|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:30 pm
Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 are you arguing against me or with me cause that didnt really prove that he didnt believe in revolution Why would somebody violently revolt if they knew change was going to come about anyway? Karl Marx said things would inevitably change to become more communist, either through peaceable or violent means by an organized proletariat. He never actually told people to violently revolt. Leninism takes Marxism a step farther in saying that it is up to a revolutionary party to incite that change. And Stalinism takes Leninism yet another step farther in saying,"F*ck you, Lenin and Marx! Morality is for the weak!" im pretty sure marxism had a flow chart and between capitalism and socialism there was a period called revolution basically, hes saying that communism will come around after a revolution away from capitalism because capitalism will be corrupted by huge companies wikipedia The Communist Manifesto (184 cool established that a communist revolution would occur only under specific conditions — including the pre-condition of an economically-exhausted industrialized nation. i never said that marxism told people to violently revolt i just said that most communist theories believe in violent revolution You described communism as a more violent form of socialism, when in fact communism is not inherently violent. Also, it is true that Marx believed that in order fr socialism to come about there had to be a rising up of the proletariat, but it didn't have to be violent. The transition is going from the means of production belonging to the bourgeoisie to belonging to the proletariat, and obviously there's going to be some class struggle whenever you do that. I probably misunderstood you, and for that I'm sorry. My point was only that Marx was not a violent person, and communists are not violent people. It's just all those damned Soviets that give them a bad name. Quote: also, marx considered communism socialism i was talking about how nowadays communism and socialism are different Marx considered socialism to be a step on the way to communism-To refer back to the "flow chart" you mentioned, socialism is the thing between capitalism and communism. I think they've always been different. i didnt describe communism as more violent, i described it as more extreme form, meaning they believed in equal rights for everyonealso, i think our general dispute is whether marx thought that socialism was the same as communism, or whether he thought that they were different, i personally think he thought they were the same, most sources i found said that Socialism: A Primary Source Analysis In 1848 when Marx and Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto, Communism was more or less interchangeable with Socialism.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:12 pm
Ok you guys are telling me that Communism is effective
while Capitalism is better
I think capitalism is better than communism.
So in communism, does a doctor and a garbage man earn the same?
Wouldn't the doctor make more since they invested more of their time into training and school
and communism is more common-interest
while capitalism is self-interest
Are there any innovations in communism?
Like if I came up with a new idea or skill wouldn't I be paid more or would I still be the same. Wouldn't the person lose the incentive to come up with something new?
I'm just asking questions ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:27 pm
LimeIzMyFaveColor I think capitalism is better than communism. So in communism, does a doctor and a garbage man earn the same? i think i already discussed this with you in the "Liberal Gaians" guild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:57 pm
dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 are you arguing against me or with me cause that didnt really prove that he didnt believe in revolution Why would somebody violently revolt if they knew change was going to come about anyway? Karl Marx said things would inevitably change to become more communist, either through peaceable or violent means by an organized proletariat. He never actually told people to violently revolt. Leninism takes Marxism a step farther in saying that it is up to a revolutionary party to incite that change. And Stalinism takes Leninism yet another step farther in saying,"F*ck you, Lenin and Marx! Morality is for the weak!" im pretty sure marxism had a flow chart and between capitalism and socialism there was a period called revolution basically, hes saying that communism will come around after a revolution away from capitalism because capitalism will be corrupted by huge companies wikipedia The Communist Manifesto (184 cool established that a communist revolution would occur only under specific conditions — including the pre-condition of an economically-exhausted industrialized nation. i never said that marxism told people to violently revolt i just said that most communist theories believe in violent revolution You described communism as a more violent form of socialism, when in fact communism is not inherently violent. Also, it is true that Marx believed that in order fr socialism to come about there had to be a rising up of the proletariat, but it didn't have to be violent. The transition is going from the means of production belonging to the bourgeoisie to belonging to the proletariat, and obviously there's going to be some class struggle whenever you do that. I probably misunderstood you, and for that I'm sorry. My point was only that Marx was not a violent person, and communists are not violent people. It's just all those damned Soviets that give them a bad name. Quote: also, marx considered communism socialism i was talking about how nowadays communism and socialism are different Marx considered socialism to be a step on the way to communism-To refer back to the "flow chart" you mentioned, socialism is the thing between capitalism and communism. I think they've always been different. i didnt describe communism as more violent, i described it as more extreme form, meaning they believed in equal rights for everyoneOk, then. I'm sorry. I guess I just misunderstood, "communists are more for violent revolution and its a more extreme form of socialism" as saying that communists have more violent inclinations. Quote: also, i think our general dispute is whether marx thought that socialism was the same as communism, or whether he thought that they were different, i personally think he thought they were the same, most sources i found said that Socialism: A Primary Source Analysis In 1848 when Marx and Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto, Communism was more or less interchangeable with Socialism. "Communism was the inevitable end to the process of evolution begun with feudalism and passing through capitalism and socialism. " Socialism is different form communism-In Marxist theory, tt is the stepping stone between capitalism and communism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:09 pm
Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 are you arguing against me or with me cause that didnt really prove that he didnt believe in revolution Why would somebody violently revolt if they knew change was going to come about anyway? Karl Marx said things would inevitably change to become more communist, either through peaceable or violent means by an organized proletariat. He never actually told people to violently revolt. Leninism takes Marxism a step farther in saying that it is up to a revolutionary party to incite that change. And Stalinism takes Leninism yet another step farther in saying,"F*ck you, Lenin and Marx! Morality is for the weak!" im pretty sure marxism had a flow chart and between capitalism and socialism there was a period called revolution basically, hes saying that communism will come around after a revolution away from capitalism because capitalism will be corrupted by huge companies wikipedia The Communist Manifesto (184 cool established that a communist revolution would occur only under specific conditions — including the pre-condition of an economically-exhausted industrialized nation. i never said that marxism told people to violently revolt i just said that most communist theories believe in violent revolution You described communism as a more violent form of socialism, when in fact communism is not inherently violent. Also, it is true that Marx believed that in order fr socialism to come about there had to be a rising up of the proletariat, but it didn't have to be violent. The transition is going from the means of production belonging to the bourgeoisie to belonging to the proletariat, and obviously there's going to be some class struggle whenever you do that. I probably misunderstood you, and for that I'm sorry. My point was only that Marx was not a violent person, and communists are not violent people. It's just all those damned Soviets that give them a bad name. Quote: also, marx considered communism socialism i was talking about how nowadays communism and socialism are different Marx considered socialism to be a step on the way to communism-To refer back to the "flow chart" you mentioned, socialism is the thing between capitalism and communism. I think they've always been different. i didnt describe communism as more violent, i described it as more extreme form, meaning they believed in equal rights for everyoneOk, then. I'm sorry. I guess I just misunderstood, "communists are more for violent revolution and its a more extreme form of socialism" as saying that communists have more violent inclinations. Quote: also, i think our general dispute is whether marx thought that socialism was the same as communism, or whether he thought that they were different, i personally think he thought they were the same, most sources i found said that Socialism: A Primary Source Analysis In 1848 when Marx and Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto, Communism was more or less interchangeable with Socialism. "Communism was the inevitable end to the process of evolution begun with feudalism and passing through capitalism and socialism. " Socialism is different form communism-In Marxist theory, tt is the stepping stone between capitalism and communism. i think our main dispute lies in our sources i read the page and i saw your quote, but i also read the book "Socialism: A Primary Source Analysis" both sources i trust i am currently reading both The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital(Capital) i will return in a few days with more knowledge... *Mysterious Music*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:21 pm
