Communism and Capitalism: True Opposites?

[Jokodo]

I almost want to start a thread on dialectical and historical materialism, but so much of the theory comes from Stalin that I doubt anybody here would take it seriously, even though it says what everybody claims to support. Namely, that nature is constantly changing, always resolving internal contradictions between opposing forces, nothing occurs in isolation from everything else, human beings are subject to natural laws, and the universe is knowable through observation. All of Marxism-Leninism is predicated on these basic principles, but critics of communism generally have never read anything written by a communist, so they seem to think pointing these things out is somehow news to us.

Go ahead!

 

[steve_bank]

It's also simplistic because it assumes that there's an economic model called 'capitalism' with an intentional origin, that's separable from human nature. IOW, that humans had anything to do with 'capitalism's'arrival, and the global economy not instead being an emergent property of how we organize ourselves.

'capitalism is to make a profit'?

To be alive is to acquire resources for one's own survival and reproduction. Yes we're a social species and community has become a part of that, but 'profit', or more simply, acquisition of needed goods for survival is inherent in what it means to be alive.

You can try to improve the model, but you can't extract human nature from it. And the model isn't 'capitalism', it's people solving problems for material gain, which has been central to every way of life in history.

Good summary... well said.

Capitalism isn't an invented economic system but simply a name given to how independent people naturally live when not having an alternate lifestyle forced on them by some authority.

This old chestnut again. It's truly a shame the kind of thoughtless nonsense that gets accepted and regurgitated by otherwise smart people.

Profit, by definition, is a surplus over and above what is required for survival, over and above even the survival surplus that is put aside for hard times in the future. Profit has no meaning outside of capitalism, which is the only system in which resources are owned not to use them for survival, but to generate wealth by charging others to use them for survival. It arose in a specific period in a particular region of the world, despite literally tens of thousands of years of human existence (during which we are forced to assume "an alternate lifestyle" must have been brutally imposed on the entire species until sometime in the last 500 years). This is public knowledge in any history curriculum, even the bourgeois version of events.

However, Rousseau gets pretty close to the truth when he says the global economy is an emergent property of how we organize ourselves, and not an intentional artifact. This concept is, in fact, at the center of Marx's philosophy of dialectical materialism.

Good post. Most do not seem to grasp that the govt only has a limited control of the economy. It runs itself and evolves in the search for profit.. What was codified in COTUS was the right to keep and do what you will with profit along with right to inyectual as well as physical property.

The Star Trek Farengi are a reflection of our system. Profit and self interest above all else.

 

[steve_bank]

I almost want to start a thread on dialectical and historical materialism, but so much of the theory comes from Stalin that I doubt anybody here would take it seriously, even though it says what everybody claims to support. Namely, that nature is constantly changing, always resolving internal contradictions between opposing forces, nothing occurs in isolation from everything else, human beings are subject to natural laws, and the universe is knowable through observation. All of Marxism-Leninism is predicated on these basic principles, but critics of communism generally have never read anything written by a communist, so they seem to think pointing these things out is somehow news to us.

Go ahead and start it. I only know basics about Marx. I will learn something.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

The Star Trek Farengi are a reflection of our system. Profit and self interest above all else.

No more so than the Star Trek Borg being a reflection of any communist system. Both would be a reductio ad absurdum of how people view the two economic systems.

 

[steve_bank]

... snip ...

The Star Trek Farengi are a reflection of our system. Profit and self interest above all else.

No more so than the Star Trek Borg being a reflection of any communist system. Both would be a reductio ad absurdum of how people view the two economic systems.

Rick Berman said in an interview the Farengi were developed as symbolic of capitalism. The19th early 20th century Yankee traders and the Yankee Clipper a fast sail powered cargo ship roaming in search of profit.

Don't know about the Borg.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

The Star Trek Farengi are a reflection of our system. Profit and self interest above all else.

No more so than the Star Trek Borg being a reflection of any communist system. Both would be a reductio ad absurdum of how people view the two economic systems.

