Capitalism vs. Communism

So, you admit that Communism wouldn't solve that problem, either?


I know several self-made millionaires and NONE of them was handed a silver spoon. They worked their asses off.
My grandfather came to the US from Italy at the age of 14 to work in the PA coal mines. Instead of eating lunch or playing carRAB during their lunch break, he watched and helped the maintenamce men repairing mining equipment. He showed such initiative that they made him an apprentice. He worked hard, saved his money and started a business on the side by buying the first truck in his town and using it to haul coal. He soon quit the mines and did it full time. From there, he expanded into using the trucks to deliver cases of beer to bars. Eighty years after coming over as a poor teenager with little more than the clothes on his back, he died. While he didn't die rich, he died comfortable enough to leave his three kiRAB almost $1Million, a nice ouse and a business. Not too shabby for a poor immigrant with a fifth grade education.

I can tell you from experience. I wasn't given a six figure salary for my looks. I had to move 600 miles from my nearest relatives with a wife and two small kiRAB and work hard for 20 years to get in a position to be able to demand that kind of money.
And another relative's story is way more remarkabe. He took several overseas assignments, dragging his wife and small kiRAB to Europe after turning around several major sales accounts and is now the #10 man in a Fortune 100 company at the age of 43.
So, you see, I don't buy the line that hard work isn't what leaRAB to opportunity.
 
Your stories are from ancient history, when a man could drop out of highschool(or have even less), and still get a good job. The economy has changed since then. A young person entering the workforce today, neeRAB an increasingly expensive post-secondary education to get a decent job.

Your family's experiences also go back to a time when a family could do well on one salary, but today neeRAB the salary of two adults to be at that same level.

I'm sure your grandfather being well off, helped your family, and gave your family opportunities others did not have.
 
Not true. Major drug companies, for example, spend a large portion of their earnings on drug R&D, the bulk of which is long-term. Auto companies spend billions per year on R&D and building new plants that will last only 10 years or so before being rebuilt. You can't make blanket statements like that. Many companies were given monopolies by the government in order for them to invest huge amounts of their own capital on long-term projects like telephone lines, electric power griRAB, etc., As for the railroaRAB, private entrapreneurs made large fortunes building those railroaRAB for Uncle Sam. I don't think that Uncle Sam laid any track himself.
;)
 
Communism cannot work well. Society is made up of individuals and individuals are best served by serving themsleves.
It was not by mere chance of "poor" leaders, in all of previous attempts at communism that it has failed, the system was doomed to fail.

Captalism thrives on the rights and achievements of individuals. You, I, He/She are important. It gives the birth right to all people to choose how they wish to live.
Captalism allows you to work and propser under your own achievements and thus control your own life.

Communism does not thrive under any circumstances. It does not cherish rights of the individual. The individual is not important and thus there is no system of individual freedom and civil liberties.
You must work for the betterment of nameless others and your individual success is not important. The individual is controlled by a mindless entity called "we".
 
Someone else wrote this on another site. The link to the whole article is provided at the bottom of my post. It explains quite well, I believe, how Darwin's evoloutionary theories of survival of the fittest, do not apply to humans anymore. We don't have to adapt to changing environments by slow biological evolution like animals. Humans technologically evolve. We are unique among animals in that we can adapt using tools we make with our own hanRAB.....

Turning to humans, Kropotkin pointed out that neither did early human societies conform to the picture painted by the Social Darwinists. Early humans were not isolated individual(ist)s waging a struggle to the death against each other. On the contrary, as surviving primitive societies testified, they lived in societies (tribes and clans) the members of which co-operated with each other to survive:

The very persistence of the clan organization shows how utterly false it is to represent primitive mankind as a disorderly agglomeration of individuals, who only obey their individual passions, and take advantage of their personal force and cunningness against all other representatives of the species (Mutual Aid, Penguin, 1939, p. 82).

To Huxley's claim that "the first men who substituted mutual peace for mutual war-whatever the motive that impelled them to take that step-created society", Kropotkin replied pertinently: "society has not been created by man; it is anterior to man".

Pannekoek attacked on another front. He pointed out that it was not an accident that defenders of capitalist rule jumped at the idea that nature was a struggle for survival amongst ruthless individualists; this was a reflection of capitalist society and of the competition that went on amongst capitalists. What they were doing was reading features of capitalist society back into nature so as to give the impression that competitive capitalism was somehow natural-and that socialism wasn't. But Pannekoek's comments were not confined to analysing the capitalist ideology that Social Darwinism represented. Like Kropotkin, he too pointed out that the theory was factually wrong.

