Communism or Capitalism?

[gael]

The writings of Marx have been proven a fairytale.

So the point is, capitalism is't wrong, only the government.

Is this right?

You said,Quote klazlo:

"Capitalism is based on economic inequality and this is often transferred to political inequality"

If the government already produces political inequality, does this not through that whole argument on its head?

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by gael


Are you saying that people are'nt competitive?
That its not natural to be competitive?
Competition within the human species is the one thing that has pushed us foward and made us what we are today.

Every living thing is competitive. We could say, crudely, that every living thing (including you and I) must exploit its environment to survive. People once competed strictly with the natural environment for our survival. A product of specialization (tools, skill, unique resources) is trade, and that opens the possibility of human-human competition within the trade.

Specialization eventually reached a complex level where some individuals could thrive purely by exploiting -or trading with, if you like- others, and I'm not talking about babies who trade their cuteness; I mean people doing this throughout life, often passing down the position over generations. That's basically a good thing, the division of labour. We wouldn't be here without it. But don't mistake specialization for the competition it makes possible.

We're incredibly productive, and the world is rich. The pickings are so easy, and we're so good at exploiting the Earth, that it now takes just a few people to feed a hundred. Now, very few humans personally exploit the natural environment, and nobody lives purely off nature. We have the luxury to focus elsewhere. We're all traders and specialists. Besides, we've run out of frontier, so for most people the only environment available is a human environment. So we build great schemes of mutual exploitation now, wallowing in the complexity, and lost in it. This is far from natural.

I'm not saying it's a bad life, but I think it funny so few people today understand their lives are artificial. That ignorance/denial scares me.

 

[gael]

To Sean Lindstrom:

I don't know how to respond to that mate, your way off on a tangent.

Whats your point?

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Toasty


It's not impossible for us to go against human nature; things like abolishing the death penalty, tolerating homosexuality, and other things that were once unimaginable to us are now commonplace. To say that this can't be done on a much larger scale goes against the evidence.

Apples and oranges. You're confusing basic human nature with the far more flexible mores of society. Societies can evolve over time, but the basic motivations of human beings haven't really changed. People look out for #1. That will never change. A person can be tolerant of homosexuals, hate the death penalty, etc. But that same person will have no qualms about exploiting any system he/she finds himself/herself in to maximum advantage. In short, you can be open and tolerant, yet still be selfish.

It is possible for individuals to overcome their baser instincts, but society as a whole never will.

 

[gael]

Originally posted by Switch625


Apples and oranges. You're confusing basic human nature with the far more flexible mores of society. Societies can evolve over time, but the basic motivations of human beings haven't really changed. People look out for #1. That will never change. A person can be tolerant of homosexuals, hate the death penalty, etc. But that same person will have no qualms about exploiting any system he/she finds himself/herself in to maximum advantage. In short, you can be open and tolerant, yet still be selfish.

It is possible for individuals to overcome their baser instincts, but society as a whole never will.

Again Switch625, i agree completly.

I think some people have the problem of seeing the world in black and white, when the biggest part of the picture is varying shades of grey.

 

[klazlo]

Originally posted by gael
The writings of Marx have been proven a fairytale.
So the point is, capitalism is't wrong, only the government.
Is this right?
You said,Quote:
"Capitalism is based on economic inequality and this is often transferred to political inequality"
If the government already produces political inequality, does this not through that whole argument on its head?

Marx's argument is one thing and the implementation (and reinterpretation) of it is another. Marx viewed socioeconomic development as an evolution, gradually from one political system to another, with a final stage of communism. When his theory was applied into a very different historic situation (Russia), the whole ideology was messed up, so it is a bit more complicated to judge to what extent was it a "fairytale".

Anyway, your question is good, and it brings up the issue of which inequality produces the other? Economic inequality is used to gain political power, at Marx's time suffrage was not universal, it was based on property. If you didn't have property, too bad. Now even with the universal suffrage, in general the rich can accumulate more leverage on making politics.
But the opposite is also true. Political power is often used for economic benefits. This is the general situation in the post-socialist Eastern Europe. If you have political power, than you and your buddies can accumulate wealth through various practices.

As for the question, whether capitalism is wrong or just the government makes it wrong, I think capitalism can be operated to benefit more people than just the power elite of the society. The Scandinavian countries have capitalist economies and the standard of living is very high and the inequalities are not so severe. I'm from Hungary, where we lived under an egalitarian society for four decades. There were certain inequalities, but the differences were not that tremendous. When we changed to capitalism in 1990, everybody was very upset to experience a huge increase in wealth inequalities. It turned out that our capitalism is not the Scandinavian one...

 

[gael]

Egalitarian, I've heard of it, what does it mean as far as government policy towards the people?

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by gael
To Sean Lindstrom:

I don't know how to respond to that mate, your way off on a tangent.

Whats your point?

1) Ecomomic competition between people is artificial, not natural. "Natural under the circumstances", we could say. You'd asked if I thought competition natural.

2) The fantastic wealth of the Earth, and our natural intelligence at exploiting it, are the main causes of our wealth today. Capitalism (or communism, for that matter) is just a product - not a cause- of that surplus.

3) Most people today know only an environment built entirely of this product, and assuming it "natural" make weird assumptions about their place in economy (capitalism vs. communism debates).

 

[gael]

Quote Sean Lindstrom:
1) Ecomomic competition between people is artificial, not natural. "Natural under the circumstances", we could say. You'd asked if I thought competition natural.

I don't understand what your saying here.
Do you think we should trade currency for furs and pottery?
Or maybe ignore each other?

Quote Sean Lindstrom:
2) The fantastic wealth of the Earth, and our natural intelligence at exploiting it, are the main causes of our wealth today. Capitalism (or communism, for that matter) is just a product - not a cause- of that surplus.

What age are you? You make no sense to me. (no offence)

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by gael
Quote Sean Lindstrom:
1) Ecomomic competition between people is artificial, not natural. "Natural under the circumstances", we could say. You'd asked if I thought competition natural.

I don't understand what your saying here.
Do you think we should trade currency for furs and pottery?
Or maybe ignore each other?

I said just what I meant, no more. You could read back to when I wrote "That's basically a good thing, the division of labour. We wouldn't be here without it." for proof I have no problem with modern times. "Artificial" doesn't equal "bad".

Originally posted by gael
Quote Sean Lindstrom:
2) The fantastic wealth of the Earth, and our natural intelligence at exploiting it, are the main causes of our wealth today. Capitalism (or communism, for that matter) is just a product - not a cause- of that surplus.

What age are you? You make no sense to me. (no offence)

I might have been only 11 then, but I usually masquerade as a 32 year old.

You'd said "Competition within the human species is the one thing that has pushed us foward and made us what we are today." That suggests we owe it all to capitalism, and I take issue with that. I'm trying to show that our wealth ultimately comes from exploitation of the natural world, and that "competition within the human species" AKA "capitalism" is an effect of that exploitation, not a cause of it, especially when we look to early history.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
I'm not saying it's a bad life, but I think it funny so few people today understand their lives are artificial. That ignorance/denial scares me.

Its easy to declare something artificial if you get to determine what is natural.

Are humans natural? We were created of nature, right, evolved with giant, complex brains that over thousands of years have developed these complex systems. But when did it become unnatural? When did utilizing our evolutionary gift go from being a product of nature to the artificial state?

And whats with the overuse of the word expoitation? You define practically every relationship, between humans & one another, between humans & nature, as an exploitation.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
You'd said "Competition within the human species is the one thing that has pushed us foward and made us what we are today." That suggests we owe it all to capitalism, and I take issue with that. I'm trying to show that our wealth ultimately comes from exploitation of the natural world, and that "competition within the human species" AKA "capitalism" is an effect of that exploitation, not a cause of it, especially when we look to early history.

Capitalism was here before we had all this wealth, therefore it can't be a product of it. It's true that capitalism alone won't give you much but once you do have natural resources and human labor power (the two things you actually ever pay for), capitalism is the best tool to use them.

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by Greadius
Its easy to declare something artificial if you get to determine what is natural.

Please! I'm not using those words to pass judgment. I'm saying that people raised in a modern capitalist environment have no real direct relationship with the natural wealth, which is the ultimate source of all wealth. The wealth you know is second-hand and transformed by many along the way. Is bread natural? Is wheat? Is rain? You can decide for yourself where the boundary lies, just be sure the origin is nature and the destination is man.

Originally posted by Greadius

Are humans natural? We were created of nature, right, evolved with giant, complex brains that over thousands of years have developed these complex systems. But when did it become unnatural? When did utilizing our evolutionary gift go from being a product of nature to the artificial state?