Rick Berman said in an interview the Farengi were developed as symbolic of capitalism. The19th early 20th century Yankee traders and the Yankee Clipper a fast sail powered cargo ship roaming in search of profit.

Don't know about the Borg.

Exactly... As I said, "Both would be a reductio ad absurdum of how people view the two economic systems." The Farengi is Rick Berman's exaggerated view of capitalism. The Borg are an exaggerated view of communism.

ETA:
Both the Borg and ideal communism is:
... everyone working together for a common cause.
... no personal property, only communal property.
... no effort for personal benefit, only communal effort for the common benefit.
... The ultimate goal is "achieving perfection".

 

[steve_bank]

The image of the Farengi wasb19th century capitalism. Privately owned fast cargo ships, Yankee Clippers', roaming the seas and seaport's looking for opportunistic profit to be made. Captain and crew share in profit after the ship owner. Primarily from New England around South America and up to the Northwest.

As to the Borg I do not see a connection to communism. There were wide ranges of communist implantations. In Soviet communism there were individuals. There was music, literature, and art.

 

[skepticalbip]

The image of the Farengi wasb19th century capitalism. Privately owned fast cargo ships, Yankee Clippers', roaming the seas and seaport's looking for opportunistic profit to be made. Captain and crew share in profit after the ship owner. Primarily from New England around South America and up to the Northwest.

As to the Borg I do not see a connection to communism. There were wide ranges of communist implantations. In Soviet communism there were individuals. There was music, literature, and art.

Do you really not understand reductio ad absurdum?

Yes, the clipper ships traded which means both those who the tea was purchased from on one end benefited and those on the other end who bought the tea benefited because they were able to enjoy something they wanted. Also those men on the ship benefited for their time and labor. It wasn't about cheating for profit like the Farengi are portrayed. Do you seriously have a problem with the producers of the tea benefiting for their labor, those providing the transport of the tea benefiting from their labor, and those enjoying drinking tea paying both of them what all consider a fair price?

And, of course, the Borg is extreme exaggeration of communist countries just as the portrayal of the Farengi was an extreme exaggeration.

 

[steve_bank]

The ST Ferengi is metaphor by literary design not reduction to the absurd. Reduction to the absurd means carrying an argument to extreme absurd ends. Beyond reason and logic.

Are we playing ping pong or tennis? Metaphorically speaking.

Conservatives use reductio ad absurdum to argue gun control and national health through a chain of reasoning leads to communist dictatorship.

Your argument invoking reductio as absurdum is itself resectio as absurdum.

You are making a false analogy between the Ferengi and Bog as both being equal metaphor.

Ferengi are cleary metaphor for 18th century capitalism. It was stated by the producer.

How is Borg metaphor to communism both theoretical social science and past implementations?

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^
You should have read a little deeper. Reductio ad absurdum is an argument technique but it is also a literary technique, especially in satire, and in literature and cinema to create a villain or despicable character.

 

[steve_bank]

^ ^ ^
You should have read a little deeper. Reductio ad absurdum is an argument technique but it is also a literary technique, especially in satire, and in literature and cinema to create a villain or despicable character.

Support your thesis that Borg is representative of communism. What aspects? Baxk to the question of what communism is. If one aspect of communism common owmership of production with no profit concept a communist systm coud be democratic.

There was a democratic faction in the Russian Revolution. Lenin realized abrupt change would be problematic and had favored a transition period. The Vanguard was supposed to usher in yet to be communist state. As the story goes Stalin got wind of or intercept a letter from Lenin who was dieing and took action to subvert the democrats and take power.

NK, Vietnam, Cuba, Soviet Union, and Maoist China were communist in name but were personality cult dictatorships.

Russia was Marxist Leninist and China was Maoist.

To me Borg represented totalitarianism in general. It also represented the modern western worker who today is born and bred to be a consumer bot and plug into the economic collective.