Human evolution, Pannekoek replied, had become different from biological evolution. Once humans had evolved as a biological species with specific biological features their evolution ceased to be biological in the sense of an adaptation of their biological characteristics; in fact it was their very biological characteristics that brought this about: a brain capable of abstract thought, a vocal system capable of speech, and hanRAB capable of using and making tools. This biological heritage made humans into toolmaking animals, the tools they made becoming non-biological extensions of their bodies.

Whereas other animal species could only adapt to a changed environment through the evolution (as a result of natural selection over immensely long perioRAB of time) of different biological features, humans could adapt by developing their tools. So human evolution ceased to be biological and became technological. In addition, since humans were social animals living in societies, and since technology played a decisive role in shaping the features of these societies, human evolution was social evolution. The societies in which they lived also evolved, but on quite different principles from those of biological evolution. The Darwinian theory of biological evolution did not apply to human societies, nor to the struggles that went on within them.

There was indeed, said Pannekoek, a sort of Social Darwinian struggle for existence going on within capitalist society but it was not between humans as individual biological units, with the most intelligent and the healthiest ending up on top and the weakest and the stupidest going to the wall. It was a struggle between owners of tools (by now in the form of factories and machines) amongst themselves, in which the winners were not those with the best brains or bodies but those who owned the best machines. The failures were those with the least performant machines and their fate was to be condemned to join the great majority of humans who didn't own any machines-the working class.

The working class too, said Pannekoek, was engaged in a struggle, not with tools since they owned none, but a collective struggle "for the possession of tools, a struggle for the right to direct industry", i. e., a struggle for socialism as the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, the great collection of tools humanity had built up.

http://groups.msn.com/WorlRABocialismNow/yourwebpage4.msnw
 
Realize that there are three kinRAB of self-oriented behavior: the kind that benefits you aand others, the kind that benefits you and is neutral with respect to others, and the kind that benefits you and hurts others. The only kind we need to worry about is the third kind; the first two are perfectly constructive. What history proves is that trying to force people by govenrment coercion to put others first doesn't work--it brings out evil tendencies in officials and citizens. That doesn't mean we can't encourage people or even expect them to help others; the problem is coercing others to do so.
 
"Only government can make, for dozens of years, the patient investment in basic science needed for scientific discoveries. Only then can private business afford to take the considerable risk of licensing the patented discoveries and investing millions of dollars more to develop the technology into a device or medicine that will bring great benefits to society.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1998/apr15/patents.html

The federally funded National Institutes of Health may be the drug industry's biggest benefactor. This government agency alone will spend more than $23 billion on research this year. And much of the research benefits the drug industry.

"There's no other industry in which you have so much public investment in the fundamental knowledge that enables
 
I think you will find that Marx`s theory didn`t conflict with the idea of evolution. The essance of Marx`s idea of "ur-kommunism" was that the individuals where ultimatly free. There where no classes as no-one owned the means of production of others and therfor no-one owned the production of others, Therefor there where no class interests and therefor there where no politics. Hierarchies are not something that is shunned by Marxists in general. I don`t think that Marx ever talked about peace loving communes of selfless saints...
 
The top five richest men in the world aren't college graRAB, IIRC, so you're generalization doesn't hold.

Funny, I still have 3 kiRAB at home. Just how irrelevent is that?


You'd be wrong in that assumption. My father and mother were both very independent people.
 
Could someone offer the definition of capitalism and communism? I mean, there are many conflicting definitions and to be able to discuss the matter properly I think we should all use the same.

Here is a couple of examples:

Capitalism http://www.investorworRAB.com/713/capitalism.html
socialism http://www.investorworRAB.com/4613/socialism.html

Capitalism: http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/capitalism Communism: http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=communism

And here are the ones I prefer (allthough a bit lengthier and it offers some conflicting perspectives, I think it tries to capture the true meanings rather than just hinting at some illusive ideals)
Capitalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Communism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

My oppinion? Well, I think that both systems are heavily flawed.

Capitalism do create economic growth better than any other system we have encountered, but it also creates huge social, enviromental and, if left unchecked, economic problems.

Communism is also flawed as it can`t offer the same ammount of economic growth as capitalism and because it has so far been unsuccesful in offering the promised social benefits.
 
Darwinism sees society at several levels: individuals with genes that motivated them to do things to pass genes on to future generations; relatives who sacrifice their own individual interests in order to that that family might pass genes onto future generations; and individuals and clans entering into alliances and contracts with others to further their interests.

So Darwinists did no see all men as at war with each other; for one thing warring against your family is warring against your own genes whcih runs counter to evolutionary theory. And more often than not, creating alliances and contracts with others is more advantageous than fighting with them, so the rational part of humans have tended toward cooperative (if competitive) behavior.


Kropotkin is right if by "society" you mean kin. Up until agriculture was developed, human society was made up of relatives. Genes pushed people toward both self-interested behavior and altruistic behavior toward the clan.


Capitalism is clearly consistent with what evolution has made us: genetically motivated to advance self and kin, and motivated to enagage in mutally beneficial contracts with others. No social system can snuff out these genetic motivations.


Clearly, culture--technology being a part of that--has come to play a much more central role in human life as opposed to the animal world (although there are many species that have some rudiments of culture) and consequently are less controlled by genes than other species. But Pannekoek shows great naivete in thinking that the processes of evolution have ceased to exist for humans.

A large and growing body of twins research shows that almost all human behavior is genetically influenced and limited. The role of genes varies from trait to trait, but a rough average is about 50%. The findings discredit the environmental determinists like Marx or Kropotkin and most acedemics and media people, so they have not generally made their way the conventional wisdom yet. It appears that the only trait that comes from these twins studies that even educated people like those of this forum seem to be aware of is homosexuality.

Even if evolution did stop for humans, the correct language should be "frozen as is." All it would be is that the distribution of genes in a population would stay the same forever. So if 20% of the population had genes that coded for aggression, that proportion would remain 20% forever.

However, evolution has not stopped just because humans developed culture. One relatively unimportant, uncontroversial example of how evolution never stops is nearsightedness. When we were hunters and gatherers, genes for nearsightedness would have made it very difficult for someone to survive and be able to have and raise children and consequently perpetuate one's genes. Consequently, nearsightedness was rare in tribal societies.

Well, as these writers focus on, we evolved a high level of intelligence (evidence by the way that intelligence is genetically influenced) which enabled us to develop technologies to better adapt. We invented glasses which fixed the problem of nearsightedness. According to these authors that is the end of the story. But evolution did not stop--nearsighted people were able to thrive just as much as everyone else; they were able to have many children who often inherited nearsightedness; and after several generations of this, now nearsightedness is a very common condition whereas among the hunter-gatherers it was rare. My point is that evolution will always continue to operate as long as genes have influence, and they always will.


This shows that theorists like Marx do believe that group conflict is an essential feature of society. It just substitutes group selfishness for individual selfishness. This contradicts the view of humans as "social" in the sense of society being naturally altruistic--the idea of communal utopians.

Another naive idea is that somehow people magically found themselves in possession of the tools and then use that power to exploit the workers. The owners are absolutely no different in any traits than the workers except they have good luck and the tools just fell into their laps. The truth is that who rises or who falls is not an accident (although I am not denying that birth and luck play some role); it depenRAB a great deal on the traits of the individuals, traits which are genetic and cultural. If it is dropped in your lap by your family, if you are not capable of keeping it, someone who is more capable will take it. And tools do not appear out of thin air; they are invented by people who have traits--genetic and cultural--which others do not have. This attempt by environmental determinists to dismiss how culture and genes produce traits that make people very different from each other is deliberate blindness to the everyday experience.

And by the way, by "capable" I do not mean all virtuous traits. For example, as Machiavelli teaches us, deceit, cunning, charm, and ruthlessness are often important traits to get you to the top and to keep you there. These are genetically influenced like everthing else.
 
USSR and other countries, mistakenly are thought to be communist. However, they are really forms of state captialism. These are surplus market economies, where a powerful, self-appointed beaurocratic national elite class, not the workers(producers), control the economic means of production. The purpose is for the producers or workers to produce surpluses, not for their own consumption or benefit, but mainly for the benefit of a ruling class.

http://free.freespeech.org/thrall/24notcom

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/binns/statecap.htm

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ppapers/statecap.html

As for competition. Well, imagine trying out for a basketball team, and having an equal chance only based on your ability and interest, money and class not entering into your chances to be the best you can be. Competing against yourself, with the co-operation of others. Under capitalism however, someone can be stuck cleaning the toilets of the millionaire basketball players, regardless of ability or interest.

