Pure capitalism or pure communism?

[George_Bonanza]

Say that you were faced with only two choices: To live in a pure capitalist nation, or a pure communist nation. No in betweens, no compromise, just think as pure as one can get on either ideology. Basically, on one hand, you've got capitalism, with the free market, money-making, etc. On the other, you've got communism, government in full control, everything shared etc.

[sujan]

1. pure communism

is a state less society

[Proletarian]

2. Right on.

Every supposedly Communist state failed in the fact that they actually established a government, contradictory to true Communism.

If history wasn't so tipped towards Capitalism, I would most definately support a pure communist state. Equality and justice rule.

[George_Bonanza]

4. I have little knowledge of communism, please answer q's

Communism has no government? So is it like anarchy, where people keep the justice themselves? I always thought communism had a huge uber-central government that controlled everything to make sure things were fair and evenly distributed.

[Proletarian]

12. Yes,

Much like the Paris communes. No states, people co-operating with each other, bascially.

My only criticism of Marx is that he was an unrealistic idealist.

Marxism, to my limited reading of history, works very well, until a certain number of people. Such as it seems to be viable in a community of 1 thousand, but beyond that it falls apart b/c of differences in the thoughts of the proletariate.

Forgive my REALLY crude explanation. But Communism was not meant to have a state. Even Lenin stated that 1917 shouldn't be the end, but should be the beginning of the worldwide rule of the proletariate.

But there are many nuances as well. Marx also thought, from my readinds, that a country must become prosperous via Capitalism before a succesful Communist society could be started. Thati s something Russia definately lacked in 1917.

[George_Bonanza]

15. Then is Soviet Union-style communism, "Leninism"?

I read that Lenin distorted Marx's views to what is known as Leninism. Is that where the huge government controls everything?

[Proletarian]

20. He did.

Lenin gave his own translation to it.

It seemed to go off good. The population wanted a Communist rule, but after the Oct. 1917 revolution, they would not concede. The first difficulty seemed to be the issue of Nationalizing the banks, which the provisional banks resisted. Then some people objected to the idea of giving up thier property, apparently not knowing the fundamentals of Marxism. It is really a contrived situation.

Everyone has thier own translation of everything. I, personally, think Lenin was honest in his aims, but was overcome with adversitiy. The fact that he placed so much trust in questionable people (several police agents during his rise to power, and Stalin), shows his basic shortcomings.

edit: The majority of the Soviet Union was ruled under Stalin, who had nothing to do with rule by the proletarite. He was just a despot, simply said.

[sujan]

23. it was stalin and his

'third international' agenda that ruined it.

[George_Bonanza]

24. Do you agree with Leninism then?

That had not Stalin subverted its direction, it would be a viable alternative to modern western-style capitalism?

[Proletarian]

26. It is impossible to say.

Lenin died withing 6 years of his coming to power. His views are obvious by his writings, but his intentions can never be known, as people lie all the time.

To me, he seemed to have noble ends. Although I doubt real communism could exist with a central government, like he wanted.

He said that a dictatorship 'was the only way', but he also despised the lazy and unintelligible, which he felt (again, from my readings, and history is always crappy) served little purpose to the community.

Sometimes I think it all would've turned out better had Trotsky orchestrated the whole thing. But who knows.

[Bertrand]

44. To put down the anarchist rebellions

in the Ukraine, etc. and centralize the economy are not that of a socialist, but a dictator. The Bolsheviks were extreme statists that destroyed the socialist movement in the west, and they should be looked down on by those that believe in the concept of workers rights.

[lancemurdoch]

42. Socialism and Communism

Communism means no government, or at least that's the definition according to Marx (and Lenin, and whoever).

The USSR never called itself communist. USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They called themselved socialists, not communists, and never claimed to be a communist society.

Being as the person asking this question didn't know this and was talking about government controlling everything in "pure communism", saying whether you're for it or against it is kind of pointless...if people have such basic misconceptions of what it is, knowing whether someone is for it or against it is meaningless.

[Andy_Stephenson]

3. agreed Communism in it's pure form is an

ideal...but like Capitalism it is subject to bastardization and corruption.

[sujan]

8. capitalism started with colonization

so it is just a sweet name for 'Economic Imperialism'.

I am ready accept a capitalist society with some socialistic values but I whole heartedly reject the idea of 'Pure Capitalism', it is just a concept to rape the earth of its resources for short term benefits without thinking about the long term damages.

[George_Bonanza]

11. Whoa, nobody wants an extreme political ideologue here

Nobody here wants a pure capitalism. I don't think anybody wants a pure communism either. It's just a "what if" scenario.