Are you gamiliar with Russum’s Universal Robots written at the dawn of industrialization and humans doing drone mass assembly work? Workers at the Ford production lines developed psychologicl problems from the drone like repitive work/,

I see Borg more as metaphor for modern society as a whole, which is slipping into rigid collectiviism of thout and authoteruanism. Young people born an bred to think alike, consume and be as effivient as possible to make things cheaplu. It is the mofrtn drone’s programming to work as hard and effivient as possible, all in the pursuit iof profit for others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R.

R.U.R. is a 1920 science fiction play by the Czech writer Karel Čapek. R.U.R. stands for Rossumovi Univerzální Roboti (Rossum's Universal Robots).[1] The English phrase "Rossum's Universal Robots" has been used as a subtitle.[2] It premiered on 25 January 1921 and introduced the word "robot" to the English language and to science fiction as a whole.[3]
R.U.R. quickly became influential after its publication.[4][5][6] By 1923, it had been translated into thirty languages.[4][7]
The play begins in a factory that makes artificial people, called roboti (robots), from synthetic organic matter. They are not exactly robots by the current definition of the term: they are living flesh and blood creatures rather than machinery and are closer to the modern idea of androids or replicants. They may be mistaken for humans and can think for themselves. They seem happy to work for humans at first, but a robot rebellion leads to the extinction of the human race. Čapek later took a different approach to the same theme in War with the Newts, in which non-humans become a servant class in human society.[8]
R.U.R. is dark but not without hope, and was successful in its time in Europe and North America.[9]

ct I[edit]
Helena, the daughter of the president of a major industrial power, arrives at the island factory of Rossum's Universal Robots. She meets Domin, the General Manager of R.U.R., who tells her the history of the company:
In 1920, a man named Rossum came to the island to study marine biology, and in 1932 he accidentally discovered a chemical that behaved exactly like protoplasm, except that it did not mind being knocked around. Rossum attempted to make a dog and a man, but failed. His nephew came to see him, and the two argued non-stop, largely because Old Rossum only wanted to create animals to prove that not only was God unnecessary but that there was no God at all, and Young Rossum only wanted to make himself rich. Eventually, Young Rossum locked his uncle in a laboratory to play with his monsters and mutants, while Young Rossum built factories and cranked out Robots by the thousands. By the time the play takes place – around the year 2000[11] – Robots are cheap and available all over the world. They have become absolutely necessary because they allow products to be made at a fifth the previous cost.
Helena meets Fabry, Dr. Gall, Alquist, Busman, and Hallemeier, and reveals she is a representative of the League of Humanity, a human rights organization that wishes to "free" the Robots. The managers of the factory find this a ridiculous proposition, since they see Robots as appliances. Helena requests that the Robots be paid so that they can buy things they like, but the Robots do not like anything. Helena is eventually convinced that the League of Humanity is a waste of money, but continues to argue on the fact that robots should still have a "soul". Later, Domin confesses that he loves Helena and forces her into an engagement.

 

[PyramidHead]

Rest in peace, Nog.

 

[steve_bank]

As I understand it a dialectic is or can be two opposing forces grinding out a new synthesis.

Communism vs capitalism.

 

[PyramidHead]

As I understand it a dialectic is or can be two opposing forces grinding out a new synthesis.

Communism vs capitalism.

That was Hegel's contribution, but Marx was only Hegelian in that limited sense. Hegel was also an idealist, which Marx most definitely was not.

Briefly, dialectical materialism has two components. The "dialectical" part means:

1. Nothing can be explained in isolation, but only through its relationship to multiple other phenomena
2. Nothing is static or unchanging, but always in motion or transition from one state to another
3. Quantitative changes accumulate slowly over time and become observed as sudden quantitative changes
4. Conflict is inherent in nature and and drives quantitative (and qualitative) change

The "materialism" part should be familiar to anyone on this forum:

1. The world and everything in it, including humans, is made of matter that obeys laws
2. Reality is objective and separate from our ideas about it
3. It is possible to know about the world and how it works through observation

Historical materialism is just the above method applied to the study of history. All of this stands in opposition to metaphysical or formal idealism, which explains history by appealing to abstract ideas, Great Men, simplified and often racist conceptions of large numbers of individual people, and nebulous concepts like 'human nature'. The historical materialist view would instead look at the material conditions underlying historical events, and take into account the circumstances that surrounded major events in total, not just the public pronouncements of whoever was in power at the time.

