|
Asante
Mage


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,796
|
Y'all are gonna dispute the crap out of this but..
#22426507 - 10/24/15 10:17 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Socialism without Capitalism leads to Communism, but Capitalism without Socialism leads to Fascism.
Can I get a count of the Ayes and the Nays?
.
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
burgerbrain
Freedom Lover



Registered: 09/18/15
Posts: 962
|
Re: Y'all are gonna dispute the crap out of this but.. [Re: Asante]
#22426973 - 10/24/15 12:09 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Asante said: Socialism without Capitalism leads to Communism, but Capitalism without Socialism leads to Fascism.
Can I get a count of the Ayes and the Nays?
.
Nay. Capitalism is an economic system. Fascism is a government system. Perfect Capitalism does not necessarily mean Fascism will come into existence.
|
elax420
Anal Destroyer


Registered: 10/16/12
Posts: 15,536
|
Re: Y'all are gonna dispute the crap out of this but.. [Re: burgerbrain]
#22430371 - 10/25/15 02:44 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You are speaking in absolutes and essentially just arguing semantics. Are you trying to say Governmental Institutions do not concern themselves with economics?
Quote:
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
----Mussolini Wait a minute thats the father of Fascism? Sounds like something straight from Stalin.
And “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” Nationalization of means of production, sounds like Marx right?
Communists and Fascists have more similarities than differences. How would you describe China, or North Korea? The Right/Left model doesn’t always work out so nicely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
I like the Premise of the OP though. Capitalism without a means to distribute wealth and the material products of labor =Fascism Socialism without consumer goods and products=Communism.
Both are heavily idealistic states based on fear that promote nationalistic warmongering, and both states are lacking Market efficiency. By definition that means they cannot be purely capitalist (a state of 100% market efficiency---Read also: doesn’t exist), but thats another argument for another thread.
|
burgerbrain
Freedom Lover



Registered: 09/18/15
Posts: 962
|
Re: Y'all are gonna dispute the crap out of this but.. [Re: elax420]
#22430679 - 10/25/15 06:41 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
elax420 said: You are speaking in absolutes and essentially just arguing semantics. Are you trying to say Governmental Institutions do not concern themselves with economics?
Quote:
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
----Mussolini Wait a minute thats the father of Fascism? Sounds like something straight from Stalin.
And “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” Nationalization of means of production, sounds like Marx right?
Communists and Fascists have more similarities than differences. How would you describe China, or North Korea? The Right/Left model doesn’t always work out so nicely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
I like the Premise of the OP though. Capitalism without a means to distribute wealth and the material products of labor =Fascism Socialism without consumer goods and products=Communism.
Both are heavily idealistic states based on fear that promote nationalistic warmongering, and both states are lacking Market efficiency. By definition that means they cannot be purely capitalist (a state of 100% market efficiency---Read also: doesn’t exist), but thats another argument for another thread.
The Premise of the OP is quote "absolutes" - didn't notice that part did you?
Capitalism has built-in means to "distribute wealth" by definition- why do you need a gov at all with Capitalism? You wouldn't automatically go to Fascism by way of Capitalism-why do people think this non-sequitur is true?
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,368
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 2 hours, 58 minutes
|
Re: Y'all are gonna dispute the crap out of this but.. [Re: burgerbrain]
#22430700 - 10/25/15 06:50 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Notice how he ignores the other question, because he's all too ready to think THAT non sequitur is true.
--------------------
|
paperbackwriter
Edward Lear


Registered: 03/31/14
Posts: 1,888
|
Re: Y'all are gonna dispute the crap out of this but.. [Re: elax420]
#22431049 - 10/25/15 09:17 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
elax420 said: And “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” Nationalization of means of production, sounds like Marx right?
Communists and Fascists have more similarities than differences. How would you describe China, or North Korea? The Right/Left model doesn’t always work out so nicely.
Quote:
Wikipedia said:According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. The eventual long-term outcome of this revolution would be the establishment of socialism – a socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production organized directly for use.
Note here that cooperative ownership does not nesescarrily mean state ownership. A very simple and real world example of Socialism in action is a worker coop.
Quote:
Wikipedia said: Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Note the terms classless and stateless. What we see in China, North Korea, etc. are not and have never been Marxism.
-------------------- Why should we strive with cynic frown To knock their fairy castles down? ~ Eliza Cook It's rather embarrassing to have given one's entire life to pondering the human predicament and to find that in the end one has little more to say than, 'Try to be a little kinder.' ~Aldous Huxley
|
elax420
Anal Destroyer


Registered: 10/16/12
Posts: 15,536
|
Re: Y'all are gonna dispute the crap out of this but.. [Re: burgerbrain]
#22432438 - 10/25/15 03:41 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
burgerbrain said:
Quote:
elax420 said: You are speaking in absolutes and essentially just arguing semantics. Are you trying to say Governmental Institutions do not concern themselves with economics?
Quote:
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
----Mussolini Wait a minute thats the father of Fascism? Sounds like something straight from Stalin.
And “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” Nationalization of means of production, sounds like Marx right?
Communists and Fascists have more similarities than differences. How would you describe China, or North Korea? The Right/Left model doesn’t always work out so nicely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
I like the Premise of the OP though. Capitalism without a means to distribute wealth and the material products of labor =Fascism Socialism without consumer goods and products=Communism.
Both are heavily idealistic states based on fear that promote nationalistic warmongering, and both states are lacking Market efficiency. By definition that means they cannot be purely capitalist (a state of 100% market efficiency---Read also: doesn’t exist), but thats another argument for another thread.
The Premise of the OP is quote "absolutes" - didn't notice that part did you?
Capitalism has built-in means to "distribute wealth" by definition- why do you need a gov at all with Capitalism? You wouldn't automatically go to Fascism by way of Capitalism-why do people think this non-sequitur is true?
No it doesn’t. Income inequality within America is ridiculous and we have plenty of social programs, even ones conservatives like such as Medicaid and Social Security. Stop speaking in absolutes they don't exist in reality. I challenge you to cite a single purely capitalistic and/or purely socialistic state. But ill save you a shit load of time, they dont exist. It comes down to Practicality vs. Idealism.
Something has to regulate currency or else you get hyperinflation due to excess inflows of foreign capital (example: Vancouver's housing market has skyrocketed due to Chinese investment (who are trying to protect themselves against the shrinking Yuan) which has created a massive housing bubble http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-house-price-rise-outstrips-all-but-3-other-global-markets-1.3252406 What spurred this massive influx foreign investment? Low interest rates set by the Fed.
Social stratification is an inherent part of human nature, so a state without any form of governance is impossible. Go read John Locke. He was an ultra capitalist, and one of the more important minds of the enlightenment. He was also influenced the founding fathers and early american political thought pretty heavily.
Paperback: i dont get what you driving at man. With your second quote you kind of mirror what I’m trying to say though. Really how would one describe China and DPRK on the linear model? It would be dishonest to call them either Capitalists or Socialists, and thats why I cited the horseshoe model. Left and Right aren’t polar opposites. Hitler and Stalin both admired the shit out of the other.
You would agree that the U.S.S.R was a Communist state right? Or would you presuppose Marxism with Communism? Because while officially a Communist state, the U.S.S.R placed the idea of the State at the precipice of society. Meaning all life revolved around the state. (as it did in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany) And that is in direct contrast with the Communist Manifesto (as were many things in Soviet society). I mean I don’t know much about Chinese Communism, but I’m sure the same inconsistencies with core Marxist Ideology exist.
That raises the question do societies have to completely conform to Marxism to be considered “actually communist?” And what is the significance of Marxist Ideology within the DPRK and PRC?
|
Patlal
You ask too many questions