Members of the human species departed from the natural environment when we began to rely on other specialized humans for our survival in a man-made environment.

Originally posted by Greadius
And whats with the overuse of the word expoitation? You define practically every relationship, between humans & one another, between humans & nature, as an exploitation.

I volunteered it's a crude word. It's useful because it works for both things and people. Would you prefer "use in self interest"?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
I'm saying that people raised in a modern capitalist environment have no real direct relationship with the natural wealth, which is the ultimate source of all wealth.

Natural wealth? You make it sound like a perfect state, an ideal, that is tread upon and ignored.

Let me tell you, its hot out there, or cold, its windy, filled with little things that scratch and chaffe every part of your body at one point or another, and quite honestly, living in 'natural wealth' isn't all that pleasant, which is why every generation of enterprising humanity has tried to remove itself one more step from this 'natural wealth'.

Its not an accident, its evolution.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Members of the human species departed from the natural environment when we began to rely on other specialized humans for our survival in a man-made environment.

Isn't specialization and dependancy on other humans natural? If each man was an island most of us would starve... even way back when.

I mean, humanity has developed entirely as a reaction to nature, to our environment, so how can it be unnatural? Isn't wanting to get away from a harsh nature a self-defense instinct?

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
I volunteered it's a crude word. It's useful because it works for both things and people. Would you prefer "use in self interest"?

Is there any other reason to use something?

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by Greadius
Natural wealth? You make it sound like a perfect state, an ideal, that is tread upon and ignored.

Let me tell you, its hot out there, or cold, its windy, filled with little things that scratch...

I'm not the person you're arguing with. I've said that we as individuals have little or no direct relationship with natural wealth. This is no criticism. Why must it be a criticism, or some promotion of a utopia? Our natural wealth includes oil pockets and graphite veins. The people who directly exploit (or "use" if you insist) that wealth do it, now, for a paycheque - the most artificial wealth.

Now hold your horsepower, Greadius: that's just a simple observation. It has nothing at all to do with geodesic dome communes full of spinning hippies, no matter how hard you wish it so.

Originally posted by Greadius
every generation of enterprising humanity has tried to remove itself one more step from this 'natural wealth'.

Its not an accident, its evolution.

I wouldn't put it that way, but I agree.

Originally posted by Greadius
Isn't specialization and dependancy on other humans natural? If each man was an island most of us would starve... even way back when.

We're mammals, so of course our young are totally dependent. We've also had a larger family structure - with specializations within it - for a long time.

"Way back when" - most us did starve, I imagine. We lacked the knowledge to unlock Earth's awesome wealth.

Originally posted by Greadius
I mean, humanity has developed entirely as a reaction to nature, to our environment, so how can it be unnatural?

I wouldn't call us human until our evolution departed from nature. We did that with abstract symbols (language), and industries (tools), for example. Our evolution is now artificial. Don't think my saying that is some kind of complaint.

 

[allhailIndia]

For pure thought with no practical application or use in real life, read the above arguments which seem to have no subject in them

 

[test_specimen]

Originally posted by Greadius


I'll just add one snippet: only one of the two choices made this conversation possible.

Actually both choices made the conversation possible: the cold war. And I guess both are good choices, if applied correctly. Capitalism under a dictatorship will lead to as much suffering as communism under a dictatorship.

The Great Leap Forward by the Chinese led to millions of dead, but this was not a fault of the economic system; it was a fault of the government. It was not like they had produced the food they needed somewhere.

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by allhailIndia
For pure thought with no practical application or use in real life, read the above arguments which seem to have no subject in them

They're not even arguments - just aimless defenses of some idle things I said a while back, misunderstood by all including myself, now.

Maybe I'll finally get moderated for this! SPAM!

 

[klazlo]

Originally posted by gael
Egalitarian, I've heard of it, what does it mean as far as government policy towards the people?

As government policy it meant the artificial equalization of wages (there were little difference regardless of your occupation), the artificial construction of prices (everything was cheap, because state subsidies were put on every commodities) and a simple supply of consumer goods (no fancy stuff that would make certain people more wealthy - in contrast to the "decadent" West that built up consumer societies).
Since capital accumulation was prohibited, large inequalities could not emerge. And to tell you the truth, there weren't many assets you could own, which could make a real difference.
And of course there was a huge emphasis on the egalitarian ideology: you were told gazillion times that everybody is equal, though some were obviously more equal than others.

 

[gael]

Sounds like an ant farm.