 

[Bomb#20]

When one customer wants something and another one needs it, a sane and compassionate society would prioritize the need over the want. But under capitalism (or any market economy for that matter), the priority goes to whoever has the money to pay for it.

When one customer wants an egg every day for the next several years and another customer needs a whole dinner today, a sane and compassionate society would prioritize the need over the want, and kill the chicken. A sane and compassionate society is led by creationists who know that chickens appear by magic and will always be available if only society proves itself worthy of chickens by being sufficiently sane and compassionate.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

1. What the hell are Capitalism and Communism? Do they exist in tangible, quantitative reality or are they categorical constructs whose purpose is primarily discursive? Is all of this Marx's fault for offering a compelling model for talking about economies?

If we ignore how people misuse the terms:

... Capitalism is an economic system in which individuals own and control businesses (means of production according to Marx).

... Socialism is an economic system in which all businesses (means of production according to Marx) are owned and controlled by the government.

... Communism is Marx's wet dream where socialism evolves into a system where government dissolves and vanishes leaving all means of production to be shared by the people communally with no private ownership and no controlling government.

I'm not sure you've read Marx at all. And the US does not pursue capitalism, but something more along the lines of:

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism or the masses

And in the real world Soviet Style communism and american style capitalism are but divergent paths toward the same ultimate destination wherein an entitled self serving cabal of oligarchs concentrate societal wealth for the benefit of their own class to the detriment of the society as a whole.

 

[Jokodo]

When one customer wants something and another one needs it, a sane and compassionate society would prioritize the need over the want. But under capitalism (or any market economy for that matter), the priority goes to whoever has the money to pay for it.

When one customer wants an egg every day for the next several years and another customer needs a whole dinner today, a sane and compassionate society would prioritize the need over the want, and kill the chicken. A sane and compassionate society is led by creationists who know that chickens appear by magic and will always be available if only society proves itself worthy of chickens by being sufficiently sane and compassionate.

Your analogy is apt for attempts to implement communism without the background of a society where capitalism has raised productivity to hitherto unimaginable levels.

If you read anything from Marx, you'd know that he's pretty explicit about the notion that communism only becomes thinkable after capitalism has raised productivity to a level where this is no longer an issue. There are sections in the Communist Manifesto that count among the most powerful expressions of admiration for capitalism's achievements ever written. *

The argument of communists isn't that capitalism was a bad idea (that would be if anything an anarchist argument; it is in fact quite alien to communism in that it is a very idealist notion: no communist who has read and even partially understood his Marx would dream of claiming someone woke up one day thinking "that's how we should do it"). The argument is that it has outlived its usefulness. It's an argument that can be made, there are certainly areas where the logic of capitalism is hurting productivity at the social level. A company that's researching a new line of product for years only to be beaten to it by a competitor by two weeks has wasted many man years of productive work without any societal good to show for it. Even if patents don't get in the way and both companies get to market their product, the research effort had been duplicated with little extra gain.

Capitalism aims for little waste - at the individual level, and it's pretty amazing at that. To a degree, however, it's inherently wasteful from the collective perspective. And that's before we talk about its habit of externalising costs.

To stick with your analogy, in capitalism, if there are two farmers, only the one who gets to the market first gets to sell his eggs, the other is legally obliged to throw his into the sea (even if there's interest in more eggs).

* "[The bourgeoisie, i.e. capitalism] has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades." - https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007

 

[Harry Bosch]

1. What the hell are Capitalism and Communism? Do they exist in tangible, quantitative reality or are they categorical constructs whose purpose is primarily discursive? Is all of this Marx's fault for offering a compelling model for talking about economies?