[Terwilliger]

16. you're the one that forced the choice

:hi:

[George_Bonanza]

21. There's a diff between wanting something, and rather having something

[Terwilliger]

38. Yes, and there's a difference between hope and realization

I agree wholeheartedly with your sig, by the way.

[Andy_Stephenson]

34. I agree 100%

I think socialism is a good plan, as long as rights are codified.

[Must_B_Free]

32. I guess getting from the ideal to the specific implementation

is where it gets derailed.

[dudeness]

5. I don't think either ideology

has reached its purest form..attempts have been made at a communist model resulting in the likes of stalin..pol pot ..etc..they twisting the ideology to suit their evil ends..capitalism is in the same stage of experimentation ..yet to achieve its purest form ..we are seeing the results today of its movement forward..war..

[Fescue4u]

6. Communism is perfect...

Other than the fact that doesnt work.

Picking between extremes is rarely required, nor useful.

But if I had to pick, it would be capitalism.

[Terwilliger]

14. that's erroneous

pure communism has never been attempted

[George_Bonanza]

Has pure capitalism ever been attempted?

America, or Canada, or Europe, or Japan all lean capitalist but with definite socialistic programs. An extreme ideologue like pure capitalism is doomed, like pure anything IMHO.

[Terwilliger]

28. probably true

but Id still rather have communism...capitalism ultimately drives all service towards its own users, and the "users" are NOT any of the poor

[sujan]

19. it they'd allowed to

have you read this essay?

http://dieoff.com/page95.htm

I surmise this will be the fate of the so called 'capitalist' society.

[Fescue4u]

25. True, but the closer it came to "purity"

the more disasterous it was.

[Terwilliger]

27. sorry, that's incorrect

Lenin and Trotsky had the right idea but they couldn't implement the strictures that make communism what it is

Stalin became George W. Bush and screwed the Revolution

[Shanty Oilish]

37. Poor material. Human beings.

"...they couldn't implement the strictures that make communism what it is."

Strictures. Hmm.

[Terwilliger]

40. a dictatorship of the proletariat

power to the people

OnEdit: Right On

[w4rma]

7. Both are equally bad, IMHO. Corporatism or Communism.

capitalism and socialism are opposite ends of an axis.
democracy and dictatorship/monarchy are opposite ends of another axis.

A state can be totalitarian and capitalist (fascism):

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

A state can be totalitarian and socialist (communism)
A state can be democratic and capitalist.
A state can be democratic and socialist.
A state can be anywhere inbetween the two axis. The U.S. has both capitalist policies and socialist policies.

Here is a list of some of the socialist ones:
socialized armed forces
socialized water
socialized police
socialized fired department
social(ized) security
medicare
road building/maintanance
public waste and water treatment
public schools

[Terwilliger]

13. WHOA! Corporatism is NOT capitalism

especially in our government, these practices are two ENTIRELY separate things.

Sure you can invent the hula-hoop and make millions, but Wham-O has the right to screw competitors and their workers.

Unless, of course, that's what you're defending.

[w4rma]

18. The extreme right-end of the economic and governing axes is corporatism

I think I was pretty clear in explaining that the U.S. economic system is a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

[Terwilliger]

30. tell the DLC that

they keep telling me it wont work for the swing voters!!

[w4rma]

33. DLC leadership seems to be full of ideologues and corporatists

I try to use my tiny insignificant voice to tell them, but they don't seem to hear me and I doubt they listen even if they did hear me.

[Terwilliger]

41. I still think the tack is wrong

independents and swing voters like Spike Tv, and Monday Night Football (no offense helmet-heads!) But you still won't reach them asking them to be responsible. Maybe enough will become sick of the system and seek a change, but it may not happen either.

You may get George and then we're screwed. Didn't somebody tell me that somewhere along the line? If I voted Nader, we'd get George Bush? Nader? Nader gave us George Bush? Kerry? George Bush? Gephardt? Shrub? Kucinich??? Chimpy McCokespoon?

[luckydevi]

53. No

That is simply not true. The extreme right is anarcho-capitalist. To suggest capitalism equates fascism/corporatism is intellectually dishonest. There is nothing capitalistic about corporate welfare(to take an example)

[George_Bonanza]

9. I know neither is a good ideology to live in

Extremes are never good for large amounts of people. However, I just want to throw a hypothetical question into the air: If faced with a huge black and white dilemma, which one would you choose?

[Terwilliger]

10. pure communism

trust me...its much better!

[maggrwaggr]

17. stupid loaded question

why anyone would bother to answer this is beyond me.

There are absolutely no parameters to this poster's definitions of either

[George_Bonanza]

22. Geez

I don't know enough to list everything about either side. Sorry about that.