LimeIzMyFaveColor Ok you guys are telling me that Communism is effective while Capitalism is better I think capitalism is better than communism. So in communism, does a doctor and a garbage man earn the same? Wouldn't the doctor make more since they invested more of their time into training and school But in the meantime, the garbage man invested that same amount of time into collecting garbage, while the doctor was just reading books. neutral The only reason doctors are paid more in a capitalist society is because they have to pay for medical school, and because of this cost there are less people qualified to be doctors, with pretty much the same demand of them as garbage men. Also, the salary of a doctor is raised to cover malpractice insurance/lawsuits. In a communist society, one would not have to pay to go to school, nor would they have to pay for malpractice insurance/lawsuits. One would work in the profession for which they're most suited. Specialization, which results in increased productivity. Quote: and communism is more common-interest while capitalism is self-interest Yup. Though one could argue that it's in most peoples' self-interest to look out for the common interest, since the wealth gap in many countries is ridiculously large. Quote: Are there any innovations in communism? While their society was more of a twisted form of socialism rather than actual communism, the USSR was the first country to launch something into space. Quote: Like if I came up with a new idea or skill wouldn't I be paid more or would I still be the same. Wouldn't the person lose the incentive to come up with something new? I think most people develop new ideas more out of interest than however it may pay off. I actually think having a centralized, collaborative forum between scientists of all backgrounds, specialties, and goals would probably increase innovation. The way it is now, very few people from different scientific fields interact, and we lose a lot of potential knowledge from that. Also, if you just look as the race for a cure for cancer; if everyone involved in that were to pool all of their research and information together, we'd probably be a lot closer to a cure rather than having hundreds of different groups all competing and withholding information from each other because they want to have the patent to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:36 pm
Lethkhar LimeIzMyFaveColor Ok you guys are telling me that Communism is effective while Capitalism is better I think capitalism is better than communism. So in communism, does a doctor and a garbage man earn the same? Wouldn't the doctor make more since they invested more of their time into training and school But in the meantime, the garbage man invested that same amount of time into collecting garbage, while the doctor was just reading books. neutral The only reason doctors are paid more in a capitalist society is because they have to pay for medical school, and because of this cost there are less people qualified to be doctors, with pretty much the same demand of them as garbage men. Also, the salary of a doctor is raised to cover malpractice insurance/lawsuits. In a communist society, one would not have to pay to go to school, nor would they have to pay for malpractice insurance/lawsuits. One would work in the profession for which they're most suited. Specialization, which results in increased productivity. Quote: and communism is more common-interest while capitalism is self-interest Yup. Though one could argue that it's in most peoples' self-interest to look out for the common interest, since the wealth gap in many countries is ridiculously large. Quote: Are there any innovations in communism? While their society was more of a twisted form of socialism rather than actual communism, the USSR was the first country to launch something into space. Quote: Like if I came up with a new idea or skill wouldn't I be paid more or would I still be the same. Wouldn't the person lose the incentive to come up with something new? I think most people develop new ideas more out of interest than however it may pay off. I actually think having a centralized, collaborative forum between scientists of all backgrounds, specialties, and goals would probably increase innovation. The way it is now, very few people from different scientific fields interact, and we lose a lot of potential knowledge from that. Also, if you just look as the race for a cure for cancer; if everyone involved in that were to pool all of their research and information together, we'd probably be a lot closer to a cure rather than having hundreds of different groups all competing and withholding information from each other because they want to have the patent to it. wait... i will temporarily retire from my veil of secrecy to ask you this question... are you communist or capitalist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:19 am
I think that a lot of the points you guys are making about Communism and Capitalism are sort of made in a vacuum. When tying to implement these things in the "real" world, the system breaks down at a certain threshold of people.
On a very small scale (like a single village or extended family), communism works fantastically well. Once you try to boost that system up to an entire country, or even the world, the system breaks down. It's the same way with democracy. With a small group of people, it's easy to reason with a small minority and come up with something everyone can agree on. But when you're talking about millions or billions of people, the "minority" that dissents is still a HUGE number of people, and that causes a lot of strife in the country.
Capitalism works better on a large scale. In a very small group of people all looking out for only their own interests, the group would likely kill each other. No progress happens when everyone is at odds with each other. However, when you bring that up to the scale of millions of people, it becomes very difficult for one person to get a huge advantage over others; the damage done from people looking out for themselves is sort of mitigated by the buffer. But we've also seen in the past few years what happens when capitalism runs amok unchecked; a select few companies quite nearly brought down the global economy in flames singlehandedly.
I think that on a scale like the US, a compromise between capitalism and socialism is what is going to work best: a mostly free market with regulations in place to keep it from getting out of control.