If we ignore how people misuse the terms:

... Capitalism is an economic system in which individuals own and control businesses (means of production according to Marx).

... Socialism is an economic system in which all businesses (means of production according to Marx) are owned and controlled by the government.

... Communism is Marx's wet dream where socialism evolves into a system where government dissolves and vanishes leaving all means of production to be shared by the people communally with no private ownership and no controlling government.

I'm not sure you've read Marx at all. And the US does not pursue capitalism, but something more along the lines of:

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism or the masses

And in the real world Soviet Style communism and american style capitalism are but divergent paths toward the same ultimate destination wherein an entitled self serving cabal of oligarchs concentrate societal wealth for the benefit of their own class to the detriment of the society as a whole.

I'd like to try to unpack your statement a little to try to understand what you are saying. How are losses for Wall Street bankers socialized? Are you talking about TARP? Tarp was quazi-equity loans that were paid by with interest. Don't quote me, but I believe that the interest charged was 5%.

Secondly, how is risk and expense "externalized" for the job creator class? I'm really excited about this answer because I'm an entrepreneur. I'd love to hear how I can externalize my risk and expense.

 

[Bomb#20]

When one customer wants something and another one needs it, a sane and compassionate society would prioritize the need over the want. But under capitalism (or any market economy for that matter), the priority goes to whoever has the money to pay for it.

When one customer wants an egg every day for the next several years and another customer needs a whole dinner today, a sane and compassionate society would prioritize the need over the want, and kill the chicken. A sane and compassionate society is led by creationists who know that chickens appear by magic and will always be available if only society proves itself worthy of chickens by being sufficiently sane and compassionate.

Your analogy is apt for attempts to implement communism without the background of a society where capitalism has raised productivity to hitherto unimaginable levels.

If you read anything from Marx, you'd know that he's pretty explicit about the notion that communism only becomes thinkable after capitalism has raised productivity to a level where this is no longer an issue.

A sane and compassionate society would wait until the chicken has gotten really, really good at laying eggs before killing her.

There are sections in the Communist Manifesto that count among the most powerful expressions of admiration for capitalism's achievements ever written. *

Sergeant Marx just wants to go on record that he's recommending Officer Hen for a posthumous Medal of Merit.

To stick with your analogy, in capitalism, if there are two farmers, only the one who gets to the market first gets to sell his eggs, the other is legally obliged to throw his into the sea (even if there's interest in more eggs).

It's not the one who gets to market first; it's the one who invents the chicken first. Oh, wait a sec., correct me if I'm wrong, but don't chickens predate capitalism by more than the duration of a patent?

You can't patent a business model.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

I'm not sure you've read Marx at all. And the US does not pursue capitalism, but something more along the lines of:

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism or the masses

And in the real world Soviet Style communism and american style capitalism are but divergent paths toward the same ultimate destination wherein an entitled self serving cabal of oligarchs concentrate societal wealth for the benefit of their own class to the detriment of the society as a whole.

I'd like to try to unpack your statement a little to try to understand what you are saying. How are losses for Wall Street bankers socialized? Are you talking about TARP? Tarp was quazi-equity loans that were paid by with interest. Don't quote me, but I believe that the interest charged was 5%.

Secondly, how is risk and expense "externalized" for the job creator class? I'm really excited about this answer because I'm an entrepreneur. I'd love to hear how I can externalize my risk and expense.

a) See your bailouts

b) Ask anyone; Jeff Bezos, WalMart, Purdue Pharma/the Sacklers, hell ask Don, he's bragged about it

The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses
https://www.cato.org/publications/p...w-federal-government-subsidizes-us-businesses

10 Corporations Receiving Massive Public Subsidies From Taxpayers
https://www.mic.com/articles/85101/10-corporations-receiving-massive-public-subsidies-from-taxpayers

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxana...-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#21a97a9e27dd

Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs
https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-vs-social-welfare/