[skeptic9]

29. Restatement: 'One dollar, one vote' or 'one person, one vote'?

You've posed a crucial political question. Even the ultraright's economic guru Milton Friedman has said many times (most notably in his book "Capitalism and Freedom" that NOBODY would want to live under pure capitalism. With no government regulation, no taxes, and no social programs, there would be utter chaos. People who lost jobs and exhausted their savings would be completely dependent on the generosity of family, friends, neighbors, and philanthropists. The patent unfairness of the income distribution would lead to unimaginable levels of violent crime.

Friedman says the essences of capitalism and socialism are two competing systems for deciding who gets what, when, and how. Pure capitalism's fundamental principle is, "one dollar, one vote", while pure socialism's is "one person, one vote."

Pure socialism would be no paradise, either. For example, imagine that, in order to go to college, you had to win the approval of a majority of people in your neighborhood. No amount of intellect or hard work would make a bit of difference in whether you would be allowed to go to school.

Practically the only point of agreement between myself and Milton Friedman is that no informed person would choose to live under either paradigm.

This line of thought makes the advent of "Fox News", corporate PACs, and other mechanisms for turning economic power into ballot-box power even more frightening. The political party that now dominates all three branches of government in Washington seems to have as its goal the very essence of "one dollar, one vote."

[Terwilliger]

31. How classic..."Rocky IV" on in the background

Take that you dirty Russkies!! :eyes:

[TreasonousBastard]

35. Aside from the fact that.

neither one can work large scale in the real world, I would choose communism.

Small communist, sort of, societies have worked. Primitive tribes, communes, Shaker communities, etc. Eventually, they break down due to common human failings and outside influences, but they are more to my taste than purely competitive societies.

[Shanty Oilish]

36. Pure capitalism

Alternative being "govt in full control." And why is that necessary? What happened to the withering?

[Charlls]

39. the systems evolve to harmonious balance, not pure forms....

The axis viewpoint is a way to simplify the problem, reducing both to a given color, or side (this is a neo-con, this is right-wing, this is left-wing, this is a commie, etc). Thats bs. Thats an excellent example how relevant info is removed and cleansed, until we have a completely harmless, aseptic, politically correct, empty and useless statement.

the right side argues that the state (political power) should not try to limit or control the economicals powers (the corporative freedoms), but these can mess with the political power thru the lobbyist activity. The left side argues that the state should limit and control the corporate freedoms, and offer basic services.

What most of the people wants is a equilibrium point between the political and economical power. However its currently impossible for a very simple reason: the 'dollar' travels effortlessly thru the free market economy. the capitalist system relates 'dolar' as the unit of economical power. the stock market rules establish clearly that 'dolars' should have equals rights to compete for buying and selling stocks, which means capital its dinamical in a capitalist society, However, the 'vote' isnt dynamic at all in current pseudo-democratic societies; the democratic systems assures 'vote' as the unit of political power. It says you can offer your 'vote' to the political stocks (politicians) that offer in exchange to satisfy your demands. However (here is the gotcha) its removed the ability of my 'vote' to be withdrawed when a politician doesnt satisfy my demands, and give it freely to other politician.

Until we not reach that equilibrium point, countries will strive between the pure forms, or between artificial equilibrium point defined up to the taste of barely movable politicians that cannot be well punished or awarded by the voters, meanwhile, big corporations continue to evolve at a day-to-day pace, and continue to predate the political enviroment (citizens freedoms)

[Terwilliger]

43. READ THIS!!!

excellent!!! :bounce:

[leftyandproud]

45. communism, no doubt..

so I'm a pinko
sue me

[Paschall]

46. In their undying admiration for America...

...the French say that if the United States had become communist, it would have worked.

No joke.

:-)

[JHB]

47. Pure Fantasy

Say that you were faces with only two choices: To live in a flawed theoretical construct, or to live in another flawed theoretical construct, and you can't change anything.

Which do you choose?

[Blue_Chill]

48. That's like asking us to choose between the Easter Bunny and Hitler

Pure Capitalism is bad, real bad. Pure communism is imposible it goes against human nature.

So my choice is neither.

[Terwilliger]

49. thats a broad statement

how does communism go against human nature?

[Blue_Chill]

50. Well it removes competition and ambition

from the equation. Sadly you can't remove those from a human.

[Terwilliger]

57. I still think that's the goofiest thing I've ever heard

so, when you have no material concerns, you think you can't live a much better life?

[tom_paine]

51. Ugh. Neither. I reject the question.

Both would be equally horrible. Extremes are unworkable.

[luckydevi]

52. CApitalism

Using your definitions, I would take freedom over security 100 times out of 100.

[tom_paine]

54. False dichotomy, there luckydevi

Just as Right-Wing Totalitarianism (Nazism) and Left-Wing Totalitarianism (Communism) share many characteristics aside from what ideological rationalizations they use, so would this purely economic model presented.