If it were up to me, though, I would be part of a communist society in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:37 pm
alteregoivy Capitalism works better on a large scale. ... I think that on a scale like the US, a compromise between capitalism and socialism is what is going to work best: a mostly free market with regulations in place to keep it from getting out of control. I have to agree with this =]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:42 pm
alteregoivy On a very small scale (like a single village or extended family), communism works fantastically well. Once you try to boost that system up to an entire country, or even the world, the system breaks down. It's the same way with democracy. With a small group of people, it's easy to reason with a small minority and come up with something everyone can agree on. But when you're talking about millions or billions of people, the "minority" that dissents is still a HUGE number of people, and that causes a lot of strife in the country. ^ yeah i think if it was a small scale then yeah, but the U.S is too big for that. I do think communism might work if there wasn't a dictator in charge of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:59 pm
LimeIzMyFaveColor alteregoivy On a very small scale (like a single village or extended family), communism works fantastically well. Once you try to boost that system up to an entire country, or even the world, the system breaks down. It's the same way with democracy. With a small group of people, it's easy to reason with a small minority and come up with something everyone can agree on. But when you're talking about millions or billions of people, the "minority" that dissents is still a HUGE number of people, and that causes a lot of strife in the country. ^ yeah i think if it was a small scale then yeah, but the U.S is too big for that. I do think communism might work if there wasn't a dictator in charge of it. says nothing about a dictator in any part of it also, most communist countries are not supposed to be dictatorships look up Soviet Democracy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:11 pm
dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 are you arguing against me or with me cause that didnt really prove that he didnt believe in revolution Why would somebody violently revolt if they knew change was going to come about anyway? Karl Marx said things would inevitably change to become more communist, either through peaceable or violent means by an organized proletariat. He never actually told people to violently revolt. Leninism takes Marxism a step farther in saying that it is up to a revolutionary party to incite that change. And Stalinism takes Leninism yet another step farther in saying,"F*ck you, Lenin and Marx! Morality is for the weak!" im pretty sure marxism had a flow chart and between capitalism and socialism there was a period called revolution basically, hes saying that communism will come around after a revolution away from capitalism because capitalism will be corrupted by huge companies wikipedia The Communist Manifesto (184 cool established that a communist revolution would occur only under specific conditions — including the pre-condition of an economically-exhausted industrialized nation. i never said that marxism told people to violently revolt i just said that most communist theories believe in violent revolution You described communism as a more violent form of socialism, when in fact communism is not inherently violent. Also, it is true that Marx believed that in order fr socialism to come about there had to be a rising up of the proletariat, but it didn't have to be violent. The transition is going from the means of production belonging to the bourgeoisie to belonging to the proletariat, and obviously there's going to be some class struggle whenever you do that. I probably misunderstood you, and for that I'm sorry. My point was only that Marx was not a violent person, and communists are not violent people. It's just all those damned Soviets that give them a bad name. Quote: also, marx considered communism socialism i was talking about how nowadays communism and socialism are different Marx considered socialism to be a step on the way to communism-To refer back to the "flow chart" you mentioned, socialism is the thing between capitalism and communism. I think they've always been different. i didnt describe communism as more violent, i described it as more extreme form, meaning they believed in equal rights for everyoneOk, then. I'm sorry. I guess I just misunderstood, "communists are more for violent revolution and its a more extreme form of socialism" as saying that communists have more violent inclinations. Quote: also, i think our general dispute is whether marx thought that socialism was the same as communism, or whether he thought that they were different, i personally think he thought they were the same, most sources i found said that Socialism: A Primary Source Analysis In 1848 when Marx and Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto, Communism was more or less interchangeable with Socialism. "Communism was the inevitable end to the process of evolution begun with feudalism and passing through capitalism and socialism. " Socialism is different form communism-In Marxist theory, tt is the stepping stone between capitalism and communism. i think our main dispute lies in our sources i read the page and i saw your quote, but i also read the book "Socialism: A Primary Source Analysis" both sources i trust i am currently reading both The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital(Capital) i will return in a few days with more knowledge... *Mysterious Music*I have returned and i bring with me new knowledge it turns out... we both were right Section 3 of The Communist Manifesto was called Socialist and Communist Literature it was divided into 3 parts Part 1: Reactionary Socialism including: Feudal Socialism, Petty-Bourgeois Socialism, and German or "True" Socialism Part 2: Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism Part 3: Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism it is widely known that the "opposition" of Utopian Socialism, is Scientific Socialism given that i saw Scientific Socialism nowhere else, i assumed that he considered Communism Scientific Socialism this is also supported by something i read that said that Marx was a Scientific Socialist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:11 pm
dl1371 Lethkhar LimeIzMyFaveColor Ok you guys are telling me that Communism is effective while Capitalism is better I think capitalism is better than communism. So in communism, does a doctor and a garbage man earn the same? Wouldn't the doctor make more since they invested more of their time into training and school But in the meantime, the garbage man invested that same amount of time into collecting garbage, while the doctor was just reading books. neutral The only reason doctors are paid more in a capitalist society is because they have to pay for medical school, and because of this cost there are less people qualified to be doctors, with pretty much the same demand of them as garbage men. Also, the salary of a doctor is raised to cover malpractice insurance/lawsuits. In a communist society, one would not have to pay to go to school, nor would they have to pay for malpractice insurance/lawsuits. One would work in the profession for which they're most suited. Specialization, which results in increased productivity. Quote: and communism is more common-interest while capitalism is self-interest Yup. Though one could argue that it's in most peoples' self-interest to look out for the common interest, since the wealth gap in many countries is ridiculously large. Quote: Are there any innovations in communism? While their society was more of a twisted form of socialism rather than actual communism, the USSR was the first country to launch something into space. Quote: Like if I came up with a new idea or skill wouldn't I be paid more or would I still be the same. Wouldn't the person lose the incentive to come up with something new? I think most people develop new ideas more out of interest than however it may pay off. I actually think having a centralized, collaborative forum between scientists of all backgrounds, specialties, and goals would probably increase innovation. The way it is now, very few people from different scientific fields interact, and we lose a lot of potential knowledge from that. Also, if you just look as the race for a cure for cancer; if everyone involved in that were to pool all of their research and information together, we'd probably be a lot closer to a cure rather than having hundreds of different groups all competing and withholding information from each other because they want to have the patent to it. wait... i will temporarily retire from my veil of secrecy to ask you this question... are you communist or capitalist? I'm a socialist, though I don't think I completely fall under any particular type of socialism. And also, I think I now understand what you meant by the "violent/extreme" thing with communism. Communism really is a type of socialism when you think about it; it's like the endgame type of socialism in Marxist theory. So in that sense, you're right. EDIT: Scientific socialism is basically a socialist's utopia. It's communism for him; though many other socialists have other definitions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:16 pm
Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar LimeIzMyFaveColor Ok you guys are telling me that Communism is effective while Capitalism is better I think capitalism is better than communism. So in communism, does a doctor and a garbage man earn the same? Wouldn't the doctor make more since they invested more of their time into training and school But in the meantime, the garbage man invested that same amount of time into collecting garbage, while the doctor was just reading books. neutral The only reason doctors are paid more in a capitalist society is because they have to pay for medical school, and because of this cost there are less people qualified to be doctors, with pretty much the same demand of them as garbage men. Also, the salary of a doctor is raised to cover malpractice insurance/lawsuits. In a communist society, one would not have to pay to go to school, nor would they have to pay for malpractice insurance/lawsuits. One would work in the profession for which they're most suited. Specialization, which results in increased productivity. Quote: and communism is more common-interest while capitalism is self-interest Yup. Though one could argue that it's in most peoples' self-interest to look out for the common interest, since the wealth gap in many countries is ridiculously large. Quote: Are there any innovations in communism? While their society was more of a twisted form of socialism rather than actual communism, the USSR was the first country to launch something into space. Quote: Like if I came up with a new idea or skill wouldn't I be paid more or would I still be the same. Wouldn't the person lose the incentive to come up with something new? I think most people develop new ideas more out of interest than however it may pay off. I actually think having a centralized, collaborative forum between scientists of all backgrounds, specialties, and goals would probably increase innovation. The way it is now, very few people from different scientific fields interact, and we lose a lot of potential knowledge from that. Also, if you just look as the race for a cure for cancer; if everyone involved in that were to pool all of their research and information together, we'd probably be a lot closer to a cure rather than having hundreds of different groups all competing and withholding information from each other because they want to have the patent to it. wait... i will temporarily retire from my veil of secrecy to ask you this question... are you communist or capitalist? I'm a socialist, though I don't think I completely fall under any particular type of socialism. And also, I think I now understand what you meant by the "violent/extreme" thing with communism. Communism really is a type of socialism when you think about it; it's like the endgame type of socialism in Marxist theory. So in that sense, you're right. EDIT: Scientific socialism is basically a socialist's utopia. It's communism for him; though many other socialists have other definitions. YAY weve come to a consensus!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:17 pm
dl1371 LimeIzMyFaveColor alteregoivy On a very small scale (like a single village or extended family), communism works fantastically well. Once you try to boost that system up to an entire country, or even the world, the system breaks down. It's the same way with democracy. With a small group of people, it's easy to reason with a small minority and come up with something everyone can agree on. But when you're talking about millions or billions of people, the "minority" that dissents is still a HUGE number of people, and that causes a lot of strife in the country. ^ yeah i think if it was a small scale then yeah, but the U.S is too big for that. I do think communism might work if there wasn't a dictator in charge of it. says nothing about a dictator in any part of it also, most communist countries are not supposed to be dictatorships look up Soviet Democracy Exactly; true utopian communism implies a lack of a state. Again, the Russians weren't communists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
