Capitalism V Communism

Heineken Helen

Just wondering which is REALLY the ideal? I was watching a nice little German film the other night, Goodbye Lenin, which was about an East German boy whose mother went into a coma after suffering a heart attack. While she was in the coma, the wall came down and the whole world changed for them. When she awoke the doctor advised him not to give her too many shocks as it could trigger a fatal attack. So he had to pretend nothing had changed. In one incident she met some West Germans and saw some West German cars and he had to explain how the West Germans had fled to the East cos of their immoral capitalist ways and the East Germans were accepting West German 'refugees' into their homes and she was saying 'we must do everything we can to help', lol. Ok well enough rambling but it just made me wonder what exactly IS so fucking great about the way we're living these days?

know1

In my opinion the ideal would be somewhere in between. I'd like to see a system where the spirit of competition always remains in place, but that there are provisions to help those that truly cannot compete.

danmac

Heineken Helen wrote:

Just wondering which is REALLY the ideal? I was watching a nice little German film the other night, Goodbye Lenin, which was about an East German boy whose mother went into a coma after suffering a heart attack. While she was in the coma, the wall came down and the whole world changed for them. When she awoke the doctor advised him not to give her too many shocks as it could trigger a fatal attack. So he had to pretend nothing had changed. In one incident she met some West Germans and saw some West German cars and he had to explain how the West Germans had fled to the East cos of their immoral capitalist ways and the East Germans were accepting West German 'refugees' into their homes and she was saying 'we must do everything we can to help', lol. Ok well enough rambling but it just made me wonder what exactly IS so fucking great about the way we're living these days?

Brilliant film. Thanx for the memories!

But sweet jesus, could you have come with a less decisive, more simpler question. I dunno, does god exist, or is abortion bad!?!?


Capitalism puts profit before and above people. It is the system that is killing the planet and exploiting most of its peoples. It is a system ran for the haves, at the expense of the have nots. It is a sytem of greed, profit and luxury for the minority, based upon the suffering of the majority.

Communism, Stalinist, state based communism, oppressed the peoples by pretending to be anti-capitalist, but instead worked the same elitist system behind closed borders.

Do not confuse USSR communism, what most in the west recognise as the embodiment of Communism theory, with the actuality laid down by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, prior to Stalin seizing control and establishing a dicatorship of the new bourgoise.

Theres lots, lots more, but that's a simple summary!

OutOfBreath

know1 wrote:

In my opinion the ideal would be somewhere in between. I'd like to see a system where the spirit of competition always remains in place, but that there are provisions to help those that truly cannot compete.

Me too actually. Although in my view the competition aspect tends to get way too much attention over the most important part of all economy and society, namely cooperation. But yes, utilizing capitalism for socialist goals I am very much for.

Peace
Dan

danmac

know1 wrote:

In my opinion the ideal would be somewhere in between. I'd like to see a system where the spirit of competition always remains in place, but that there are provisions to help those that truly cannot compete.

com·pe·ti·tion

n.
The act of competing, as for profit or a prize; rivalry.

A test of skill or ability; a contest: a skating competition.

Rivalry between two or more businesses striving for the same customer or market.

A competitor: The competition has cornered the market.

Ecology. The simultaneous demand by two or more organisms for limited environmental resources, such as nutrients, living space, or light.

Intersting theory, but it could never work. Engendered in the spirit of competition is the need for their to be an absolute winner, the lifeblood of Capitalism, the need for constant and permanent economic growth, not too unlike a cancer. You cannot have winners without losers. Capitalism is based upon divisions, upon losers. There is no provision for share dividends to be spread around to those without a job or investments. The 2 examples above have been proven to not work for the majority of people who have had, or are having, the misfortune to live under either.

A new way is needed. A Socialist way of control given to the workers, of rule from below, not above. Of parity, of equality, of justice for all in this world, not just the lucky 0.0000 1per cent, (if its even that.)

know1

danmac wrote:

com·pe·ti·tion

n.
The act of competing, as for profit or a prize; rivalry.

A test of skill or ability; a contest: a skating competition.

Rivalry between two or more businesses striving for the same customer or market.

A competitor: The competition has cornered the market.

Ecology. The simultaneous demand by two or more organisms for limited environmental resources, such as nutrients, living space, or light.

Intersting theory, but it could never work. Engendered in the spirit of competition is the need for their to be an absolute winner, the lifeblood of Capitalism, the need for constant and permanent economic growth, not too unlike a cancer. You cannot have winners without losers. Capitalism is based upon divisions, upon losers. There is no provision for share dividends to be spread around to those without a job or investments. The 2 examples above have been proven to not work for the majority of people who have had, or are having, the misfortune to live under either.

A new way is needed. A Socialist way of control given to the workers, of rule from below, not above. Of parity, of equality, of justice for all in this world, not just the lucky 0.0000 1per cent, (if its even that.)

But competition in capitalism doesn't end when the scoreboard clock reads 00:00. Today's winner will be replaced by the competitor tomorrow who competes more effectively.

Furthermore, it's not a competition where there is one winner and one loser. There are varying degrees of success and one person or companies definition of winning may not match another's - thereby allowing more than one winner.

OutOfBreath

danmac wrote:

A new way is needed. A Socialist way of control given to the workers, of rule from below, not above. Of parity, of equality, of justice for all in this world, not just the lucky 0.0000 1per cent, (if its even that.)

A noble sentiment I can agree to, but to be achieved how exactly? Like the example of communism shows, things ain't that easy....

Peace
Dan

Heineken Helen

danmac wrote:

Capitalism puts profit before and above people. It is the system that is killing the planet and exploiting most of its peoples. It is a system ran for the haves, at the expense of the have nots. It is a sytem of greed, profit and luxury for the minority, based upon the suffering of the majority.

Communism, Stalinist, state based communism, oppressed the peoples by pretending to be anti-capitalist, but instead worked the same elitist system behind closed borders.

Well that's a good point. I think though in general we tend to give our governments too much power. I mean take Michael Moore, love him or hate him, there was ONE point he raised in F9/11 that I found irrefutable regarding Bush's loyalties. I mean if I'm earning a certain amount here but earning 100 times more doing something else, where would my loyalties lie? It wouldn't be here. We have laws in place here which forbids TD's (MP's) from being on a board of any company or from accepting donations over a certain amount. Now whether or not they follow those laws or not is yet to be seen but at least those laws are there to make sure that they do their job and that it is US who are paying them. I just wonder would the American people not like to have those kinds of laws in place to make sure that their government is actually working for THEM?

And yeh, it's a great film isn't it?

farfromglorified

danmac wrote:

Capitalism puts profit before and above people.

And who makes those profits? Tigers???

OutOfBreath

Haha. Knew you couldn't stay away from this one either, ffg.
Like honey to bees...

Peace
Dan

farfromglorified

OutOfBreath wrote:

Haha. Knew you couldn't stay away from this one either, ffg.
Like honey to bees...

Peace
Dan

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

farfromglorified

know1 wrote:

In my opinion the ideal would be somewhere in between. I'd like to see a system where the spirit of competition always remains in place, but that there are provisions to help those that truly cannot compete.

In a mix of food and poison, poison always wins.

danmac

farfromglorified wrote:

And who makes those profits? Tigers???

In this thread - http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?p=3189327#post3189327 - you stated racist, bigoted, factually erroneous comments that Africans have only themselves to blame for hunger and poverty.

Therefore, with the evidence provided above, I propose that you, until you take your meds, take off the KKK mask, bring something resembling reality to the table, have no right to a repsonse to anything you say.

You bigot. If anybody who has the power, and is reading this, I propose that farfromwhatever be banned. Your views are right wing, fanatical, wrong, and should not be allowed to air on this public forum.

If I disavowed the holocaust, I would be banned. You diosavow the African holocaust of hunger and poverty and the suffering of millions. You regard those in Africa as less than human, as animals, and that makes you a non-person.

farfromglorified

danmac wrote:

In this thread - http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?p=3189327#post3189327 - you stated racist, bigoted, factually erroneous comments that Africans have only themselves to blame for hunger and poverty.