"Freedom" vs. "Security"? You would have neither in a pure capitalist and a pure communist society both...

[luckydevi]

56. .

To suggest Nazism is capitalism is absurd. Capitalism is a system that embraces individualism while fascism embraces collectivism.

[Terwilliger]

58. nothing wrong with collectivism

when it's benevolent

pure capitalism (if benevolent) could be a very good system, but we can't continue to have such disparity between the haves and have-nots

[luckydevi]

59. .

I have no problem with collectivism when it is voluntary, my problem is when it's involuntary. That leads to a perversion of liberty, freedom, and justice. While you are worried about closing the "gap"; I am interested in raising standard of living. I will not fight for equality if comes at the expense of liberty.

[tom_paine]

62. The Busheviks are daily stealing your Liberty

Fretteing about collectivism, in the face of the all-out assualt on the Old Amerikan Repoublic --it's voitng systems, it's Press, it's Judiciary, the checks and balances, are akin to worrying about a pimple on your chin while your pants are on fire.

[tom_paine]

61. Didn't suggest nazism was capitalism

I was comparing the end similarities of systems that have diametrically opposed justifications/ideologies.

And of course Hitler did, on more than one occasion speak very highly of Free Enterprise and worked hand-in-glove with German Industrialists, who supported him in much the way way and by multiple, often "out-of-sight" methods that carries a whiff of similarity to Richard Mellon Scaife and the Amerikan Industrialists.

"We stand for the maintenance of private property...We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."

-Adolph Hitler, quoted in Derailing Democracy by David McGowan (Common Courage Press, Monroe, ME, 2000)

And of course there's Mussolini's own words on the subject:

"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power."

I don't know about you, but I tend to believe what people said themselves, rather than what you tell me they said.

To say that Pure Capitalism embraces individualism is an oversimplification. And would Pure Capitaslism, being 100% "free" include the Crony Capitalism practiced in the past in Marcos' Phillipines, or currently in Argentina and the Amerikan Empire? Does Bushevik Crony Capitalism or Marcos Crony Capitalism or any opf them rely on free and fair individual meirt (you might want to check the no-bid contracts given by the Emperor to Halliburton and Bechtel before you answer) Would not Pure Capitalism be without law, being 100% pure, and thus a Darwinian situation? And all Totalitarianism in the end, regardless of the ideological justifcations they use, favor collectivism. Even the Amerikan Emperor's squashing of didssent and the methodology by which they are shutting out the voices of half of this country suggests that in spite of their rhetoric they would prefer a homogeneous population, as long as it was homogeneous in the unquestioning worhip of the Bush Imperial Family.

As I said, extremes don't work, which is why the Founding Fathers created this nation with the nearly defunct system of Checks and Balances that the Busheviks seek to weaken and destroy in exchange for unchecked hegemony.

This nation was founded as a Moderate Nation with Error-Correction mechanisms.

The Amerikan Empire that we are currently transitioning to, is neither of these things.

[luckydevi]

63. .

"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power."

I realize Mussolini said this, but one again corporatism is not capitalism. In a pure capitalist society a state/government would not exist. This country is a mixuture of fascim, socialism, and capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic system without government/state intervention. Coporatism clearly is not.

[tom_paine]

64. Are you deliberately evading my points?

My original point regarding extremes still stands. And I must said I find people who reply to long posts with multiple points using only one line to be very...Fair and Balanced.

I never said Nazism = Capitalism, though it ceratinly was supported by German Capitalists quite strongly. I have also brought up Crony Capitalism of the "socialist" (for the cronies) tendencies that 100% Total Capitalism often falls into.

But gaain, why am I reiterating when your mostlikely response in a single Fair and Balanced line?

When you wish to discuss the issue, rather than throw out pithy one-liners attacking a single "straw man"..you let me know.

Jonah, is that you?

[luckydevi]

67. Me me make myself clear

Let me make this clear, I do not support a pure capitalist society. My problem was that you suggested corporatism is capitalism.

[chadm]

55. Communist

it would suck less.

[nn2004]

60. Communism - as long as I'm one of the elite leaders

Because the communist elite live like capitalists.

[TrogL]

65. Fallacy of the undivided middle

[nolabels]

66. We live in country that operates on both of them ideologies

and the poor, weak and unmanageable get hedged out into the shitty end of both :grr:

On edit: At least they haven't figured out how to steal my spell checker yet :-)

[Character Assassin]

68. Frankly, I prefer Pure Guava

[Fla_Democrat]

69. hmmm, tough one

:eyes:

Pure capitalism :think:

[StandWatie]

70. I wouldn't live there at all

I'd find somewhere in the world to form a collective and make my own government.