new capitalism vs communism thread

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
You don't have to beat your employee when you can yell at him as much as you want, give him the worst tasks as much as you want, and fire him at will. The only pressure the employee can exert is to leave the company (which was btw forbidden for a long time during the 19th century), or use physical force.

The worst pressure the employer can exert is fire the employee - the employee can yell all he wants, too, he just has to face the consequences (as does the employer). Also, if an employee cannot leave at will, then the system isn't capitalism (unless the employee has a contractual agreement, in which case the employee can be sued for leaving, or at least not paid).

Yes, but also that an employee or several of them aren't allowed to take over the company without the agreement of the capitalist (which is a pretty rare occurence).

"Taking over the company" would be theft - the company is owned by the manager (or by those that appoint him).

In a socialist system, there need to be an enforcement for the rules as well, this is not the point. I'm opposing capitalism and anarchy: capitalism, at its core, needs rules and enforcement of these rules. A rulless society has no chance to be capitalistic. OTOH, a capitalist society is very compatible with authoritarianism.

No it isn't - capitalism cannot exist without both essential liberties, the right to property, and the right to contract.

[Kuciwalker]

Communism = anarchism except when you are discussing politics. Communists and anarchists want the same end goal, the destruction of private property and the state. We want a society governed communally and democratically, where no one wants for necessities. We disagree over methods and the need for an intermediate step, socialism.

How can you have a government without a state? If you have no government, then you cannot enforce anything, especially communism. Communism would have to be entirely voluntary...

The main disagreement is over your thinking anarchism = capitalism - rules, which has not been true. Property did not exist for 99% of humanities existence and decisions were generally made by the whole group, rather than by individuals.

The right to property is a rule

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
No it isn't - capitalism cannot exist without both essential liberties, the right to property, and the right to contract.

Sure it can. Capitalism was quite profitable in Nazi Germany.

[Az]

NOOOOOOO this is sure to send this debate into the wrong direction. Why, che, why?!

[Kuciwalker]

Huh? Without the right to property, contract, and expression, it isn't capitalism.

[Az]

And I say capitalism is the colour of Orange juice.

You don't have to have those rights for capitalism.

[Kuciwalker]

So you don't have be able to own stuff to have capitalism? You don't have to be able to make contracts with people to have capitalism? You don't have to be able to express yourself to have capitalism?

I'm going to end this by defining capitalism, when used in this thread, to refer to specifically a system in which expression, property and contract are protected rights.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
How can you have a government without a state?

[q]

Easy, no police, no army, no IRS, etc. Tasks are carried out by elected officials and members of the government.

If you have no government, then you cannot enforce anything, especially communism. Communism would have to be entirely voluntary...

Now you're catching on.

The right to property is a rule

A rule of what? Humanity? Natch. Property has only existed for a mere ten thousand years of our history. For most of human history, poperty did not exist.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Huh? Without the right to property, contract, and expression, it isn't capitalism.

I wonder what the right to expression has to do with capitalism

And capitalism is defined by the fact the capitalist (the owner of prodcution means) gets the profits of said production means, and has the power on how to use them. Such a thing happened very much in nazi Germany. For the capitalists, nazi Germany was even better than the Weimar Republic, as it protected them from pesky strikes and wage demands. Them employees were put in their place, and them capitalists did rake mucho profit from their production means.

[Az]

But that would be flawed, skywalker. Capitalism is an economical system that supports private property of industry and commerce of the country, and aims at maximizing profit. A system that generates capital via private enterprise and investment.

[Kuciwalker]

Easy, no police, no army, no IRS, etc. Tasks are carried out by elected officials and members of the government.

You have to collect taxes to pay the officials. You have to have police to enforce the decisions of the government. You have to have an army if there are foreign nations (though I guess you wouldn't need one if the world was politically unified, but you wouldn't need one under capitalism either).

A rule of what? Humanity? Natch. Property has only existed for a mere ten thousand years of our history. For most of human history, poperty did not exist.

It's a rule as in a LAW, stupid. Like "not killing people" is a rule. I never claimed it had existed throughout human history; in fact, I asserted the OPPOSITE BY CLAIMING THAT IT WAS A RULE!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
I'm going to end this by defining capitalism,

Capitalism defined itself long before Libertarians were fussing about what was and wasn't capitalism. It was not invented. It came into existance unconsciously, then people began to try and understand what it was that was going on. Then, two hundred years later, people began trying to say what was or wasn't capitalism. You can't redefine it after the act.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I wonder what the right to expression has to do with capitalism

If you have no right to expression, you can't advertise stuff or anything (though the government could allow it provisionally).

And capitalism is defined by the fact the capitalist (the owner of prodcution means) gets the profits of said production means, and has the power on how to use them. Such a thing happened very much in nazi Germany. For the capitalists, nazi Germany was even better than the Weimar Republic, as it protected them from pesky strikes and wage demands. Them employees were put in their place, and them capitalists did rake mucho profit from their production means.

Under your definition, the USSR was capitalist - the "capitalist" (the government) got to use the means of production. Communism would be capitalist - the proletariat owns the means of production, and recieves the benefits of said production means. And if the workers can't strike, it ISN'T CAPITALISM. That's just totalitarian.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
It's a rule as in a LAW, stupid. Like "not killing people" is a rule.

Sorry, misunderstood you.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Capitalism defined itself long before Libertarians were fussing about what was and wasn't capitalism. It was not invented. It came into existance unconsciously, then people began to try and understand what it was that was going on. Then, two hundred years later, people began trying to say what was or wasn't capitalism. You can't redefine it after the act.

I'll call it "schmooism" then. Happy?