Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 139

Thread: Communism and Capitalism: True Opposites?

  1. Top | #51
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,222
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,611
    Rep Power
    57
    And Trotsky's entire beef with Stalin was over whether (a) societies which had not yet achieved capitalism could be fertile ground for revolutionary socialism, and (b) whether "socialism in one country" as opposed to a worldwide (or "permanent") revolution would be necessary to finally demolish capitalism. Marx used the term "permanent revolution", but to mean something else--an ongoing class struggle that does not stop after the bourgeoisie has been toppled, but is continually worked out during the transitional period into communism. Neither of these have anything to do with the government running businesses as such

  2. Top | #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    388
    Archived
    5,525
    Total Posts
    5,913
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Denmark is Social democracy/republic.
    Denmark is not a republic, it is a constitutional monarchy.

  3. Top | #53
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,222
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,611
    Rep Power
    57
    To the topic of the thread, capitalism and communism/socialism are opposites in the sense that Richard Wolff invokes, when he says that socialism is capitalism's shadow. There are no capitalist societies without socialist movements, because wherever capitalism is established, there is a tendency that rises to ask if society can move beyond it to something different. The same was true of societies built around feudalism, slavery, and any other mode of production and distribution of resources. None are permanent; they rise, enjoy dominance, and eventually fall, to be replaced by another system. This will happen to capitalism someday too.

  4. Top | #54
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,255
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,544
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    In other words, state ownership of the means of production is only an incidental ingredient of socialism; the main one is that a revolution has occurred that replaces the ownership class with the working class as the dominant force in society. Only when the state is comprised of workers does state ownership of property equate to socialism.
    You are using the Trotskyite interpretation of Marx. Trotsky was so radical that even Stalin rejected him.
    That's a very... idiosyncratic interpretation of history. Stalin accused Trotsky and his followers of being the capital's (and/or fascism's) fifth column, and wielded this accusation as a welcome excuse to get rid of opponents inside the party by accusing them of "Trotskyism" whatever their actual leanings and motives to oppose him may have been.

  5. Top | #55
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    3,469
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    To the topic of the thread, capitalism and communism/socialism are opposites in the sense that Richard Wolff invokes, when he says that socialism is capitalism's shadow. There are no capitalist societies without socialist movements, because wherever capitalism is established, there is a tendency that rises to ask if society can move beyond it to something different. The same was true of societies built around feudalism, slavery, and any other mode of production and distribution of resources. None are permanent; they rise, enjoy dominance, and eventually fall, to be replaced by another system. This will happen to capitalism someday too.
    True. All things change. However, why do you assume that capitalism has to be replaced with only socialism? If capitalism is replaced, I think it will be by a system that we can't even predict at this time.

  6. Top | #56
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,002
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,215
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Tammuz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Denmark is Social democracy/republic.
    Denmark is not a republic, it is a constitutional monarchy.
    Fuck! That means I'm related to the Monarch according to my late grandmother.

  7. Top | #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    388
    Archived
    5,525
    Total Posts
    5,913
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tammuz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Denmark is Social democracy/republic.
    Denmark is not a republic, it is a constitutional monarchy.
    Fuck! That means I'm related to the Monarch according to my late grandmother.
    Every single person on the planet is related to the Danish monarch.

  8. Top | #58
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,857
    Rep Power
    12
    The basic divide is the writings of Mark and others versus Smith on capitalism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital
    Das Kapital, also called Capital. A Critique of Political Economy (German: Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, pronounced [das kapiˈtaːl kʁɪˈtiːk deːɐ poˈliːtɪʃən økonomˈiː]; 1867–1883) by Karl Marx is a foundational theoretical text in materialist philosophy, economics and politics.[1] Marx aimed to reveal the economic patterns underpinning the capitalist mode of production in contrast to classical political economists such as Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. While Marx did not live to publish the planned second and third parts, they were both completed from his notes and published after his death by his colleague Friedrich Engels. Das Kapital is the most cited book in the social sciences published before 1950.[2]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

    An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, generally referred to by its shortened title The Wealth of Nations, is the magnum opus of the Scottish economist and moral philosopher Adam Smith. First published in 1776, the book offers one of the world's first collected descriptions of what builds nations' wealth, and is today a fundamental work in classical economics. By reflecting upon the economics at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the book touches upon such broad topics as the division of labour, productivity, and free markets.[1]
    There has never been pure capitalism and communism to date.

    We all know over here we have a corporate welfare state.

  9. Top | #59
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,222
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,611
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    The basic divide is the writings of Mark and others versus Smith on capitalism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital
    Das Kapital, also called Capital. A Critique of Political Economy (German: Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, pronounced [das kapiˈtaːl kʁɪˈtiːk deːɐ poˈliːtɪʃən økonomˈiː]; 1867–1883) by Karl Marx is a foundational theoretical text in materialist philosophy, economics and politics.[1] Marx aimed to reveal the economic patterns underpinning the capitalist mode of production in contrast to classical political economists such as Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. While Marx did not live to publish the planned second and third parts, they were both completed from his notes and published after his death by his colleague Friedrich Engels. Das Kapital is the most cited book in the social sciences published before 1950.[2]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

    An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, generally referred to by its shortened title The Wealth of Nations, is the magnum opus of the Scottish economist and moral philosopher Adam Smith. First published in 1776, the book offers one of the world's first collected descriptions of what builds nations' wealth, and is today a fundamental work in classical economics. By reflecting upon the economics at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the book touches upon such broad topics as the division of labour, productivity, and free markets.[1]
    There has never been pure capitalism and communism to date.

    We all know over here we have a corporate welfare state.
    The difference is that Marx was a materialist. Rather than think about future societies being organized under a "pure" -ism one way or another, he analyzed the present state of things and constantly stressed the importance of taking the specific conditions of each scenario into account rather than pasting a one-size-fits-all system on top of everything. This is in contrast to historical idealism, which views the world not in terms of the real struggles of people who are made of physical matter, but as a clash of grand abstract -isms that takes place in a Platonic realm, whose closest representatives are world leaders and military generals.

  10. Top | #60
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,857
    Rep Power
    12
    Marx accurately analyzed the capitalist economics of the day. It is why he is considered the greatest social scientist.

    Considering the conditions of the workers under a dictatorial authoritarian economic system he thought the world would spontaneously rise up. Did not happen.

    I believe Leninism had the term The Vanguard. Lenin realized an abrupt change would be problematic,. The communist party would facilitate a transformation to communism.

    I have heard it said that Marx could not have foreseen a 20tg century steel worker sending his kid to ballet school.

    The basic dichotomy is a system based on profit and private ownership of business and a system that is essentially tribal. The system exists to provide the needs of the people. Capitalism exists for profit. The fact that it has raised standrds and provide a wide range of goods is a side effect.

    It is a fact that our politicians do not seem to grasp. Capitalism exists to make a profit, not create jobs. Jons are a a side effect not a cause.

    The idea that an unregulated free market is going to properly balance wages and living costs and provide high employment is a conservative fantasy. That is not the way capitalism works.

    The argument which seems to be generally true is that a rising tide raises all boats,.

    Way back in Econ 101 the prof asked 'What is the purpose of capitalism?'. I responded something like to provide the greatest number of goods at the lowest cot for the most people.

    He pointed his finger at me and said sharply 'No ! The purpose of capitalism is to make a profit'.

    It took years on the job for that to fully sink in.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •