workers want to be paid their worth. The ceo or owner of the business, wants to make the most money possible. It IS IMPOSSIBLE for both to benefit because capitalism inherently creates a hierarchy. Only one can actually benefit

. The main complaint is the wage gap, which neglects to mention that the overall standard of living has improved across the board.

False, the United States Health expectancy has dropped. Even before the pandemic.
The United states is the only country that doesn't have healthcare paid. FFS, a poor as fuck country like cuba, can provide their citizens better healthcare in most areas, THAN WE DO.

the rates of poverty are minimal, income mobility is high and there are plenty of opportunities to both ascend and descend the income ladder.

Also false, this is a known prageru talking point.https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6336/382.full
Mobility has been rapidly declining.
Just because people can buy phones or a small tv, doesn't mean that the rest of their life, like idk. HOUSING? Is better than the past? No, it's significantly worse. If my generation is aware they won't be able to own a home until the age of possibly even 40? That's ludicrous. And you know it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also unemployment measures are heavily manipulated right now, because of how many people have lost their jobs. It's about 50%
Most people that are "low income" are technically in poverty. They make less than 30,000 dollars in a year that barely. Which is essentially the new poverty line.
Also, do you think the United States doesn't make propaganda to make itself look good?

 

[Foxi4]

So you admit that as true. Again, I've talked about this multiple times. Companies, large amounts of money, politicians, can't get into office without money. Companies fund politicians that match their ideology. You also can't have everyone benefit in capitalism. It's called dialectics. Workers want to be paid their worth. The ceo or owner of the business, wants to make the most money possible. It IS IMPOSSIBLE for both to benefit because capitalism inherently creates a hierarchy. Only one can actually benefit

I don't know how you've gathered that from what I said, but I've stopped questioning socialist logic a long time ago. What I actually said, and maintain, is that capital likes capital - having more means that you can invest more, and while that bears a higher risk of loss, it's also associated with greater potential reward. If I buy a stock at $100 and by the end of the year it jumps to $150 due to post-COVID recovery, I'll make 50%, or $50 at the end of that transaction. If I invest $10 in a fractional instead I'll make $5. With that said, if the company doesn't survive, I'm liable to lose $100, or $10, in each respective scenario. It's risk/reward - those who have more can risk more, and by risking more they have the chance to gain more, or lose more. It's not a difficult concept.

False, the United States Health expectancy has dropped. Even before the pandemic.

Because the United States, for some inexplicable reason, factors in homicides (as well as fatal accidents) into their life expectancy calculator, unlike most (if not all) other countries which (as far as I know) only account for natural causes of death. These are factors outside of the healthcare system's control.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/

The United states is the only country that doesn't have healthcare paid. FFS, a poor as fuck country like cuba, can provide their citizens better healthcare in most areas, THAN WE DO.

Total nonsense, as explored earlier. Repeating a lie doesn't turn it into truth - Switzerland has an entirely private system, Germany (universal multi-payer), Israel (mandatory insurance via Kupat Holim), Lichtenstein (mandatory health insurance) and the Netherlands (mandatory basic insurance via a Dutch provider of choice, possible to be supplemented further) have private systems with subsidised insurance for low-income earners, the list goes on. The term "universal" refers to accessibility, not the government picking up your bill. The United States are in fairly good company in keeping that sector private. Some of the best healthcare systems with the best outcomes are either private or a mixture of public-private coverage.

Also false, this is a known prageru talking point.https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6336/382.full
Mobility has been rapidly declining.
Just because people can buy phones or a small tv, doesn't mean that the rest of their life, like idk. HOUSING? Is better than the past? No, it's significantly worse. If my generation is aware they won't be able to own a home until the age of possibly even 40? That's ludicrous. And you know it.

Never had that problem - purchased a home 4 years after I started my job. Not a bad result given where I started. The housing market bubble was caused by handing away unsecured mortgages to customers who had no chance paying them off anyway, all subsidised by the government under Obama (and to a certain extent under Bush, to throw you a bone) - don't blame capitalism for what a socialist policy did. What you're seeing now is a natural and expected rebound. Regarding income mobility, in the USA it nearly matches OECD's suggested values and places the US in the middle of the stack, on about the same level as the UK, which is *a good sign*.

Also unemployment measures are heavily manipulated right now, because of how many people have lost their jobs. It's about 50%

Oh, it's most certainly manipulated - by disincentivising a return to work. It should be 1/10th of that.

Most people that are "low income" are technically in poverty. They make less than 30,000 dollars in a year that barely. Which is essentially the new poverty line.
Also, do you think the United States doesn't make propaganda to make itself look good?

That's not the poverty line, you just made that up.

 

[Deleted User]

snipped for now

 

[SG854]

That is true statistics are taken differently from country to country so unless you compare apples to apples then you can't really compare numbers that each country provided. U.S. has a really high homicide rate which can affect life expectancy numbers. And I think they also have high car crash rates.

 

[Deleted User]

imao yes blame the embargo on communism failing again

Hmm... Well let's see here. Cuba was dependent on the United States for food and Medical supplies. 70% to be exact for food. But due to the embargo, which you know, when your "lovely leader" was president, they decided to further put sanctions on cuba. And then later on, claimed it as a international terrorist along with three other countries, which as far as I am aware. They haven't really done anything to the united states to merit this.
The United States is merely adding unnecessary suffering. To only then look like the good guy later on when the United States probably helps overthrown the government. I don't agree with Cuba's government. However at the sametime, I'd imagine that it's goverment wouldn't have been so fucked to begin with if the states didn't meddle with them. If you establish a authoritarian government in the past, it's really difficult due to the power vacuum to create a democratic system. Which the United States more than had a hand in creating said authoritarian government.

 

[notimp]

The problem I have with this notion is the fact that, by and large, everyone benefits from capitalism. The point of contention on the left is that some benefit more than others since capital, much like a magnet, tends to attract more capital - not a rule, but it happens often enough. The main complaint is the wage gap, which neglects to mention that the overall standard of living has improved across the board. We're in the single most prosperous moment in history - the rates of poverty are minimal, income mobility is high and there are plenty of opportunities to both ascend and descend the income ladder. Whether a cold-blooded capitalist like myself likes it or not, some people will be outpriced out of the market or their jobs will simply become obsolete in the coming decades, so I'm not necessarily opposed to investment in reskilling as well as a modicum of a safety net - the left calls it UBI, I much prefer Friedman's Negative Income Tax, which seems like a more worthwhile implementation of the same basic idea. I don't see a reason to tax low income earners at all, and those who are actively searching employment should definitely be helped along the way, as long as they're actually trying instead of sitting on their hands. As far as January 6th is concerned, I don't see the relation between the population being miffed that the rules of the election game were changed mid-way through the second half, in 2019, and capitalism as an economic system. The difference between those protestors and the ones in Cuba or Venezuela is the fact that ours have something to eat, which is a pretty relevant factor. Whether their grievances were valid or not is not for me to judge - it's regrettable that they stormed the Capitol, that's illegal, and I hope they're prosecuted to whatever extent of the law seems appropriate to the prosecutors. That's immaterial to the subject matter though - Capitalism didn't do that.

Gini coefficient 1980-2005 in UK, Canada and Sweden:
https://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2007/11/gini-coefficien.html

With the highest impact arguably being free market liberalism, implemented in the Thatcher era, and globalization being an accelerator.

Social mobility in the US since the 1940s:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-decline-of-upward-mobility-in-one-chart/

US embargo against Cuba:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba
US embargo against Venezuela:
https://www.dw.com/en/the-human-cost-of-the-us-sanctions-on-venezuela/a-50647399

The origins of the US love for guano islands:
https://world101.cfr.org/historical-context/world-war/how-did-united-states-become-global-power
(I.e. The main reason for making sure Cuba suffers was to promote free market capitalism, that was the main ideology of an entire thing called the cold war.. )

And as a short breakdown, the theoretical foundation of free market capitalism is basically debunked by now. While Marxism is probably the only theoretical framework, that actually changed the course of economic thinking at a very fundamental level, also employed by western economists to this day.

At the same time, communism was a movement that didnt represent marxist thinking - at all - towards the middle and end. And then it failed catastrophically.

Marxism was not a 'societal model' that ever was show to work, in the end it was just a theory, that taught many people a few fundamentials (in thinking about societies), that are seen as valid to this day. But the first part is nothing special. No political ideology ever is a 'good or just' representation of society (or societal model for 'the future').

And capitalism is still around.

But - at the same time, both the head of Blackrock, and the speaking hole of the World Economic Forum are openly talking about corporations having to do more to bridge the social devide, and reduce long term risks. Because that was never part of capitalism, and has lead to some pretty serious issues over time. Or because that allows them to keep more people calm during their lifetimes.. One or the other..
-
So in essence - neither political ideology is a fully fledged societal system or representation, or even model of how society works, they are just political ideologies. That usually adapt quite a bit over time.

If you dont only want to look at the dichotomy - but also at historical representations of 'in between' and 'what might have been'.

Why Christopher Hitchens Called Himself a Trotskyist
is a good entry point:


Round table by the Hoover institute -- which is a very, very conservative thinktank.

Oh, and we also have to talk about this in the context of the rise of China. But there we'll have to wait another 20 years or so until we can tell, if we can just laugh at them, or... (Their version of 'free market capitalism' is, that party provides financing. Party sets ruleset. But a market system is employed to find 'best way' to get to a goal. Once this is done, party keeps a very close relationship with the 'winners'. Foreign investments in the end turned out to be relatively irrelevant in the political development of the country (not in the economic development), because of that system of management. Which is also something that goes against the capitalism playbook. But then, its just an ideological system, its not a full representation of societal processes. )

Never had that problem - purchased a home 4 years after I started my job. Not a bad result given where I started. The housing market bubble was caused by handing away unsecured mortgages to customers who had no chance paying them off anyway, all subsidised by the government under Obama (and to a certain extent under Bush, to throw you a bone) - don't blame capitalism for what a socialist policy did.

Well, the policy was sound. Capitalism wasnt.

Policy basically stated one of the only ways to get the lower classes to participate in a sharing of economic gains, thats still available is via the housing market. So if people buy their own houses they can use them as securities when they are old, or sick - or... without the state having to jump in and front the costs.

So far so sound.

Here is what happened next. Because the state granted laws that basically made long term loans viable for lower income people (by reducing the tax load on said properties in the first few years), the sharks jumped in and destroyed everything ending with the worlds economy.

First they sold financing contracts to people who still couldnt afford it (remember state just relaxed taxation), then they upsold them services they didnt need, then everything was argued away - to be stable, to the customer, fraudulently, by pointing at value increases in the property over time (Remember that should have been the benefit reaped at the end of life, or in case of illness -- but it was used as part of the financing model by banks). Then - seeing the ship was about to go down, creative financial mathematics were employed to segment loans, cut them up and spread them around to "reduce risk", but instead it just did hide riskfactors. Then the junk was spread all over the world. And then when that all came falling down, because at the heart of it were so many loans people couldnt repay, simply because of their base conditions. US made sure to bail out all perpetrators, and spread the bill around the world, and in the EU had the tax payer pay it. Remember all banks in the EU did, was to believe US capital firms, on their risk assessment. Which was fraudulent.

But Obama? And in the end financial crisis, problem of economic gains not reaching the middle classes and the poor still not solved, but damn you Obama, and capitalism prevailed?

Also - the housing bubble still is caused by too much investment money seeking "stable return of investment". So to this day - it, and you yourself are investing in the housing market believing, that prices will go up. And usually they do. That there was a loan bubble that burst is a little bit different, than that that was caused by people taking out the loans. No - cant blame a burst bubble on the people who are taking out, and getting loans.

If you believe in the free market principal working of course..

edit:

Oh, and before you all go out an buy houses. That stuff is changing with the boomers dying out. In the US less so, because their houses are usually not build to last, and they have not as much of a decline in population, as other countries around the world - but if you are making the same bet in Europe today, you are betting on the generational population difference being filled up by migrants, or by migration pressures into cities.


Also: Something about Foxi4s story on paying off his house in four years is fishy, considering this:
https://careers.workopolis.com/advi...-to-buy-a-house-in-every-major-canadian-city/
So - if you are living in any major city, with projected economic growth in the next 10 years or so, the average family, cant afford a loan for a house anymore, without making it a very long term investment (at which point you probably arent getting the loan cleared).
And that was 2016. The situation this year looks like this:

On a national level, homes in Canada sold for an average of $688,208 this May, a 39% year-over-year increase and down from March's all-time high of $716,828.

https://wowa.ca/reports/canada-housing-market

edit: Most upvoted post on Quora from 3 years ago (More detailed than my description):

It had nothing to do with Obama, and everything to do with the greed and recklessness of the big banks. The roots go back to Ronald Reagan’s administration. In the 1980s there was more money tied up in mortgages than in the stock market, and Wall Street wanted a piece of it. Lewis Ranieri of Wall Street firm Salomon Bothers devised a way, by creating the Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO) in 1983 to package mortgages into bonds that could be sold to institutional investors and sovereign funds. This could only be done through Freddie Mac at the time, but in 1984 Congress passed the Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act (SMMEA) which allowed private banks to buy and sell mortgage backed securities without a government guarantee.

This picked up big time after the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act in 1999, allowing the free mixing of commercial and investment banking. Investment bank policies took over most banks because it was more profitable, and very little was more profitable than mortgage bonds. So banks gave every encouragement to people to take out mortgages, providing lavish funding to mortgage originators. Once the mortgages were signed they were immediately sold to an investment bank, incorporated into mortgage bonds and sold to outside investors. With that sale, went the risk. In case of default it wasn’t the bank on the hook for the loss, but the unsuspecting pension fund that held the bond.

The problem was, there just weren’t enough mortgages being issued to fuel the demand for bonds, so banks created entities like Countrywide, a mortgage originator. The overriding objective was to get a borrower’s signature on the forms, so that the mortgage could be rolled into a bond. Banks provided the originators with practically unlimited funds, knowing they could recover them almost immediately from the bond sale. This drove up house prices very sharply, with the result that under ordinary prudent rules, most people couldn’t qualify, so the rules were relaxed so that anyone could qualify, even if they had no hope of repaying. Inventive new mortgage payment plans were created with very low initial payments, increasing after a couple of years. Borrowers were told, “Look, prices are increasing at 25% a year - when the payments goes up, you can sell the house and cash out a large capital gain”. Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide, had a simple growth strategy.
“We fund all loans.”
… What if the borrower has no job?
“Fund ‘em.”
… What if they have no assets?
“Fund ‘em.”
… No income?
“If they can fog a mirror, we’ll give them a loan.”

What could possibly go wrong?

It’s a common Republican technique to blame all this, and the devastating crash that followed, on Fannie Mae, the government mortgage guarantor. Now I see they’re trying to hang it round Obama’s neck. It’s just the usual “whataboutism” to deflect attention away from the real culprits, like Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, who is no doubt fully up to date on his donations to Congressional re-election funds. In spite of evidence of massive lawbreaking, no bankers have ever been prosecuted over the mortgage crisis. In fact, one of the first things Donald Trump did after he got the keys to the Oval Office was to chat with his pal Jamie Dimon and then announce plans to gut the Dodd-Frank Act.

After the next devastating crash, who will Republicans blame? Pocahontas? Oh, wait a minute …

src: https://www.quora.com/How-did-Barack-Obama-cause-the-sub-prime-housing-crisis

Most upvoted posting on Quora that isn't pure BS, that is. (As in the 140 likes posting of 'Obama owns all his houses himself, and..')

 

[Foxi4]

Nice wall of text, as usual. I won't be having a debate with you for reasons that should be abundantly obvious to you, but since you're posting graphs, they're worth explaining to people who might enact the effort of going through this laboured, but incorrect interpretation of events.

The Gini Coefficient is a worthless metric of no particular interest, "income inequality" translates to "I'm upset that some people have more wealth than me instead of focusing on the fact that we're all getting more wealthy over time, just at different rates". Not that it matters anyway since it's not exactly a bleak picture either, depending on the grouping you look at. Families are doing perfectly fine.



It's almost as if having two adult income earners in the house was superior to having one. Who knew?

Wages have consistently increased over the last 50+ years, the problem (if it's a problem at all) is that at the same time purchasing power has remained stagnant, lagging behind that growth. Thanks, inflation (among other factors).

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/09/10/are-wages-rising-falling-or-stagnating/

Social mobility in the 1940's was predictably higher because 407,316 U.S. soldiers in their prime productive years have died on the front of WWII and another 671,278 were wounded, often grievously, removing large swathes of people from the labour force and creating a worker shortage as a result, driving wages up. I could've predicted that curve without clicking on the link just by the time frame. Not that it even matters since mobility is doing fairly well contemporarily, with 57% of earners likely moving upward, contrasted with only 7% moving downward, according to Pew Trusts. Not bad. The majority of Americans will accumulate wealth over their lifetime, with some accumulating enough to ascend the economic ladder.

I don't live in Canada, I don't know why you'd bring that up. I had no issues securing funding either. I don't know what you're expecting me to say, give you tips on how to improve your credit? I'm not a financial advisor, figure it out. It actually worked out cheaper than paying rent for a similar-sized property. I won't be posting the deed to my property online, so it's a silly argument anyway - I don't seek approval of strangers on the Internet, whether you believe me or not is immaterial. It's my personal anecdote anyway, not everyone will be so "lucky" (luck is a miniscule component here, but I'll be agreeable), it was merely related to the subject we were discussing.

As for sanctions against Cuba and other communist countries, they're a tried and true method of dismantling them without military intervention that I wholeheartedly approve of.

An admirable attempt at "deboonking" that further supports my original points.

 

[Deleted User]

As for sanctions against Cuba and other communist countries, they're a tried and true method of dismantling them without military intervention that I wholeheartedly approve of.

So in other words... you approve the slow suffering of thousands. Letting them die to covid and other diseases and a lack of food for political gain.

Well, thanks for showing your colors there.

 

[Foxi4]

So in other words... you approve the slow suffering of thousands. Letting them die to covid and other diseases and a lack of food for political gain.

Well, thanks for showing your colors there.

I approve of ending their suffering by dismantling the system that actively persecutes them, ideally without the use of force. In any case, Cuba is not entitled to U.S. money - choosing not to do business with them is a perfectly acceptable strategy. If that causes Cuba to fall apart then its government was pretty shitty in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 435036]

Aspects from both ideologies should be used to create a better society.

 

[Deleted User]

I approve of ending their suffering by dismantling the system that actively persecutes them

False. You said and I'll quote

As for sanctions against Cuba and other communist countries, they're a tried and true method of dismantling them without military intervention that I wholeheartedly approve of.

You are accepting it primarily because it's not capitalist. You did not state authoritarian, you did not state oppressive. You stated a economic system, something that we've gone over at this point is two different systems. Your allowing it because it's not capitalist. Entirely political gain.

If that causes Cuba to fall apart then its government was pretty shitty in the first place.

And you think the United States would fair the same if they lost all their imports?
Last time I checked about about 30% of the united states is desert. And last time I checked there's quite a few things we can't grow here reasonably without other countries assistance.
My point being, it's damn near impossible to be 100% self sufficient country wise. The united states would probably do fine regarding food. But I don't know about imports such as oil which we are still heavily reliant on. We'd also loose access to a lot of foods people would like to eat, that is primarily grown in other countries.
My point being
Also I'd like to add they also got hit by a hurricane recently, which may or may not impact their food supply

Edit:
As a sidenote I've done more research into cuba.
It seems that they had a china situation themselves as well. Tl;dr overtime closer and closer to a capitalist system while retaining the poor governing structure (authoritarian)
When I say "china situation" if you know the idea of The ship of Theseus. That's what I mean essentially. At some point there's enough changes to another system that it cannot reasonably be called the same system it once started. Now, that's a interesting common theme now that I'm looking at it. Communist states that are authoritarian, turning into capitalist states with poorer and poorer conditions.

 

[smf]

The problem I have with this notion is the fact that, by and large, everyone benefits from capitalism. The point of contention on the left is that some benefit more than others since capital, much like a magnet, tends to attract more capital - not a rule, but it happens often enough.

So if it works for 60% of people then the 40% of the people it doesn't work for should be left to starve?

I approve of ending their suffering by dismantling the system that actively persecutes them, ideally without the use of force. In any case, Cuba is not entitled to U.S. money - choosing not to do business with them is a perfectly acceptable strategy. If that causes Cuba to fall apart then its government was pretty shitty in the first place.

If everyone put sanctions on the US then their economy would implode.

You've basically re-invented the drowning of women to test whether they are witches.

In any event, you don't seem to be a good arbiter of what is perfectly acceptable & any argument you make based on that is circular reasoning.

 

[Foxi4]

False. You said and I'll quote

You are accepting it primarily because it's not capitalist. You did not state authoritarian, you did not state oppressive. You stated a economic system, something that we've gone over at this point is two different systems. Your allowing it because it's not capitalist. Entirely political gain.

And you think the United States would fair the same if they lost all their imports?
Last time I checked about about 30% of the united states is desert. And last time I checked there's quite a few things we can't grow here reasonably without other countries assistance.
My point being, it's damn near impossible to be 100% self sufficient country wise. The united states would probably do fine regarding food. But I don't know about imports such as oil which we are still heavily reliant on. We'd also loose access to a lot of foods people would like to eat, that is primarily grown in other countries.
My point being
Also I'd like to add they also got hit by a hurricane recently, which may or may not impact their food supply

Edit:
As a sidenote I've done more research into cuba.
It seems that they had a china situation themselves as well. Tl;dr overtime closer and closer to a capitalist system while retaining the poor governing structure (authoritarian)
When I say "china situation" if you know the idea of The ship of Theseus. That's what I mean essentially. At some point there's enough changes to another system that it cannot reasonably be called the same system it once started. Now, that's a interesting common theme now that I'm looking at it. Communist states that are authoritarian, turning into capitalist states with poorer and poorer conditions.

You're not in a position to moralise. Che was a well-known butcher, as was Fidel Castro. You're eagerly defending a system created by monsters guilty of genocide, innumerable human rights violations, overt racism, putting homosexuals in forced labour camps, executing prisoners of war without trial, rape, torture and other atrocities - ones that didn't happen in a dark vacuum somewhere out of sight, but out in the open, in plain view. Che is proud of many of them, and mentions them in his diary. If I were an asshole, I could say that by extension, you must also support racism, homophobia, rape, torture and murder - after all, if I approve of sanctions against an oppressive, totalitarian government specifically built in the mold of Stalinism, I must approve of the citizens suffering. I won't, because that's a stupid assumption to make, but if you want to look foolish yourself and accuse me of bizarre things, you're more than welcome to.

So if it works for 60% of people then the 40% of the people it doesn't work for should be left to starve?

If everyone put sanctions on the US then their economy would implode.

You've basically re-invented the drowning of women to test whether they are witches.

In any event, you don't seem to be a good arbiter of what is perfectly acceptable & any argument you make based on that is circular reasoning.

We should adopt systems that work for the gross majority of citizens and help out those whom it "doesn't work for", although I don't know who you mean by that, what "not working" constitutes or where you get the 60% figure. On the bright side, even if that ratio were true (it's not), capitalism would still pull ahead in this race since it works for "most people" whereas communism doesn't work. *Snicker* Wonderful audience, I'll be here all night.

 

[Deleted User]

Besides, you're not in a position to moralise. Che was a well-known butcher, as was Fidel Castro. You're eagerly defending a system created by monsters guilty of genocide, innumerable human rights violations, overt racism, putting homosexuals in forced labour camps, executing prisoners of war without trial, rape, torture and other atrocities - ones that didn't happen in a dark vacuum somewhere out of sight, but out in the open, in plain view.

Am I defending it? Or I'm I criticizing your word choice. Not once at all, have I supported them. Ever. I am anarcho communist. I do not like state. And your not in the position to moralize either.
Should I tell you that the United States was buddy buddy with Nazi germany for a period of time? Have you checked what the rhetoric was like in the states back then? If you didn't, it sounded a lot like germany's at the time. The difference? Propaganda once the United States joined the allies. How about the fact we are still in the middle east, for no good reason, outside of again, Oil. How about all those people previous presidents that have bombed foreign countries in the United States? How many people die or kill themselves from either lack of proper healthcare, and if they get it, then medical bills. How about Texas,trying to passing laws that requires a transperson to wear a godamn fucking sticker for the bathroom. You know, NOT TOO DIFFERENT FROM FUCKING NAZI GERMANY AND JEWS. This is also all happening in plain sight, in the United States. But the United States is special, because of the amount of deregulation, which has pointed out what happens when capitalism is unrestrained. If unrestrained it will pull back worker protections, if unrestrained it will not care for people, but money. And if left unrestrained, businesses can do whatever, and those at the bottom don't have the power to fight back within the system created. The United States government is becoming increasingly more authoritarian. Leaning into companies and the wealthiness hands, and not the people.

Edit: My point being, the United States, is not clean either.

Edit2: And the reason I dislike capitalism.
As it now dawned on me. Is the inherit power structure capitalism inevitably creates as it slowly erodes the governing hand.


However I must point out cuba's problem is likely developed by the United States.
It was the United States who decided to place a authoritarian government in Cuba. Not Cubans choice. And they choose to overthrow it.

And getting rid of a authoritarian government is historically difficult. It often will always lead to another authoritarian government in it's place. If the United States had left them be, what would we have?

 

[Foxi4]

Am I defending it? Or I'm I criticizing your word choice. Not once at all, have I supported them. Ever. I am anarcho communist. I do not like state. And your not in the position to moralize either.
Should I tell you that the United States was buddy buddy with Nazi germany for a period of time? Have you checked what the rhetoric was like in the states back then? If you didn't, it sounded a lot like germany's at the time. The difference? Propaganda. How about the fact we are still in the middle east, for no good reason, outside of again, Oil. How about all those people previous presidents that have bombed foreign countries in the United States? How many people die or kill themselves from either lack of proper healthcare, and if they get it, then medical bills. How about Texas,trying to passing laws that requires a transperson to wear a godamn fucking sticker for the bathroom. You know, NOT TOO DIFFERENT FROM FUCKING NAZI GERMANY AND JEWS. This is also all happening in plain sight, in the United States. But the United States is special, because of the amount of degregulation, which has pointed out what happens when capitalism is unrestrained. If unrestrained it will pull back worker protections, if unrestrained it will not care for people, but money. And if left unrestrained, businesses can do whatever, and those at the bottom don't have the power to fight back within the system created.

Capitalism didn't do that, Hitler was a widely popular figure, to the point of being on the cover of The Time Magazine. Most of his atrocities weren't widely known until the war fully broke out, so you're conflating an entire decade into a singular point in history. The rest of your post isn't worth discussing - people committing suicide in a low point in their lives (as a side note, the suicide rate in the U.S.S.R. was 17.1 per 100000 in 1965 and grew to 29.6 by 1984, no doubt from all the prosperity. In the USA it's 13.4) is not equivalent to state sponsored massacres or mass rapes. I won't indulge your thirst for some Godwin's Law much here - if your only response is "yes, but Hitler" then you don't have a point and you're just deflecting.

Lord almighty, I just read your edit and I'm just shaking my head. You don't understand the Ship of Theseus thought experiment (also referred to as Grandfather's Axe), it's a question in the realm of metaphysics. Let me explain, since this is apparently a difficult concept to grasp for some. The experiment presents you with a conundrum - you have a meticulously maintained ship and, over time, each part of the ship subject to wear and tear was replaced with new parts. The question is whether this ship, belonging to Theseus, is still the same ship as the one he embarked on his journey on initially. The answer is, unequivocally, yes - the metaphysical concept of the ship extends in the fourth dimension, which is time. It is the same ship, its identity is the same, but it has changed over time. This is consistent with Sider's solution which assumes continuity over time, as well as Chomsky's solution, which criticises externalism and focuses on the ship as an organisational structure consisting of numerous parts that, when put together, constitute a ship, and even Aristotle's solution which underlines that the ship's formal cause remains the same, thus it is the same ship. As long as the continuity of time and space exist, it is in fact Theseus's ship. It's always frustrating to me when someone presents an introductory class-level philosophical question to me as if it's something novel - it's not, it's a Baby's First Philosophy Book concept. To put it in more relatable terms, your body dies and decays over time. In the course of your life your cells will be destroyed and replaced with new cells - dead skin will flake off, replaced with fresh, new skin, for instance. Every 7 to 10 years, piece by piece, your body is "replaced" with a "new one" nearly completely. That does not mean that you lose your identity - your identity extends in time and You, as an entity, are a sum of your parts. Those parts are not required to stay the same to maintain your continuity - You exist regardless.

Not that it matters anyway since it doesn't work in your analogy. The standard of living in China has increased, not decreased, upon introducing capitalist concepts into their economy. It literally saved the country from total financial and societal collapse - the Great Leap Forward was a massive failure that led to death in the millions and widespread poverty.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Biden calls Cuba a 'failed' state, considers US tech option to send internet services

Biden says 'communism is a universally failed system'

"Communism is a failed system, a universally failed system, and I don’t see socialism as a very useful substitute," the president said.

"Cuba is, unfortunately, a failed state and repressing their citizens," he continued. "There are a number of things that we are considering doing to help the people of Cuba, but they would require…a guarantee that they would not be taken advantage of by the government."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...ders-us-tech-option-to-send-internet-services

 

[Deleted member 535703]

I would like to say, both suck really bad. Capitalism has benefitted the rich and done nothing for the poor as unemployment soars while Jeff Bezos gets loaded. Communism would cause a huge imbalance.