Registered: 10/09/10
Posts: 44,797
Loc: Ottawa
Last seen: 5 hours, 55 minutes
|
Re: Y'all are gonna dispute the crap out of this but.. [Re: Asante]
#22432729 - 10/25/15 04:53 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Asante said: Socialism without Capitalism leads to Communism, but Capitalism without Socialism leads to Fascism.
Can I get a count of the Ayes and the Nays?
.
That's a great way to put it actually
--------------------
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,368
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 2 hours, 58 minutes
|
Re: Y'all are gonna dispute the crap out of this but.. [Re: Patlal]
#22432865 - 10/25/15 05:20 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Patlal said:
Quote:
Asante said: Socialism without Capitalism leads to Communism, but Capitalism without Socialism leads to Fascism.
Can I get a count of the Ayes and the Nays?
.
That's a great way to put it actually
A little too simplistic imo. I think the analogy implies a spectrum at which either end is an agreed upon "no no." Sure we can all agree, i would hope, that the collusion of corporation and state (fascism) is one od the worst things out there, but can we legitimately say the same about communism, given that it requires neither corporations nor the state?
--------------------
|
burgerbrain
Freedom Lover



Registered: 09/18/15
Posts: 962
|
Re: Y'all are gonna dispute the crap out of this but.. [Re: elax420]
#22432895 - 10/25/15 05:27 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
elax420 said:
Quote:
burgerbrain said:
Quote:
elax420 said: You are speaking in absolutes and essentially just arguing semantics. Are you trying to say Governmental Institutions do not concern themselves with economics?
Quote:
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
----Mussolini Wait a minute thats the father of Fascism? Sounds like something straight from Stalin.
And “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” Nationalization of means of production, sounds like Marx right?
Communists and Fascists have more similarities than differences. How would you describe China, or North Korea? The Right/Left model doesn’t always work out so nicely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
I like the Premise of the OP though. Capitalism without a means to distribute wealth and the material products of labor =Fascism Socialism without consumer goods and products=Communism.
Both are heavily idealistic states based on fear that promote nationalistic warmongering, and both states are lacking Market efficiency. By definition that means they cannot be purely capitalist (a state of 100% market efficiency---Read also: doesn’t exist), but thats another argument for another thread.
The Premise of the OP is quote "absolutes" - didn't notice that part did you?
Capitalism has built-in means to "distribute wealth" by definition- why do you need a gov at all with Capitalism? You wouldn't automatically go to Fascism by way of Capitalism-why do people think this non-sequitur is true?
No it doesn’t. Income inequality within America is ridiculous and we have plenty of social programs, even ones conservatives like such as Medicaid and Social Security. Stop speaking in absolutes they don't exist in reality. I challenge you to cite a single purely capitalistic and/or purely socialistic state. But ill save you a shit load of time, they dont exist. It comes down to Practicality vs. Idealism.
Something has to regulate currency or else you get hyperinflation due to excess inflows of foreign capital (example: Vancouver's housing market has skyrocketed due to Chinese investment (who are trying to protect themselves against the shrinking Yuan) which has created a massive housing bubble http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-house-price-rise-outstrips-all-but-3-other-global-markets-1.3252406 What spurred this massive influx foreign investment? Low interest rates set by the Fed.
Social stratification is an inherent part of human nature, so a state without any form of governance is impossible. Go read John Locke. He was an ultra capitalist, and one of the more important minds of the enlightenment. He was also influenced the founding fathers and early american political thought pretty heavily.
You didn't answer the questions but I'll educate you further anyway. Just because income inequality exists doesn't mean that wealth is not being redistributed, did you know that your beloved socialist countries also have high income inequality?
Saying that quote "there's no purely capitalistic societies" does not mean that they won't work for the masses. More non-sequiturs. A purely capitalistic society hasn't been attempted because we have losers that want to "redistribute the wealth" to themselves-which comes with a huge price of government failure.
"Something has to regulate currency" Yeah it's called a gold standard, or do you know what Bitcoin is? Government needs to regulate currency? Laughable.
Yeah the word state implies a government, duh. Who said otherwise?
|
paperbackwriter
Edward Lear


