For me, it has nothing to do with economic systems. Capitalism and socialism both have their good points and bad points. It's the dictatorship idea that ruins it for me. Not being able to have freedom of mobility and assembly is awful.
Maybe the Canadian Marxists don't want dictatorship, but then they should change their name.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Seriously, human nature will always be in conflict with a communist style system. We function BEST when there is something in it for us.
Why would I go the extra mile when my hard work is going to reward some other person that I don't even know? Heck, why should I even work?
If we're presented with a system where our hard work results in benefits for US, chances are most of us will succeed.
I don't know if I agree with that. If you look at the history of human civilization, most societies have not had economic or social freedom. Especially in pre-civilization and ancient civilizations, societies were very hierarchial with little or no ease of class and economic mobility.
Economic freedom and democracy is pretty new when you look at human civilation and requires a degree of modernization. There were a few short-lived free society city states before modern times, but they always died out quickly.
Unless you think that we are moving closer to nature in the 21st century....
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
For me, it has nothing to do with economic systems. Capitalism and socialism both have their good points and bad points. It's the dictatorship idea that ruins it for me. Not being able to have freedom of mobility and assembly is awful.
Maybe the Canadian Marxists don't want dictatorship, but then they should change their name.
The commonly accepted term for communism/marxism in poli sci is now critical theory, but I hardly think that would make a good name.
I don't know if I agree with that. If you look at the history of human civilization, most societies have not had economic or social freedom. Especially in pre-civilization and ancient civilizations, societies were very hierarchial with little or no ease of class and economic mobility.
Economic freedom and democracy is pretty new when you look at human civilation and requires a degree of modernization. There were a few short-lived free society city states before modern times, but they always died out quickly.
Unless you think that we are moving closer to nature in the 21st century....
I would want to think that we've become closer to our true selves in the 21st century. At least here in Western Society. Why? Because we are the most successful here, and we enjoy the most freedom, along with the most benefits ever seen or heard of throughout history.
Sure, our way of life(if you want to call it that)....might not last forever, but I still think its the best way.
I think one of the problems with the debate of whether not communism is good is because it has failed everywhere it has been practiced. But everywhere it has been practiced it has been practiced as a dictatorship.
Communism and Capitalism are opposites
Democracy and Totalitarianism are opposites
We have seen Communist Dictatorships, and Capitalist Dictatorships, and Capitalist Democracies. Does this mean a communist democracy is not possible. In theory it should be. If you look the US bailout right now it is the US government Nationalizing a failing industry. So if you had a massive failure in the economic system and the governments solution was Nationlization and they kept having elections you could get close.
As well comunism has worked very well on small scales where your actions directly effect the society.
I would want to think that we've become closer to our true selves in the 21st century. At least here in Western Society. Why? Because we are the most successful here, and we enjoy the most freedom, along with the most benefits ever seen or heard of throughout history.
Sure, our way of life(if you want to call it that)....might not last forever, but I still think its the best way.
I think thats a huge reach. The "next" world powers are China and India - if they are more successful and have more benefits, does that show whatever they're doing is better? North America is the most successful because they are the most recent, and evolutionary, they can built upon other societies. But, the holes in the barrel are starting to show... in a big way.
During the supposed great era of the USA, we've seen market crashes due to greed, we've seen boring assembly line work for a small percentage of the rich to get richer, and we're seeing the affects of corruption boil over from the last 12 years of letting the market run itself. Sure there were a few good years, but it was a society built like a deck of cards... that are all coming crashing down. The monetary system is folding like a cheap, health care is a mess, the education system is failing and simple greed is pushing the economy over the edge. For a few great years, right?
Now I'm not saying China or India or whatever are perfect either, but there is definately a strong case for each and every side of this debate. I don't know how anyone can possibly think that one is clearly better then the other.
Azure, I asked you this before: Have you actually ever left North America? Ever actually been to the USA, to Boston, California, New York, Chicago? Europe? Asia? India? Have you actually ever even talked to anyone with any degree of depth who has lived under communism? Or Scandinavia and their socialism?
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
I think thats a huge reach. The "next" world powers are China and India - if they are more successful and have more benefits, does that show whatever they're doing is better? North America is the most successful because they are the most recent, and evolutionary, they can built upon other societies. But, the holes in the barrel are starting to show... in a big way.
During the supposed great era of the USA, we've seen market crashes due to greed, we've seen boring assembly line work for a small percentage of the rich to get richer, and we're seeing the affects of corruption boil over from the last 12 years of letting the market run itself. Sure there were a few good years, but it was a society built like a deck of cards... that are all coming crashing down. The monetary system is folding like a cheap, health care is a mess, the education system is failing and simple greed is pushing the economy over the edge. For a few great years, right?
Now I'm not saying China or India or whatever are perfect either, but there is definately a strong case for each and every side of this debate. I don't know how anyone can possibly think that one is clearly better then the other.
Azure, I asked you this before: Have you actually ever left North America? Ever actually been to the USA, to Boston, California, New York, Chicago? Europe? Asia? India? Have you actually ever even talked to anyone with any degree of depth who has lived under communism? Or Scandinavia and their socialism?
We can talk about greed in capitalist systems, and its true. But lets not idolize a system that puts deadly chemicals into baby formula in order to increase profits, or use dangerous lead based paints into children's toys in order to reduce assembly costs.
Communism fails because its built to support what they would call the upperclass while treating the working class as if they're simple machines put into place not to strive to be better, but to work and accept a lack of consumer goods.
I can't think of any communist country where the economics have worked. I don't know if you can point to the Chinese as a shining example of that based on the fact that the government allows elements of outright capitalism into their markets while retaining a strong centralized government that retains control over the people.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
We can talk about greed in capitalist systems, and its true. But lets not idolize a system that puts deadly chemicals into baby formula in order to increase profits, or use dangerous lead based paints into children's toys in order to reduce assembly costs.
Where did I say I idolize China? Didn't I say the following in that post you just quoted?
Now I'm not saying China or India or whatever are perfect either
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Communism fails because its built to support what they would call the upperclass while treating the working class as if they're simple machines put into place not to strive to be better, but to work and accept a lack of consumer goods.
You could very well replace "communism" with the industrial revolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I can't think of any communist country where the economics have worked. I don't know if you can point to the Chinese as a shining example of that based on the fact that the government allows elements of outright capitalism into their markets while retaining a strong centralized government that retains control over the people.
China definately isn't totally communist. I'm no poli sci major, but to me, I'd say they are politically communist and economically capitalist.
Off the top of my head - and I'm no expert - weren't the Romans more or less communist the way they ran things? And the Greeks?
Whats funny is the most successful and robust society seems to be Socialism, as I had said before as probably the closest anything that has worked. And, as I said above, selfishly I prefer capitalism because I know individually it would be the best for me.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
Last edited by Phanuthier; 10-05-2008 at 12:48 AM.
The closest one can get to a "communist democracy" are socialist democratic states. By definition, the two are opposites. Democracy refers to the rule of the people, while communism is the rule of a singular entity, "the state," to provide for society, which to date, has not happened, as the road to communism has always ended in socialist or fascist dictatorships.
The closest analogy to the Roman Empire that I can think of is the current system that claims its structure from the Romans, which is the Mafia. One overriding, all powerful leader that controls all the territories, with his own underlings, but each territory is controlled by its own chieftain, and their underlings, who control other people down the line. The Roman system also has a lot in common with a federal system. Communism in theory has no elites.
Its important to note, capitalist democracies have been the best system to encourage the best out of their systems, and produce the highest productivity, creativity and ingenuity... it is frankly the most egalitarian (socialist systems protect those who do not contribute, which leaves the question of whether it is fair to the hard worker who contributes) ... they shall always be so until the question of scarcity can be answered.
Last edited by Thunderball; 10-05-2008 at 01:47 AM.