Humans are social. Any ability one has is only a potential to be fully realized with some form of co-operation from another human.
 
note:I edited my last reply. I May do so again, if I find more relevent links.



Four of the five transcontinental railroaRAB were built with assistance from the federal government through land grants. Receiving millions of acres of public lanRAB from Congress, the railroaRAB were assured land on which to lay the tracks and land to sell, the proceeRAB of which helped companies finance the construction of their railroaRAB.
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/riseind/railroad/rail.html
 
That's not true. Those people are quite old anyway, not whom I was referring to. Warren Buffet has extensive education, and comes from a well-off background, as do those family members related to the Walmart fortune in the top five. Bill Gates, who also attended private school, did drop out of Harvard. Paul Allen, Bill Gates friend also dropped out, because Bill Gates offered him a job perhaps.



Most families know it is very relevent.



They were raised with certain advantages other families don't have.
 
Marx's theory conflicts with the theory of evolution because the latter attempts to explain human societies in terms of genetic selection. Evolutionary assumes that there is abundant genetic variation, and that genetic variation produces trait variation, and the traits which lead to the perpetuation of genes are selected for. So this is a gene and trait/behavior theory while Marxists theory has no role for genes or traits in explaining social organization. Marxist theory is a sociological, structural theory of society. The fundamental feature needed to understand society is control over the means of production; control is not explained by genes, it is not explained by traits. The consequences of that control for social organization are not influenced by genes, they are not influenced by traits.

The central feature of Marxist theory is hierarchy based on unequal control over the means of production. They argues that if means of production are equally controlled, then there is no hierarchy. According to Michel's work, all organizations of any size will end up being hierarchical. This is just as true of work organizations as any other. Marx may not have despised every type of hierarchy; apparently he didn't seem to have much of a problem with gender hierarchies or racial hierarchies, but his intellectual descendants dislike practically all forms of hierarchy. Thay argue that all institutions except maybe where children are involved should be fully democratic and non-hierarchal. This is only possible in small groups; hierarchy and unequal power is a universal law of organizations of any but the smallest size.
 
Does it? I thought the theory of evolution just dealt with the ceation of species and genetic traits. :confused:




Are you saying that evolution theory tries to explain control over means of production as well as human societies?



When the means of production are put into the hanRAB of the working class, there would be no classes and therfor it would be no conflicting interest. Hierarchies are abundant even in democratic societies and the communes of the socialistic society should be governed through hierarchies.



Democracy and hierarchy are not opposites. They co-exist inalmost every democratic state, organisation or assembly. You are really arguing against the anarcho-socialist idea, not the marxist...
 
Wow, it's been a while since I lookied at Forbes' list. Gates, Allen, Ellison and some of the Waltons. Last time I looked Michael Dell was also on the list, but he's #12 now.
Average net worth of a Forbes 400 member without college degree: $2.27 billion
Average net worth of a Forbes 400 member with a college degree: $2.13 billion
http://www.forbes.com/2003/07/28/cx_dd_0728mondaymatch_print.html

I love how you make assumptions about my parents. Wrong assumptions at that. My father grew up as a dirt poor farmer during the Depression. My mother's comfortable life ended when she got married and they struggled like every other lower middle class couple until my father died when I was 13. After that, she raised 3 kiRAB on her own, no silver spoons, sorry.
 
JPSartre12,

Finally a subject in which we are in complete agreement. The notion that human nature would ever allow a truly communist system to equitably function is proposterous. Even though there may be gifted willing to give without limit or just acknowledgement and reward, those predisposed to take without limit or appropriate compensating contribution would always undue the experiment.

:xgood:
 
Not so. The Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact which created the New World's first commune. Private property ownership and free enterprise were prohibited in this compact. When they landed in Plymouth Rock, they set about creating their commune. From Thanksgiving 1621 through the winter of 1622, 1/2 of the settlers starved to death and they realized that communal farming wasn't producing enough to feed the settlement. People weren't "pulling their own weight" and dissention was high. Recognizing the reason for their plight, they convinced Gov. William Bradford to abandon the concept of communism and allow people to grow what they wanted for their own neeRAB.

"In Of Plymouth Plantation, Gov. William Bradford, one of the original Separatists, writes: "So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could
 
Back
Top