Hehe....can you identify one "racist", "bigoted" or "factually erroneous" comment there?

Now, who makes those profits? Tigers?

Therefore, with the evidence provided above, I propose that you, until you take your meds, take off the KKK mask, bring something resembling reality to the table, have no right to a repsonse to anything you say.

Ok. Meds taken. Mask removed. Reality in hand.

Now, who makes those profits? Tigers?

You bigot. If anybody who has the power, and is reading this, I propose that farfromwhatever be banned. Your views are right wing, fanatical, wrong, and should not be allowed to air on this public forum.

My views are right wing. My views are not fanatical. My views are not wrong.

Now, who makes those profits? Tigers?

If I disavowed the holocaust, I would be banned.

If one disavows reality, one has much bigger problems than "being banned".

Now, who makes those profits? Tigers?

You diosavow the African holocaust of hunger and poverty and the suffering of millions.

Can you find a single statement where I say that Africans are not hungry? Can you find a single statement where I say that Africans are not poor?
Can you find a single statement where I say that Africans are not suffering?

Now, who makes those profits? Tigers?

You regard those in Africa as less than human, as animals, and that makes you a non-person.

Can you find a single statement where I say that Africans are sub-human?

Now, who makes those profits? Tigers?

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

Now, who makes those profits? Tigers?

Since you keep asking... I think those corrupt few who are bleeding the majority dry because they literally want everything... I don't think many of them can be called human.

And what's so important about these profits? I mean really? if you look at the bigger picture... you can't take it with you, can ya?

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

Since you keep asking... I think those corrupt few who are bleeding the majority dry because they literally want everything... I don't think many of them can be called human.

Thanks for your response!

Now, you say that a minority is "bleeding the majority dry". By what means do they do this?

And what's so important about these profits? I mean really?

To understand what's so important about these profits, simply try the following:

- Go to your nearest farmer's market. Buy some plaintains. Use money.

- Go to your nearest farmer's market. Take a gun. Point it at a farmer. Take all the food you'd like.

Compare & contrast.

if you look at the bigger picture... you can't take it with you, can ya?

Are you suggesting that we design our lifestyles based on the reality of death?

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

In a mix of food and poison, poison always wins.

That depends on the desired result and what you consider "winning." Inoculations against poisons and diseases usually contain the poison or disease itself. Small doses of something often provide immunity to the onslaught of the large.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

That depends on the desired result and what you consider "winning."

If the purpose of food is nourishment, the object of poison is anti-purpose.

Inoculations against poisons and diseases usually contain the poison or disease itself. Small doses of something often provide immunity to the onslaught of the large.

Certainly!

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

Thanks for your response!

Now, you say that a minority is "bleeding the majority dry". By what means do they do this?

Are you suggesting that we design our lifestyles based on the reality of death?

You want to know how the minority bleed the majority dry? Spend a week in Africa - and then go spend a week in the White house

Compare and contrast :cool:

No, I'm not suggesting that at all but I'm saying look at those people who work and work and work getting richer and richer and richer and then bam... they're dead. What was the whole point? Do some people really enjoy work that much that they just don't know when to or want to stop??

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Are you suggesting that we design our lifestyles based on the reality of death?

We already do. Try to nourish yourself by eating something that was never alive and see how far that gets you. About the only "never alive" things we can digest are salt and water - and neither, or even both together, can provide adequate sustenance.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

You want to know how the minority bleed the majority dry? Spend a week in Africa - and then go spend a week in the White house

Certainly. Now, do you think those wielding power in Africa and those wielding power in the White House are dealing with men on the basis of free exchange? Or are they dealing with men on the basis of guns?

Compare and contrast :cool:

No, I'm not suggesting that at all but I'm saying look at those people who work and work and work getting richer and richer and richer and then bam... they're dead. What was the whole point?

Hopefully to live life. Does it matter?

Do some people really enjoy work that much that they just don't know when to or want to stop??

Looking at everyone involved, both. Working for the sake of work is certainly a questionable choice. Working for the sake of happiness is all I seek to protect.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

We already do. Try to nourish yourself by eating something that was never alive and see how far that gets you.