Please note that the following is a roughly drafted part of what I may be doing work on. This idealism is shared through countless others, and I will probably essay the crap out of it until I can publish it or lock it away forever, never to be found again. Keep in mind that this new form of government is roughly named by me as Assistive Country Sustainmentism. Read the following with that in consideration.

What America needs is a new system built around the following principles:
1. Non-negotiable 10%-20% tax. That way, everybody pays what is fair based on their wealth. Removing charitable bonuses would be an improvement because the rich couldn't use the Charitable Bonus loophole to reduce their taxes to zero. This way, the government has a stable source of revenue to allow for the passing of the following improvements.

2. Assisting the poor. I'm not saying we drop everything for those of us here in the middle and lower class (Hi). I'm saying the government passes new relief bills with those taxes to help those who are stuck at rock bottom get back on their feet. If you don't have an address, you can't get a job. Thus, help the homeless into jobs and housing until they land on their feet. Provide therapy for those in need of it, provide medicine for the sick, and once they are ok, you can slowly decrease governmental support until that person/family is self-sustaining.

3. Free healthcare. Come on America. Every other country is doing it. It's more efficient and would help make less people turn poor if they break a leg or have a terminal illness. If the government pays the wages of doctors, surgeons, medical technicians, dentists, nurses, and the like, we don't lose hundreds of dollars to a simple bruise.

4. A living wage. Right now, you need to work 2 jobs alone or have your husband/wife/gender neutral partner do another job to sustain each other and a family. By paying a living wage, maybe people won't be so stressed and broke and poor.

This is equally better than capitalism and communism. Wouldn't y'all agree? Being able to help each other sustain a country while maintaining a value of private property nobody can take from you (obvious reasons for why they would excluded) and keeping public, government owned land for everyone to use would be infinitely more secure than fully private/fully public.

 

[wolffangalchemist]

I would like to say, both suck really bad. Capitalism has benefitted the rich and done nothing for the poor as unemployment soars while Jeff Bezos gets loaded. Communism would cause a huge imbalance.

Please note that the following is a roughly drafted part of what I may be doing work on. This idealism is shared through countless others, and I will probably essay the crap out of it until I can publish it or lock it away forever, never to be found again. Keep in mind that this new form of government is roughly named by me as Assistive Country Sustainmentism. Read the following with that in consideration.

What America needs is a new system built around the following principles:
1. Non-negotiable 10%-20% tax. That way, everybody pays what is fair based on their wealth. Removing charitable bonuses would be an improvement because the rich couldn't use the Charitable Bonus loophole to reduce their taxes to zero. This way, the government has a stable source of revenue to allow for the passing of the following improvements.

2. Assisting the poor. I'm not saying we drop everything for those of us here in the middle and lower class (Hi). I'm saying the government passes new relief bills with those taxes to help those who are stuck at rock bottom get back on their feet. If you don't have an address, you can't get a job. Thus, help the homeless into jobs and housing until they land on their feet. Provide therapy for those in need of it, provide medicine for the sick, and once they are ok, you can slowly decrease governmental support until that person/family is self-sustaining.

3. Free healthcare. Come on America. Every other country is doing it. It's more efficient and would help make less people turn poor if they break a leg or have a terminal illness. If the government pays the wages of doctors, surgeons, medical technicians, dentists, nurses, and the like, we don't lose hundreds of dollars to a simple bruise.

4. A living wage. Right now, you need to work 2 jobs alone or have your husband/wife/gender neutral partner do another job to sustain each other and a family. By paying a living wage, maybe people won't be so stressed and broke and poor.

This is equally better than capitalism and communism. Wouldn't y'all agree? Being able to help each other sustain a country while maintaining a value of private property nobody can take from you (obvious reasons for why they would excluded) and keeping public, government owned land for everyone to use would be infinitely more secure than fully private/fully public.

in the US ( particularly the southern part from personal experience, it can be very contradictory in many ways) most don't have a viable concept of this, and the idea is sound and could work well, but a huge ratification of "who" is in charge( or " what two" parties are ) would have to happen and the right people would have to be able to take or be given responsibility to see it's fulfillment. the way things are now money, media, influence, and fame have to large a role in our politics( it's basically the outline of it, god or what ever deity.. erm entity forbid we listen to logic) . though i completely agree something like this would benefit all in the long run of things. regrettably it would be more a matter of getting to that point of execution of the plan than laying it out.