Capitalism V Communism

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

RainDog wrote:

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.

Agree. But we already see that government has problems acting ethically whne it becomes intertwined with business. Yet some push for government to have complete power over business.

I have no problems with capitalism as the form of economy. I have much bigger problems with unions and businesses being able to contribute to politicians and political issues.

surferdude wrote:

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.

Hitler, Mussolini and Franco never used Communism. Can't get anymore dictatorial than that. Their form of Fasicsm was Capitalism taken to its extreme.

Stalin and Mao, (carried through to this day the modern Peroples Republic of China), did not use the defining principles of Communism as means of power from below, from the workers, as laid down by Marx, Engels, Lenin or Trotsky upon which to build an economy. They developed their own bastardised version of state run capitalism.

All known forms of economic development, be it Capitalism or Statist Communism, have failed the majprity of the people under which they operate.

Both forms create and maintain divisions based upon wealth (and in the case of those of us in the richer 'north', it is nothing more than luck we are born into the 'richer' part of the world). How many people are below the poverty line in the USA, that champion of Capitalism?

What effect has Capitalism had upon the avergae Mexican, African or Asian worker? What effect has the race to bottom, for the battle to obtain the most for the least possible cost had upon the environment and upon the lives of the vast majority of the worlds population?

I don't champion a goverment run anything. Government should walk away, be smashed down and the peoples be allowed to control themselves and their own destiny. In Catalonia in 1936/7, and in the Paris Commune in 1870, we have seen glimpses of how power and control from below, by the workers for the workers, can be done. In both cases, military enforced Capitalist power destroyed that true, pure Socialist progress.

Do not fall for the myth of the small business owner, the individual who runs his own hardware store in Greensfield USA or some other idylic place that no longer exists in reality. Once he gets big enough, he wil sell out or be swallowed by a bigger, non-accountable monster we cal the Corporation.

As for Bill Gates, you really need to look depper into what he's done, and why he's done it.

if you google a few things like, oh for instance:-

trips (Trade related intelectual property rights),

HIV vaccine in South Africa,

US state department investigation into Microsoft Monopoly,

and link the dots, I'm sure you'll catch the cut of my gib.

There is a pretty strong case for Bill Gates actually causing more deaths than he alleges he is trying to save.

To summarise, here are some irefutable facts that are in the public domain.

In the late nineties, at the same time as the US justice department was requesting Microsft to divulge its proprietary codes and licence Windows software to Al Gore's campaign contributors AOL and Oracle, Nelson Mandela suggested that in order to help fight the AIDs epidemic in South Africa, the South African government should issue compulsory licenses for the local manufacture of cheap AIDS drugs. This violated the so called cartel friendly TRIPS trade rules. So big -pharma, also huge contributors to the Al Gore / Bill CLinton election fund, called in a favour, and big Bill sent little Al to South Africa where he threatened the Mandela government with punishment under WTO rules.

SO if these intellectual property rights are breached for Microsoft software, then it will come from the need to get cheap drugs to Africa. And under trips, there is no distinction between drugs to save lives, or software that increases a corporations profits.

In short, Bill gates has donated 2 billion to cover the cost of these drugs left due to the US governments constant WTO veto over trips, but maintained his monopoly over the software market. Oh and yeah, he also bought 200 million worth of stocks in the drug companies that develop and market the AIDS drugs he really does not want being sold at a tenth of cost price if trips does not uphold international medical patents.

Also, name 2 products that relied heavily on the lifted intellectual discoveries of others? MSDOS and Windows. Hypocrisy is a good word, and its one il use now.

farfromglorified wrote:

Then you are a capitalist.

Too bad you likely don't believe the last part of your statement.

Wow, you really don't seem to grasp the difference in concepts do you?#
It isn't about 2 choices, there are others!

I am an Anarchist, but first a Socialist. how does that make me a Capitalist?
Under classic Anarchist thought, their should be no government. See Guerin or Proudhon or Bakhunin for examples of their thought. Even Chomsky laid down his principle of Anarcho-Syndicalist theory as far back as 1970 that blended the 2 systems, which deviated from the mainstream black or white choice of Capitalism or Communism.

Anarcho-Syndicalists, as was witnessed and carried out in Barcelona and Catalonia, did not rely on a centralised government to run the city tram or telephone systems, did not take profits for their operations. THe same with food distribution.

Do you want to go get an education before discussuing these complex subtleties, or do you want to continue bleating the same old KKK, sorry Republican party dogma?