Registered: 03/31/14
Posts: 1,888
|
Re: Y'all are gonna dispute the crap out of this but.. [Re: elax420]
#22433138 - 10/25/15 06:17 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
elax420 said: Paperback: i dont get what you driving at man. With your second quote you kind of mirror what I’m trying to say though. Really how would one describe China and DPRK on the linear model? It would be dishonest to call them either Capitalists or Socialists, and thats why I cited the horseshoe model. Left and Right aren’t polar opposites. Hitler and Stalin both admired the shit out of the other.
I'm really high right now so forgive me in advance.
First of all well thought out post above Not just what I quoted but the whole thing.
I agree that they're not polar opposites. I really see them as an integral part of human nature. The desire to keep the kids safe while remaining flexible enough to survive in a changing environment.
Alright, as far as communism and socialism are concerned we commonly think of them as economic models. Marx was as interested in sociology and social structure as he was economics. So with that in mind this is communism as Marx defined it.
Communism would be a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
John Lennon's Imagine expresses Communism as Marx defined it pretty well.
China and DPRK fail to meet Marx's definition of Communism. Personally I think of China as a state capitalist model and DPRK as a modern form of feudalism. I believe both have a deeply entrenched bourgeoisie that use Marx as a propaganda tool to control the proletariat.
Quote:
You would agree that the U.S.S.R was a Communist state right? Or would you presuppose Marxism with Communism?
The later.
Quote:
Because while officially a Communist state, the U.S.S.R placed the idea of the State at the precipice of society. Meaning all life revolved around the state. (as it did in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany) And that is in direct contrast with the Communist Manifesto (as were many things in Soviet society). I mean I don’t know much about Chinese Communism, but I’m sure the same inconsistencies with core Marxist Ideology exist. That raises the question do societies have to completely conform to Marxism to be considered “actually communist?” And what is the significance of Marxist Ideology within the DPRK and PRC?
Generally yes.
Now I'm not saying that an idea can't evolve and change but the core of what Marx had in mind and what's going on China and DPRK are clearly at odds. As far as the significance I think most of it boils down to propaganda. I think there's been some revolutionaries that have definitely been inspired by Marx which has added to the romanticism around it. But I don't believe we've seen a communist state and frankly I think the very idea is an oxymoron.
*edit* I ended up here while thinking about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_North_Korea
I think it's fair to say that DPRK is as much socialist and communist as it is democratic, which is to say it's really not any of those things.
-------------------- Why should we strive with cynic frown To knock their fairy castles down? ~ Eliza Cook It's rather embarrassing to have given one's entire life to pondering the human predicament and to find that in the end one has little more to say than, 'Try to be a little kinder.' ~Aldous Huxley
Edited by paperbackwriter (10/25/15 06:40 PM)
|
elax420
Anal Destroyer


Registered: 10/16/12
Posts: 15,536
|
Re: Y'all are gonna dispute the crap out of this but.. [Re: Asante]
#22436348 - 10/26/15 02:53 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
burgerbrain said:
You didn't answer the questions but I'll educate you further anyway. Just because income inequality exists doesn't mean that wealth is not being redistributed, did you know that your beloved socialist countries also have high income inequality?
Saying that quote "there's no purely capitalistic societies" does not mean that they won't work for the masses. More non-sequiturs. A purely capitalistic society hasn't been attempted because we have losers that want to "redistribute the wealth" to themselves-which comes with a huge price of government failure.
"Something has to regulate currency" Yeah it's called a gold standard, or do you know what Bitcoin is? Government needs to regulate currency? Laughable.
Yeah the word state implies a government, duh. Who said otherwise?
K...... So you are posting purely to get all belligerent and argue about subjects you are clearly ignorant in? explains the 2 star Sweet /nignore You do realize adults dont argue by saying “non sequitor, you suck and are wrong!” Go back to school and try to learn what you are actually talking about first. Gold standard eh.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Spain#Gold_and_silver_from_the_New_World 
Oh and just a heads up for the future. If you gonna be “ultra-capitalist guy” atleast read Smith, and Locke.
Start here! You dont have to read the whole thing but a tleast read "the state of nature", and his argument for private property. http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/locke1689a.pdf
Edited by elax420 (10/26/15 02:59 PM)
|
elax420
Anal Destroyer


