Questions for capitalists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2013, 09:17 AM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2013 10:54 AM by frankksj.)
RE: Questions for capitalists.
I'm not sure why I keep answering your questions since you keep running from mine, but...

Quote:Should capitalists use sanctions as punishment for a nations choice to implement the system it wants, can people freely choose to do so, YES OR NO.

NO, NO, NO!!! I'm a classic liberal, that means I respect everyone's free will. We should be friendly with Cuba and North Korea, trade with them, genuinely want to see them happy and successful with whatever system they have. And frankly, I think that would be MUCH more effective at improving the state of the people. Kim Jong-un can maintain such tight control only BECAUSE his country is so isolated and the people have no outside contact and don't realize just how backwards they are. If we acted like civilized, respectful people and encouraged trade with N Korea, I'm sure it would break the grip of their dictator.

Regardless, the fact is you're not presenting any alternatives. There ARE intellectual communists, like Noam Chomsky. BUT the difference is they admit that communism was an abject failure, AND they explain WHY (centralized power) and propose a solution. You, however, have argued there was nothing wrong with communism as it was implemented in the Soviet Union and other countries. But this view is just lunacy and delusional. Communism, as it was implemented, has a MUCH, MUCH worse track record of dismal failure, poverty, death and suffering than capitalism. Go to any Eastern Europe country (I work in Romania) and ask them if they want to go back to communism. The answer is definitely "NO!!!". Ditto in Vietnam, Cambodia, and every other former communist country. I don't know one case where the people in a country that experienced communism and now have capitalism want to return to communism. Everybody I know who has experienced communism says the problem of poverty will be MUCH worse if they go back to communism.

In fact, I don't know of any serious, intelligent communist who advocates going back to the old system. Every one I've listened to, like Chomsky, admits that the old-style communism was WORSE than Capitalism, they are all advocating new, untried styles of communism. You're seriously the first person I've met who wants to go back to the old style. I think this is just a 'grass is greener' syndrome. You sound like you're pretty miserable right now and just assume that things must have been better under communist countries. But, you don't even stop to think that it was communist countries who built walls to keep their people from leaving, and the people in communist countries were risking their lives to get to capitalist countries, vs the capitalist countries where people were free to leave to communist countries, but nobody wanted to.

If you want to experience communist life first-hand, North Korea is one place that has stuck close to the communist style of the Soviet Union, and I'm sure they would be THRILLED to let you relocate there. You'd probably be treated like a king so that Kim Jong Un could parade you around and show the world that he finally found a capitalist who 'saw the light'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2013, 11:06 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
Quote:NO, NO, NO!!! I'm a classic liberal, that means I respect everyone's free will. We should be friendly with Cuba and North Korea, trade with them, genuinely want to see them happy and successful with whatever system they have. And frankly, I think that would be MUCH more effective at improving the state of the people. Kim Jong-un can maintain such tight control only BECAUSE his country is so isolated and the people have no outside contact and don't realize just how backwards they are. If we acted like civilized, respectful people and encouraged trade with N Korea, I'm sure it would break the grip of their dictator.

I agree with this.
BUT, I don't think it's so much the rest of the world not extending their arm to trade with North Korea as it is North Korea just shutting the world out. Likely because, as you say, Kim Jong-whatever has tight control as a result.
In a lot of ways North Korea is like taking a look at history past where we don't have exchange of ideas like we do today.

But certainly in regards to pretty much every other country I think as a country becomes wealthier, they can afford better living conditions etc.. and ideas and stuff spread and eventually they sort themselves out just like how the West sorted itself out.

Quote:In fact, I don't know of any serious, intelligent communist who advocates going back to the old system. Every one I've listened to, like Chomsky, admits that the old-style communism was WORSE than Capitalism, they are all advocating new, untried styles of communism.

I'm not to familiar with what contemporary thinkers are saying about "modern" communism but I suspect that it's not actually "communism" but more just differing degrees of socialism, none of which are actually technically "communism".

Quote:You're seriously the first person I've met who wants to go back to the old style.

Because he's an idiot.

Quote:If you want to experience communist life first-hand, North Korea is one place that has stuck close to the communist style of the Soviet Union, and I'm sure they would be THRILLED to let you relocate there. You'd probably be treated like a king so that Kim Jong Un could parade you around and show the world that he finally found a capitalist who 'saw the light'.

