Good vs. Evil, Capitalism vs. Socialism

[TransformX]

This is probably stupid/crazy:

When you read books, watch movies etc you see that in the struggle between good and evil, there's one main difference between the two sides. While the "good" side is usually working towards a higher goal - let's call it "goodness" for all, the "evil" side works for self benefit.
While the "good" people have some vague idea which is quite altruistic (let's not get into the question whether altruism really exists) and that would serve everyone, the "bad" guys work towards an egoistic goal. Even if they won't gain anything directly, they believe that by helping and empowering their leader, they'll gain something.

Now, when you check the economic models of Socialism vs. Capitalism, you see the exact same thing...

[Podfrog]

economic systems

so then capitalism is evil? i would have to agree, but not because of parallels in the ideology of characters in movies and the supposed motivation of capitalists. it is precisely this motivation to which capitalism owes its existence. socialism has had its chance and has failed miserably, because people will always want money, it's what separates us from the animals.

[TransformX]

I believe that Socialism 'failed' because it was tried as Communism (add barfing smiley here).

[Brian Ellis]

Well, what is the difference between capitalism and socialism (communism)?

Capitalism is the exploitation of man ... by man.
Socialism (communism) is exactly the opposite.

[SpiralDragon]

heheeeee

[TransformX]

It's more like:
Capitalism is the exploitation of men ... by a man.
Communism is exactly the opposite.

Socialism is supposed to be people working for the community. No exploitation nor abuse.

[High_Jumbllama]

Hmm, disturbingly thoughtful point.

[Admiral]

To be honest I think both systems can be good, communism just has a bigger degree of corruptibility.
As for socialism, there's more of humanist side to the modern type.

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by TransformX
It's more like:
Capitalism is the exploitation of men ... by a man.
Communism is exactly the opposite.

Socialism is supposed to be people working for the community. No exploitation nor abuse.

Well, if we go back to Engels and Marx, communism and socialism are synonymous (see the Communist Manifesto of 1848. However, communism is a much older philosophy than that and was used as the political system whereby the communes (self-governing towns or rural areas) exercised the most political power over the inhabitants, as opposed to any form of more centralised government. This meant that the elected persons exercising the power were those that the inhabitants saw every day, making the system much more equitable and free from excesses. In fact, much of Europe was, in the ~14th to ~17th centuries communist. This is often reflected in the titles of places (e.g., "Freie und Hansestadt" of Hamburg or the "Republic" of Geneva).

In fact, the paradox today is that Europe's most capitalist country is also the most communist. In Switzerland, even today, the most powerful political unit (and the one that raises the most taxes to pay for their commitments) is the commune (or municipalities). After this is the canton (or states, each an independent country). Only after this is the Confederation whose main job is to provide coherence between the cantons, in terms of money, defence, customs and foreign affairs. When I was living there, my taxes were roughly 50% to the commune, 35% to the canton and only 15% to the Confederation (these proportions may vary from commune to commune and canton to canton). This may seem irrelevant to Marx and Engels or, even more so, to the USSR, China or Cuba, but it is not entirely so, when you examine it more closely. Even today, China acts more like a confederal group of states with local power in most everyday aspects of life being more important than that coming from Beijing. Of course, the latter holds a very cohesive whip. I learnt this lesson when I was working there, in conjunction with SEPA (State Environment Protection Authority): I found that the provincial and, above all, the communal authorities held more sway as to what individual factories could do or not do than SEPA.

I can't decide whether I'm an extreme right wing communist or an extreme left wing capitalist.

[TransformX]

I have a more extreme example for you: The Kibutz.
In the first Kibutz everything belonged to everyone.
When I say everything, I mean up to the clothes they wore and their children.
The general assembly of the kibbutz decided how one should educate his (the kibutz's) children, they decided how to spend the money etc. etc. etc.
If someone decided to leave, all he got was the clothes he had on and a small suitcase with some clothes to change. That's it, even if when he joined the kibutz he brought a bag of diamonds or priceless family relics. Nothing is his anymore. The collevtive owns everything.
edit: don't mistake this as some sort of democracy as it was more like - tyranny by the majority.


Today's Kibutz it quite different. People own the stuff in their houses but whatever they earn for their work (either in our out of the kibutz) goes to the Kibutz and every one/family receives as much as the kibutz sees right to give.
This has plusses and minuses as if you work outside the kibutz and earn 10k USD per month, you'll still receive the same as any other member. On the other hand, if you have a disability or some great talent that needs a huge investment, the Kibutz will take care of it.