Registered: 10/16/12
Posts: 15,536
|
Re: Y'all are gonna dispute the crap out of this but.. [Re: paperbackwriter]
#22436568 - 10/26/15 03:52 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Paperbackwriter:
Quote:
Personally I think of China as a state capitalist model and DPRK as a modern form of feudalism.
I would agree with your analysis of China. I see Russia as the same way. The line of thinking is something like “ya you can make your profit selling whatever you want but ultimately the State owns the Assets and Means of Production. I think China may have recently Privatized Banking but I’m not certain. DPRK is just a weird case that is hard to describe. I think fear is just so deeply infused with everyday life in N.Korea, that the emotion has transformed into Love, either authentically or inauthentically. I really don’t believe they fake their emotions about the Kim Dynasty, its too real.
I rambled a bit so forgive me, but I’m also pretty high 
I feel like we have a pretty similar understanding on what Communism is. Contrary to popular opinion, the Bolsheviks never truly claimed to reach full Communism, that was the end goal of their union. The system of soviet governance was supposed to be "the vanguard of the proletariat.” Soviet Ideology was very much based in utopian idealism, as is Neo-Liberal ideology. Just listen to some of speeches from George H.W Bush, and Ronald Reagan. Shining City on a hill anyone?
The challenge of any academic discipline is taking it from theory to practical application. Political Science and Sociology are no different.
Quote:
John Lennon's Imagine expresses Communism as Marx defined it pretty well.
Huh never thought of it like that.
My opinions about Marx: His writings are an incredible critique of the Capitalist System. However the solutions that are suggested could use some work. What I’ve been trying to argue (I guess unsuccessfully) is what was said in the OP.
Markets work, but the difference between Capitalism and Communism in belief are where they shift their concept of “god”. For capitalists its the “invisible hand of the market” and with Communists its the State.
|
burgerbrain
Freedom Lover



Registered: 09/18/15
Posts: 962
|
Re: Y'all are gonna dispute the crap out of this but.. [Re: elax420]
#22437503 - 10/26/15 08:03 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
elax420 said:
Quote:
burgerbrain said:
You didn't answer the questions but I'll educate you further anyway. Just because income inequality exists doesn't mean that wealth is not being redistributed, did you know that your beloved socialist countries also have high income inequality?
Saying that quote "there's no purely capitalistic societies" does not mean that they won't work for the masses. More non-sequiturs. A purely capitalistic society hasn't been attempted because we have losers that want to "redistribute the wealth" to themselves-which comes with a huge price of government failure.
"Something has to regulate currency" Yeah it's called a gold standard, or do you know what Bitcoin is? Government needs to regulate currency? Laughable.
Yeah the word state implies a government, duh. Who said otherwise?
K...... So you are posting purely to get all belligerent and argue about subjects you are clearly ignorant in? explains the 2 star Sweet /nignore You do realize adults dont argue by saying “non sequitor, you suck and are wrong!” Go back to school and try to learn what you are actually talking about first. Gold standard eh.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Spain#Gold_and_silver_from_the_New_World 
Oh and just a heads up for the future. If you gonna be “ultra-capitalist guy” atleast read Smith, and Locke.
Start here! You dont have to read the whole thing but a tleast read "the state of nature", and his argument for private property. http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/locke1689a.pdf
So You've admitted defeat, good for you. Answer the questions next time, though.
|
|