I think thats a huge reach. The "next" world powers are China and India - if they are more successful and have more benefits, does that show whatever they're doing is better? North America is the most successful because they are the most recent, and evolutionary, they can built upon other societies. But, the holes in the barrel are starting to show... in a big way.
In case you never noticed, both those countries are becoming more democratic as each year goes by.
In fact, India can already be CALLED a democracy.
Still don't get your point. Nobody ever said the US was perfect, or Canada, or any other country that amplifies a democratic 'free' state....but we all KNOW it is the best way.
You should be glad that you can have this conversation right now, because apparently in China certain websites get 'blocked.'
At least that is what they said during the Olympics.
Gotta love government control. And the people who defend it.
The closest one can get to a "communist democracy" are socialist democratic states. By definition, the two are opposites. Democracy refers to the rule of the people, while communism is the rule of a singular entity, "the state," to provide for society, which to date, has not happened, as the road to communism has always ended in socialist or fascist dictatorships.
The closest analogy to the Roman Empire that I can think of is the current system that claims its structure from the Romans, which is the Mafia. One overriding, all powerful leader that controls all the territories, with his own underlings, but each territory is controlled by its own chieftain, and their underlings, who control other people down the line. The Roman system also has a lot in common with a federal system. Communism in theory has no elites.
Its important to note, capitalist democracies have been the best system to encourage the best out of their systems, and produce the highest productivity, creativity and ingenuity... it is frankly the most egalitarian (socialist systems protect those who do not contribute, which leaves the question of whether it is fair to the hard worker who contributes) ... they shall always be so until the question of scarcity can be answered.
FTW. I was going to pull some Hayek out and lambast the socialists, but you did a great job.
The Scandinavian socialist democracies have some great advantages in the form of small economies of scale and tight social/cultural cohesion. As well, they have also gone down the road of privatization on many sectors that haven't even been considered in North America. For example, Sweden just privatized their entire forestry sector.
But, you are seeing this breakdown with the influx of refugees and immigrants from North African countries. Scandinavians are proving very reluctant (racist?) to accept traditionally non-Scandinavians into the system as equals. The racism in places like Sweden and Denmark is so casual, it's shocking.
Capitalism is part of a grab bag of Western values. In fact, it's only a social institution formed around the biological institution of reciprocal trading. As a theoretical institution designed to fit a complex model of human behavior, it does have its flaws. The certain gap of income between the middle and upper classes for example. But it generally recognizes the progress of economic productivity, most people get a chance to produce and thrive under capitalism. The system is a lot more open to social/economic mobility than a communist system where you are placed is open only to the decisions of self-interested elites.
In case you never noticed, both those countries are becoming more democratic as each year goes by.
In fact, India can already be CALLED a democracy.
Still don't get your point. Nobody ever said the US was perfect, or Canada, or any other country that amplifies a democratic 'free' state....but we all KNOW it is the best way.
You should be glad that you can have this conversation right now, because apparently in China certain websites get 'blocked.'
At least that is what they said during the Olympics.
Gotta love government control. And the people who defend it.
Lumping India in with China is so unfair. India could be called the other great democratic experiment, along with the US. What you have is a thriving and complicated mess of ethnicities and religions all competing with one another. The Indians have not chosen to go with a state-centred coercive model, like the Chinese, but have instead chosen the secular model of democratic compromise. It has its flaws, but you have to respect what they are trying to do there and the incredible degree of difficulty they face.
Lumping India in with China is so unfair. India could be called the other great democratic experiment, along with the US. What you have is a thriving and complicated mess of ethnicities and religions all competing with one another. The Indians have not chosen to go with a state-centred coercive model, like the Chinese, but have instead chosen the secular model of democratic compromise. It has its flaws, but you have to respect what they are trying to do there and the incredible degree of difficulty they face.
I do respect their system, and the fact that they're trying, at least in a certain way, to provide their people with a certain level of democratic freedom.
In the long run I actually think India will be more successful than China. Barring a complete switch to democracy by the Chinese.