This. Take his advice I&I, move to NK.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 10:21 AM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
@earmuffs, agreed about N Korea. Socialism is a ban on the private ownership of the means of production (ie all factories must be owned by the govt), and is a half-way point to communism, which is a ban on ALL private property (ie your house, your car, clothes, etc. all belong to the government). Socialism is the direct opposite of capitalism. Currently, the only socialist country left is N. Korea, since Cuba has in recent years lifted the ban on private ownership of enterprise. Socialists don't like to admit what a dismal failure it's been, so in recent years they've started referring to countries with high taxes, like Sweden, as "socialist". But this is just confusing the meaning of the words. Sweden, and every country besides N Korea and to some extent Cuba, are NOT at all socialist--they are very much capitalist, and they do allow private ownership of the means of production.

Chomsky and other modern, intellectual socialists/communists DO use the terms correctly in that they are referring to a ban on private property. However, they accept that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They admit that if all the property and wealth and enterprise of an empire is transferred to a small group of communist leaders thousands of miles away in Moscow, those communist leaders effectively become dictators with unlimited power, and, even if they start with the best intentions, they'll inevitably enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. You can't just trust a small group of people to fairly distribute all the property in the Soviet Union and make sure everyone is taken care of. This is why inequality in socialist/communist countries is MUCH higher than in capitalist countries, and you get communist leaders like in N Korea that live more extravagantly than kings, while the people starve.

So, these intellectuals propose different ways to address the problem, generally related to stripping the federal government of all powers, and putting all the power in the hands of small, local communities, where the people can more actively participate in the distribution of wealth and property.

I and I is really unique for advocating a return to the old-style communism, like they had in the Soviet Union and which is still practiced in N. Korea.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 12:49 AM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
I agree with you about socialism. I know I use it all the time when I shouldn't, even though I'm fully aware of the meaning. It's just convenient, people know what you're talking about when you say things like "America shouldn't be afraid of socialist healthcare". I don't actually mean there should be no private hospitals, I'm just referring to who should bare the cost of healthcare (the public IMO, not the individual).

Quote:So, these intellectuals propose different ways to address the problem, generally related to stripping the federal government of all powers, and putting all the power in the hands of small, local communities, where the people can more actively participate in the distribution of wealth and property.

I was literally just thinking this as I was reading your prior paragraph about corrupt power.
I completely agree with it. I mean, I hate communism and don't think it's a good system, BUT if communism was ever to be implemented successfully (ie: not a repeat of the USSR/China/NK) than that is how it would be done.
I think you see/have seen it in small villages around the world in developing countries with things like collectives and such.
It is a viable system in small cases. BUT it's only a viable system in small cases. It doesn't scale, as history has shown.
And this is all putting aside the fact that it's a bad system to begin with, at least by todays standards.
The only time I could consider it a good system would be for small farming villages. One year you might have a bad year while the next you might have a good year. Communism in this situation between several farmers would be a sort of insurance against these fluctuations. You might have a bad year while your neighbor might have a good year, where as the year after it's completely opposite.
But that's assuming that village is independent, that is that the wealth generated is spread around that village.

Quote:I and I is really unique for advocating a return to the old-style communism, like they had in the Soviet Union and which is still practiced in N. Korea.

Because he's an idiot and doesn't understand 1) history and 2) economics

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 05:58 AM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(16-10-2013 12:49 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  The only time I could consider [communism] a good system would be for small farming villages.

Agreed. There are some success stories to "communism" (collective ownership) when it's done on the very small scale, such as the Jewish Kibbutz, or the German Raiffeisen, or in the US neighborhood cooperatives, such as http://www.centralcoop.coop/.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 06:54 AM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(15-10-2013 10:21 AM)frankksj Wrote:  @earmuffs, agreed about N Korea. Socialism is a ban on the private ownership of the means of production (ie all factories must be owned by the govt), and is a half-way point to communism, which is a ban on ALL private property (ie your house, your car, clothes, etc. all belong to the government). Socialism is the direct opposite of capitalism. Currently, the only socialist country left is N. Korea, since Cuba has in recent years lifted the ban on private ownership of enterprise. Socialists don't like to admit what a dismal failure it's been, so in recent years they've started referring to countries with high taxes, like Sweden, as "socialist". But this is just confusing the meaning of the words. Sweden, and every country besides N Korea and to some extent Cuba, are NOT at all socialist--they are very much capitalist, and they do allow private ownership of the means of production.

Chomsky and other modern, intellectual socialists/communists DO use the terms correctly in that they are referring to a ban on private property. However, they accept that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They admit that if all the property and wealth and enterprise of an empire is transferred to a small group of communist leaders thousands of miles away in Moscow, those communist leaders effectively become dictators with unlimited power, and, even if they start with the best intentions, they'll inevitably enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. You can't just trust a small group of people to fairly distribute all the property in the Soviet Union and make sure everyone is taken care of. This is why inequality in socialist/communist countries is MUCH higher than in capitalist countries, and you get communist leaders like in N Korea that live more extravagantly than kings, while the people starve.