Not very far.

About the only "never alive" things we can digest are salt and water - and neither, or even both together, can provide adequate sustenance.

Certainly.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

If the purpose of food is nourishment, the object of poison is anti-purpose.

The purpose of eating food is nourishment. The object of poison depends on who's doing the poisoning.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

The purpose of eating food is nourishment.

Certainly.

The object of poison depends on who's doing the poisoning.

The object of poison is always poison. The purpose of poison depends on who's doing the poisoning.

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly. Now, do you think those wielding power in Africa and those wielding power in the White House are dealing with men on the basis of free exchange? Or are they dealing with men on the basis of guns?



Hopefully to live life. Does it matter?

Yes of course it matters... I mean WHO exactly needs all that money? While there are people DYING because they don't have FOOD :mad: Something you and I take for granted... it shouldn't be a RIGHT to be rich when people are dying. Life is priceless and shouldn't be all about money.

surferdude

danmac wrote:

Capitalism puts profit before and above people. It is the system that is killing the planet and exploiting most of its peoples. It is a system ran for the haves, at the expense of the have nots. It is a sytem of greed, profit and luxury for the minority, based upon the suffering of the majority.

Capitalism does not put profit before and above people. INor does it kill the planet or do any of the other things you ascribe to it.

Capitalism does allow a person to use their own morals in running their own business. If the person has no connection with his/her community the they may run it in a greedy way. On the other hand if the business owner is compassionate then that too will reflect in the business. Just look at some of the amazing work that Gates is doing.

As far as the environment goes communism was by far the worst. They had no reason to improve as they had no competition. Communism has been the favored form of economy for most dictators.

It always puzzles me that it seems to be the people who complain the most and loudest about the government also sing the praises of a government run economy.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

The purpose of poison depends on who's doing the poisoning.

True.

farfromglorified wrote:

The object of poison is always poison.

Poison has no object outside of it's application, true. It simply is. It can result in the desired outcomes of the one who administers it, be it positive or negative, but in and of itself, it has no conscious stratagy. Therefore, it cannot "win."

RainDog

surferdude wrote:

It always puzzles me that it seems to be the people who complain the most and loudest about the government also sing the praises of a government run economy.

Detailed research of these complaints will show you that the actual anger is at the cooperation of big business and government. Big business, after all, is just as capable of trampling the rights of citizens as a dicatorial government - and fascism is just as deplorable as authoritarian communism.

Balance is the key - which, ideally, is something that can be achieved with a democratic government.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

Yes of course it matters... I mean WHO exactly needs all that money?

What money?

While there are people DYING because they don't have FOOD :mad:

And how do you propose they get the FOOD they need? By their thought and action? By yours? Will their need provide a harvest? Will their desire build their shelter? Will their whims fill their stomachs?

Something you and I take for granted... it shouldn't be a RIGHT to be rich when people are dying.

First, define rich.

Second, consider this:

How do you live? Do you grow your own food, or is it provided for by the minds and hands of others? Did you build your own shelter, or was it provided to you by the minds and hands of others? Did you weave your own clothes, or were they provided to you by the minds and hands of others?

You have two choices: exchange freely or exchange by force. Capitalists choose the first. Slavedrivers the latter.

Third, consider what you want to happen. If being rich is not a human right, feel free to stop people from being rich. And then ask yourself what you're stopping.

Life is priceless and shouldn't be all about money.

Do you realize who is saying the alternative to the above?

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

True.

Poison has no object outside of it's application, true. It simply is. It can result in the desired outcomes of the one who administers it, be it positive or negative, but in and of itself, it has no conscious stratagy. Therefore, it cannot "win."

Completely agreed. Therefore, I'll amend my statement:

In a mix of the men of food and the men of poison, the men of poison always win.

Milhouse VanHouten

RainDog wrote:

Balance is the key - which, ideally, is something that can be achieved with a democratic government.

Can a truly representative democratic government exist in a system where you have to spend literally millions of dollars just to run a campaign, and if you do get elected, you spend half of your time begging people for money just to be able to run for reelection in two/four/six years?