[Brian Ellis]

Yes, I agree that the kibbutzim are a good example of collectivism and have changed in scope a lot since Deganya (but so has life everywhere in nearly a century). There are umpteen other examples of collective living. Were not the full members of the Essenes an early example? Also some the early Christian communities? This was possibly the background to Christian monasticism which started as cenobite family communities, rather than single-sex ones, which probably started much later when the notion of celibacy was starting to be considered "holy", despite Paul's "better to marry than burn".

However, I don't think that kibbutzim or monastic settlements can be considered as examples of communism, whether the original, Marxist or Leninist definitions are used, because these are all political, rather than a shared way of life in a community, rather than a commune.

[Jammrock]

I have a feeling that this thread will end up closed or moved to the Temp.

I personally don't care what parrallelisms you draw up for captialism vs. socialism, I don't think either is purely evil or purely good.

If you think about it, socialism (in it's real implementation) FORCES people to be even and pay for everyone else, whether they work for it or not. Sure you get a decent universal health care system, but that doesn't solve all your problems. You still have homeless. You still have people mooching off the government and not giving ANYTHING to the community. You still have corruption. You still have big business interests. You still have many of the inherent problems of capitalism ... you just pay higher taxes and get free'ish medical care ... if you can call 40+ % taxes free.

I'm not saying capitalism has all the answers, it certainly doesn't, but it gives people the freedom to rise above the community. It gives people the freedom to do kind things out of the goodness of their hearts, instead of getting 63% of their income taken from them because they took a risk and got rich. True a lot of rich people don't do a lot of charitible work, but a lot of them do. I'm sure a lot of the rich people in the socialist countries wouldn't give any money to the poor if it wasn't taxed out of them either.

Niether system cures human greed. The difference is that one system forces the money out of you, while the other lets you do what you want with most of your money.

Jammrock

[TransformX]

With the latest problems in economy, many of the weaker socio-economical layer is society (among which are the elderly) said an old pharse - "By virtue and not by grace".

Background: Because of dirty manipulation by people in power and the government and because of a dirty mix of ultra-capitalism and corruption, many elderly lost a lot of their pensions (for those who had in the first place). To add a crime, the government has reduced the government pensions, thus throwing those people to terrible poverty.
Now those people cry that they want their pensions back - by virtue, as for all the work they did all those years, not to receive charity from the rich who robbed them from their hard earned pensions in the first place.
So the fact that in a capitalist world there are rich people that can help the community is not all good as it can rightfully be preceived as charity.

[Umfriend]

Well, if we go back to Engels and Marx, communism and socialism are synonymous (see the Communist Manifesto of 1848.

Ah, no. Engels and Marx were extremely hard on the various kinds of "socialism" they identified int the CM. Already in the CM Marx has this view on the inevitablilty of the development of society where the Class Struggle, the last struggle, will lead to Communism. As most "Socialists" did not agree or did not "understand" Marx's view on history (i.e. class struggle) they were a bunch of retards.

However, communism is a much older philosophy than that and was used as the political system whereby the communes (self-governing towns or rural areas) exercised the most political power over the inhabitants, as opposed to any form of more centralised government. This meant that the elected persons exercising the power were those that the inhabitants saw every day, making the system much more equitable and free from excesses.

No Marx-like communism at all. Few were allowed to elect persons, these were merely smaller politically and economically independent units, to various degrees. Marx would view all these as no less exploitative as the capitalist system. Same goes for Switzerland.

Marx also has little to do with Russia, China or Cuba. Certainly, he advocated (but foremost predicted) the class struggle to end by the forming of one class only, but one of the requiements for that was that the capitalist system would destroy itself due to its own nature. I happen to believe that the capitalist economic order indeed has an inherrent contradiction that tends it to self-destruct, but that market imperfection and two other things have to date prevented that and will prevent it for a long long time.

[TransformX]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
However, I don't think that kibbutzim or monastic settlements can be considered as examples of communism, whether the original, Marxist or Leninist definitions are used, because these are all political, rather than a shared way of life in a community, rather than a commune.

The Kibbutzim were built by communist jews and were based on their extreme communist ideas.
Those retards worshipped Stalin (yes, the same Stalin who butchered so many intellectuals and other great people. the "excuse" was that "When you cut wood, splinters fly")