So, these intellectuals propose different ways to address the problem, generally related to stripping the federal government of all powers, and putting all the power in the hands of small, local communities, where the people can more actively participate in the distribution of wealth and property.

I and I is really unique for advocating a return to the old-style communism, like they had in the Soviet Union and which is still practiced in N. Korea.

Shalom Drinking Beverage I am back.

Chomsky is an anarchist.

What you just described is what was implemented in the Soviet Union before WW2, then after the U.S. was intent on it's destruction and used every means available.

In the Soviet Union decisions that affect workers in a city or in a factory were handled by workers themselves and not some government that dealt with other things. In Cuba, cities have counsels to determine which group has trash duty and many other things that directly affect the lives of workers.

If the U.S. bombs North Korea and Vietnam back the stone age and kills millions of their people then imposes sanctions you can't honestly say that it failed because of communism. What if..... it failed because it was attacked militarily along with sanctions that cut off food and medicine. If I let very little food and medicine get to you, wouldn't your life suck?

And there are many communist leaders that were elected into power (choice) then they were overthrown, again, it is not honest to say that it was communism that failed.

Many countries had huge support for communist parties like in the middle east in the 50's and 60's. To combat this the U.S. and a country that starts with I and ends with srael. shh they began spying on communist parties and helping right wing groups hunt and kill leftists, hence the region today has no leftists with any influence anymore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 08:48 AM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
@I and I, welcome back. When you got banned, I was afraid I wouldn't have the chance anymore to tell you how wrong you are about communism. It is VERY fucked up that in a fucking atheist forum, when somebody bashes Zionism, he gets banned. It's ok to bash Christianity, Islam and all religions, but Zionism, THAT is held sacred, even by atheists, and it's blasphemy to discuss it anything but reverent tones.

I really want to know who the Zionists hired to do their PR and marketing. I so badly want them to work for my company too and convince the world that it's fine to bash my competitor, but MY company must only be spoken of with admiration.

Okay, back to how wrong you are about communism. Smile

(19-10-2013 06:54 AM)I and I Wrote:  What you just described [ie successful, small scale communism like Kibbutz and farming coops] is what was implemented in the Soviet Union before WW2, then after the U.S. was intent on it's destruction and used every means available.

Sorry, but the Soviet's NEVER implemented localized communism based on free will. It was ONLY TWO MONTHS after the communists won in 1917 that people started fleeing and they closed the borders and started killing people who tried to escape (link). Whereas the localized communist farming societies, like Kibbutz, were successful, within 4 years, by 1921, Soviet farmers stopped working and 6 million people died of starvation in ONE YEAR ALONE. The communists had to FORCE farmers to work against their will at gunpoint, but they resisted so much that 10 years later, in 1932, there was another 8.5 million that died of starvation, and Ukraine was virtually decimated link. And communism was already such a failure that the Soviets banned the press from discussing the situation and began their false propaganda campaigns to hide the failure. link By the 1930's, Stalin had already setup the Gulags, or forced labor camps, to get people to work at gunpoint. All this happened BEFORE the cold war, BEFORE the West did anything against the Soviets. It was purely self-inflicted wounds from communism.

Quote:In the Soviet Union decisions that affect workers in a city or in a factory were handled by workers themselves and not some government that dealt with other things.

Wrong. Stalin took absolute control over everything in the Soviet Union. Everything was directed by Moscow. The Gulag's and forced labor camps in Siberia were setup by Moscow--not the local communities.

Quote:If the U.S. bombs North Korea and Vietnam back the stone age and kills millions of their people then imposes sanctions you can't honestly say that it failed because of communism. What if..... it failed because it was attacked militarily along with sanctions that cut off food and medicine. If I let very little food and medicine get to you, wouldn't your life suck?

Absolutely. That's why I think it's TERRIBLE that the West does this. This also leaves the issue of communism unsettled because guys like you can blame the West. We should be friendly and supportive. If communism works, great. Maybe we can try it here in the US (at the state level). If it fails, at least it would be undisputed that it failed because the system was bad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
19-10-2013, 09:05 AM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(19-10-2013 08:48 AM)frankksj Wrote:  @I and I, welcome back. When you got banned, I was afraid I wouldn't have the chance anymore to tell you how wrong you are about communism. It is VERY fucked up that in a fucking atheist forum, when somebody bashes Zionism, he gets banned. It's ok to bash Christianity, Islam and all religions, but Zionism, THAT is held sacred, even by atheists, and it's blasphemy to discuss it anything but reverent tones.

