new capitalism vs communism thread

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
The goal of capitalism is to make everyone rich which necessarily eliminates poverty. The goal of socialism to make everyone equally poor so by definition there is no poverty. Workers, given a choice between being rich, where some are richer than others, and being poor, but equally poor, choose capitalism.

Maybe, but then you are thinking within the confines of a single nation. Remember that imperialism is the highest form of capitalism. We are currently in that stage. Perhaps the end of that stage as a matter of fact.

It is imperialism, not capitalism itself (that is the creation of profit from selling goods) which secures the modern worker his or hers living standard.

The communist accepts the temporary objective strengths of capitalism, but sees communism as the natural extension of a historical process. Or agitates for communism to counter the worst excess of imperialism and the atrocities it inflicts on other nations.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ned
The goal of capitalism is to make everyone rich which necessarily eliminates poverty. The goal of socialism to make everyone equally poor so by definition there is no poverty. Workers, given a choice between being rich, where some are richer than others, and being poor, but equally poor, choose capitalism.

Unfortunately we'ld like to think so.

But you underestmate the greed factor of the common stiff.

Interesting group exercise that has been done time and again and shown to be very repeatable.

Go to a class room, take someone's wallet or purse and place it in the front of the room. Announce to the class that this is property and we are going to decide on its disposition. Two options

a) we return it to the person or
b) we divide it equally amongst the class.

Which one do you think gets chosen?

[Spiffor]

How could you guys take Ned's troll seriously?

[Spiffor]

So, Og, are you arguing that private property is definitely unnatural for us human? Property values have to be taught?

Then, I suppose you're not buying the idea of natural rights.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
How could you guys take Ned's troll seriously?

Well he is pointing to a common misconception.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No I'm pointing out that due to the inherently selfish manner of man he will take advantage and abuse others rights. But I don't plan to get sucked into another nature of man contrary to communism debate.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
No I'm pointing out that due to the inherently selfish manner of man he will take advantage and abuse others rights.

You're using the example of children precisely because they haven't assimilated property as being a "right". Wouldn't it mean, then, that property is precisely an "unnatural" right?

But I don't plan to get sucked into another nature of man contrary to communism debate.

Why not? It's obvious mankind's selfish nature makes it impossible to have a full-scale voluntary communism. This is the very reason why communism has to be either small-scale (Kibbutsim), totalitarian, or "impure"

[Az]

This is actually a very interesting thought. What if you don't teach kids about property?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You're using the example of children precisely because they haven't assimilated property as being a "right". Wouldn't it mean, then, that property is precisely an "unnatural" right?

No the examples are done with college students typically (but the exercise has been replicated with various groups of adults). Now one may argue that college students are not properly educated who full well understand property but choose to ignore it.

Why not? It's obvious mankind's selfish nature makes it impossible to have a full-scale voluntary communism. This is the very reason why communism has to be either small-scale (Kibbutsim), totalitarian, or "impure"

I agree and to the extent that it becomes bastardized to totalitarinsim I reject it immediately on those grounds.
Although I'm sure others here will argue vehemently that his is not the true nature of man and have done so before. I don't plan to get into another pissing contest as to what the true nature of man is.

[Tripledoc]

It is not the fact that property exists that is the problem. Communism allows for property. It is SELLING of property which is the problem. Usually children are on the recieving end. They don't sell property. And they don't have the conception of market value of goods. To them attachment to property is of a personal or sentimental nature, and not a means to earn a profit through selling it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Azazel
This is actually a very interesting thought. What if you don't teach kids about property?

Wouldn't be a good idea unless you also changed the laws. Theft would be rampant, looting, etc. Youcouldn't do it within the context of an exisitng society wherein property is respected/upheld.

[chequita guevara]

Respecting rights. It's interesting that one of the first rights that people will disrespect is property. We don't see people murdering each other willy-nilly, nor raping each other, nor trying to keep each other from thinking what they will, but the right to property seems one we're very willing to violate. Cant be all that ingrained then.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Respecting rights. It's interesting that one of the first rights that people will disrespect is property. We don't see people murdering each other willy-nilly, nor raping each other, nor trying to keep each other from thinking what they will, but the right to property seems one we're very willing to violate. Cant be all that ingrained then.

Read the paper lately?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Respecting rights. It's interesting that one of the first rights that people will disrespect is property. We don't see people murdering each other willy-nilly, nor raping each other, nor trying to keep each other from thinking what they will, but the right to property seems one we're very willing to violate. Cant be all that ingrained then.

Uh... sure, Che. Tell that little girl and her parents in Sarasota that the right to life is so sancrosact that people don't kill random strangers "willy-nilly."

[Spiffor]

Actually, I agree with Ogie that the reaction he depicts has more to do with egoism than with communitarism. You can be sure that the same people would defend their wallet as being "MINE MINE MINE" if they fell victim to the trick themselves. And even (especially?) if those people are three.

A spirit of communitarization can only exist if people see the obvious returns of communitarizing goods. Example: my roommates/classmates and me always ate together. We decided to pool our food, because it was clearly cheaper. OTOH, had we not been eating together, we'd have never done so, because there would be no apparent and obvious return to that.