new capitalism vs communism thread

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
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.

No, it is not. Many of those things are results of capitalism, but they do not define capitalism. Capitalism is self-organizing (everything is essentially a contract) and gives rise to many emergent systems such as corporations. However, corporations are not inherent to capitalism.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
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.

The Proletariat doesn't necessarily own the production means. It gets to manage it. There is a difference between a capitalist society where every employee has shares of the company, and in a system where the management of the company doesn't belong to the employer at all. For one, you can't trade and make profit by selling your rights as a "citizen-employee".

[Az]

What he means, skywalker, is that internal conditions, the internal balance of powers in Nazi society was skewed in a way that is benefiting a capitalist system, or to be more precise, the capitalist.

[chequita guevara]

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

Don't mistake free expression with not being allowed to advertize. The former is not necessary for the latter. In fact, advertizing is more effective when it cannot be countered by free expression.

Under your definition, the USSR was capitalist - the "capitalist" (the government) got to use the means of production.

The USSR did not generate a profit, which is a fundimental defining characterisitc of capitalism.

And if the workers can't strike, it ISN'T CAPITALISM. That's just totalitarian.

So you're saying capitalism didn't exist in the US 'till the 1930s? Because striking was illegal here until the 1930s. The right to strike is not a necessary feature of capitalism. For most of the history of capitalism, strikes and unions have been outlawed, unless you'd like to argue that capitalism has never existed, in which case I must send you to the corner, point, and make fun of you.

[Az]

The Proletariat doesn't necessarily own the production means. It gets to manage it.

The other way around. who owns the production means, then?

No, it is not. Many of those things are results of capitalism, but they do not define capitalism. Capitalism is self-organizing (everything is essentially a contract) and gives rise to many emergent systems such as corporations. However, corporations are not inherent to capitalism.

That's the definition of a free market, not capitalism.

[Kuciwalker]

So you're saying capitalism didn't exist in the US 'till the 1930s? Because striking was illegal here until the 1930s. The right to strike is not a necessary feature of capitalism. For most of the history of capitalism, strikes and unions have been outlawed, unless you'd like to argue that capitalism has never existed, in which case I must send you to the corner, point, and make fun of you.

And yet when you claim communism has never existed it's OK?

[Kuciwalker]

That's the definition of a free market, not capitalism.

There's a difference? (Even if there is, it doesn't matter, because I'm arguing about schmooism, which does have all of the characteristics I'm talking about.)

[Az]

Wait, so do you actually claim this? And if so, describe your capitalism.

[Az]

Ok, Ok, new deal:

Skywalker shall present us his particular free-market capitalist system. Please do. And then we can argue. We shall also agree not to blame the other side for crimes of the past they supposedly did, but we obviously can present the past as an example of the consequences of certain policies.

deal?

[Kuciwalker]

I did

There is a democratic government with federal sovereignty (though some bureacracy and legislative powers are delegated to regional governments). Governing power is split into executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The legislature passes laws subject to an executive veto, while the judiciary determines whether or not those laws are in conflict with a constitutional code. Essential liberties (voting and expression) are protected, and other liberties cannot be restricted without a compelling public interest. Fraud, in addition to normal laws (like no murder, or theft, or rape), is illegal, and one can be sued for contract violation.

Basically, a democratic government where expression (and other liberties essential to a democracy), contract, and property are protected rights.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
Ok, Ok, new deal:

Skywalker shall present us his particular free-market capitalist system. Please do. And then we can argue. We shall also agree not to blame the other side for crimes of the past they supposedly did, but we obviously can present the past as an example of the consequences of certain policies.

deal?

exactly (che, no holding us to a double standard anymore!)

[chequita guevara]

Specifically, capitalism is the mode of society whereby production is for exchange value, rather than use-value. In all hitherto existing societies, the primary mode of human production was for use value, i.e. producers made things to be used immediately or traded for other things to be used.

The revolutionary aspect of capitalism is that for the first time, the primary mode of production is making goods in order to sell them in order to realize a profit, i.e., to accumulate capital.

This requires private property and state enforcement of contracts. It does not require free expression. Capitalism existed first in Great Britain in the 18th Century, and we would not call that a place of free speech. Saying the wrong thing there could easiy land you in jail. Nor is the right to form unions and strike hallowed. When workers tried to form unions for their protection and strike, troops would be called in to put them back to work, killing a few of the more stubbrn ones if need be. Free labor isn't even necessary. Capitalists have been more than willing to use slave labor, as evidenced in the American South and Nazi Germany. Even in the last decade, Unical had slaves building a pipeline in Myanmar (Burma).

[Kuciwalker]

Che, have you been paying attention? Such systems in the past have called themself capitalist (or schmooist), but that doesn't mean they are. Unless you'll also call the USSR communist?

[Ned]

Communism is about a promise and a lie.

You know the promise.

You know the lie.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
And yet when you claim communism has never existed it's OK?

Our definition is a priori, before the fact. Your redefinition is after the fact. In other words, we said, this is what socialism would look like. Then some people tried to establish it. They didn't get it right.

You are taking an established system, and saying it doesn't meet the rules you came up with two-hundred years after it already existed.

Now, I think there's a very valid argument to be made that a priori definitons aren't good measures, and that what came into being is closer to real socialism than what we thought it should be. Marx warned against this himself.