I really want to know who the Zionists hired to do their PR and marketing. I so badly want them to work for my company too and convince the world that it's fine to bash my competitor, but MY company must only be spoken of with admiration.

Okay, back to how wrong you are about communism. Smile

(19-10-2013 06:54 AM)I and I Wrote:  What you just described [ie successful, small scale communism like Kibbutz and farming coops] is what was implemented in the Soviet Union before WW2, then after the U.S. was intent on it's destruction and used every means available.

Sorry, but the Soviet's NEVER implemented localized communism based on free will. It was ONLY TWO MONTHS after the communists won in 1917 that people started fleeing and they closed the borders and started killing people who tried to escape (link). Whereas the localized communist farming societies, like Kibbutz, were successful, within 4 years, by 1921, Soviet farmers stopped working and 6 million people died of starvation in ONE YEAR ALONE. The communists had to FORCE farmers to work against their will at gunpoint, but they resisted so much that 10 years later, in 1932, there was another 8.5 million that died of starvation, and Ukraine was virtually decimated link. And communism was already such a failure that the Soviets banned the press from discussing the situation and began their false propaganda campaigns to hide the failure. link By the 1930's, Stalin had already setup the Gulags, or forced labor camps, to get people to work at gunpoint. All this happened BEFORE the cold war, BEFORE the West did anything against the Soviets. It was purely self-inflicted wounds from communism.

Quote:In the Soviet Union decisions that affect workers in a city or in a factory were handled by workers themselves and not some government that dealt with other things.

Wrong. Stalin took absolute control over everything in the Soviet Union. Everything was directed by Moscow. The Gulag's and forced labor camps in Siberia were setup by Moscow--not the local communities.

Quote:If the U.S. bombs North Korea and Vietnam back the stone age and kills millions of their people then imposes sanctions you can't honestly say that it failed because of communism. What if..... it failed because it was attacked militarily along with sanctions that cut off food and medicine. If I let very little food and medicine get to you, wouldn't your life suck?

Absolutely. That's why I think it's TERRIBLE that the West does this. This also leaves the issue of communism unsettled because guys like you can blame the West. We should be friendly and supportive. If communism works, great. Maybe we can try it here in the US (at the state level). If it fails, at least it would be undisputed that it failed because the system was bad.

Gulags, that is easy.... Do you know that there are more americans in prison,parole or in the legal penal system in some form than there ever was at one time in the gulags in the soveit union? that was easy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union...viet_Union

Why do you think that communism is only possible on a small scale? Capitalism has shown that communism is possible. Under capitalism a few own and profit while doing no work and the majority do all the administrating and labor. What makes you think that workers won't know what to do if there weren't these few rich people there to get all the profit?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 09:12 AM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
Here is the article by american journalist making the claim with some stats on american prisons populations.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-...ail-2012-3

And here are the Gulag stats compared to the U.S. prison stats.

http://seansrussiablog.org/2013/05/11/us...ist-gulag/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 09:43 AM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
@I and I, I agree with you that it's atrocious how many non-violent people the US locks up. My point was that every time a system really sucks, the people want to flee, and the government is forced to either (a) fix the system, or (b) trap the people as slaves, barring their escape by preventing their emigration.

This happened in the Soviet Union WITHIN TWO MONTHS of the communists coming to power. But I try to be pragmatic and unbiased without hypocrisy, and if you read my exchange in the 'ask a communist' thread, I pointed out that today, Russia is now a free country (Russians can leave unrestricted if they don't like it), and the only non-free countries in the world that don't let their people leave if they find their country too burdensome are Cuba, North Korea, and the United States of America. Chas and many others were furious over this, but after pages of back and forth where I kept pointing to actual US law and case examples where Americans have tried to flee the system (like Bobby Fischer), they all backed down. The fact is that if you use the literal definitions, Russia is a free country, and the US is not.

Quote:Why do you think that communism is only possible on a small scale? Capitalism has shown that communism is possible.

I think ALL systems are best implemented on a small, local scale because of simple human nature: "out of sight, out of mind" and "power corrupts". If the power is transferred to a small group 2,000 miles away, be it in Washington or Moscow, the people have no visibility into what's going on, and so much gets so concentrated that it leads to a corrupt, vile system.

I argue that communism is unworkable when a huge country like Russia transfers all the power to an out-of-site group of leaders in Moscow, for the SAME REASON I argue that the US's capitalist economy is being destroyed by transferring all the power to an out-of-site group of leaders in Washington. I don't want a group of men 2,000 miles away to have absolute dictator power and be able to initiate force at their whim, whether it's capitalist, communist, or anything else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: