Please have patience.My English is not good.I use Google translation.
I live in Romania.Am practical experience of both systems.
I learned more comunsim (I was forced) and nothing about democracy.
I fought in the Romanian revolution and I obtaind the title "Fighter for Victory of Romanian Revolution with Special Deeds".

Everyone is moving in a axiomatic world.
You can have more or fewer axioms.
With as few axioms you have the more your world is built on logic.
For that I always ask "why."
If an axiom for you then I have no chance to convince you of the contrary.
I try to define foundations of human society that bring the first question.
What is the state? What now for several millennia people have felt the need
State was founded? What needs to satisfied.

What needs to satisfied.

Knowledge, truth and understanding by yourself.

What is the state? What now for several millennia people have felt the need
State was founded? What needs to satisfied.



A long time ago humans probably lived like Chimpanzees in 15 to 90 person families/tribes that were hostile to neighboring families/tribes even if they were their close cousins. These family tribes were the beginning of the state.

In these family tribes people fought to be the leader. The leader gets to have the most food and sex and attention.

The family tribe protects its individuals from those not in the tribe. This is the primary function of the state.

The family tribe may work cooperatively to accomplish things they could not accomplish as efficiently as individuals like killing a buffalo or making a camp fire. This is the second function of states.

The family tribe may share their food with an injured member of the tribe. This is a third function of the state.

The family tribe mediates disputes among themselves or enforces hierarchy which is a form of dispute resolution. This is a fourth function of the state.

The family tribe tells stories thereby educating it's young. This is a fifth function of the state.


The next phase of states was allied family tribes. They would agree on territory and then fight together as one larger tribe against unaligned tribes to acquire the unaligned tribes territory.

The alliances of tribes became larger and larger. Every function of state that was present in the original family/tribes became potential functions of state in the alliances of large numbers of family/tribes.

Corporations also vaguely resemble the alliances of family/tribes.

The functions that humans need to have satisfied by their states are the same functions that ancient primitive men needed to have satisfied by their family/tribes.

Why either / or? What can not you have both like China?

I do not think people or thinking about all these things then.
Remember, we are States in the early formation
Native people of Australia have not founded states
American Indians have not founded states
The modern history of America,in the Wild West, people have formed alliances
and elected a sheriff and a judge, then a primary.
I concluded that people need most is security.
But maybe wrong.
For that I wanted to talk about training States
Then talk about the type of organization of society in the countries.
Monarchy, slavery, dictatorship, anarchy, communism and democracy and that is my choice.
If you get to democracy what is left and right etc

Why either / or? What can not you have both like China?


I think not, but it is possible
The main thesis of communism is that all there is comun.Nu private property.

Please have patience.My English is not good.I use Google translation.
I live in Romania.Am practical experience of both systems.
I learned more comunsim (I was forced) and nothing about democracy.
I fought in the Romanian revolution and I obtaind the title "Fighter for Victory of Romanian Revolution with Special Deeds".

Everyone is moving in a axiomatic world.
You can have more or fewer axioms.
With as few axioms you have the more your world is built on logic.
For that I always ask "why."
If an axiom for you then I have no chance to convince you of the contrary.
I try to define foundations of human society that bring the first question.
What is the state? What now for several millennia people have felt the need
State was founded? What needs to satisfied.




Capitalism.

impossible to answer one is an economic system and one is a political system

Please have patience.My English is not good.I use Google translation.
I live in Romania.Am practical experience of both systems.
I learned more comunsim (I was forced) and nothing about democracy.
I fought in the Romanian revolution and I obtaind the title "Fighter for Victory of Romanian Revolution with Special Deeds".

Everyone is moving in a axiomatic world.
You can have more or fewer axioms.
With as few axioms you have the more your world is built on logic.
For that I always ask "why."
If an axiom for you then I have no chance to convince you of the contrary.
I try to define foundations of human society that bring the first question.
What is the state? What now for several millennia people have felt the need
State was founded? What needs to satisfied.



Capitalism, period. Very easy to answer as one cannot do without the other, but then you know that. Don't ya tuff guy?

I presume by Communism you mean only taking it's economic attributes into consideration.
In which case I'd have to say without corruption it is better to keep everyone on an equally pleasant footing, than to keep over half the world in poverty to provide luxury for the minority.

Milton Friedman put it best... but if you don't understand English, I'm afraid you would need a translator to understand the video.

Simply put though, communism and capitalism are very similar... the only real difference is who controls the capital.

In a communist society, the Government controls the capital, and makes a profit from it... no matter how much work you put into the system, you will only ever get out the same as everybody else. There is no incentive to work harder other than to not get harassed about not working hard enough.

With capitalism, the capital is controlled by the individual, or the business and it is theirs to profit from. If you work harder, and if you're lucky, you earn more and increase your standing in society. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work. Government intervention for the sake of legislated "equality" so the less adequate feel that they're earing a fair wage compared to the real hustlers can make or break that kind of system... at least that's how it feels.

Milton Friedman put it best... but if you don't understand English, I'm afraid you would need a translator to understand the video.

Simply put though, communism and capitalism are very similar... the only real difference is who controls the capital.

In a communist society, the Government controls the capital, and makes a profit from it... no matter how much work you put into the system, you will only ever get out the same as everybody else. There is no incentive to work harder other than to not get harassed about not working hard enough.

With capitalism, the capital is controlled by the individual, or the business and it is theirs to profit from. If you work harder, and if you're lucky, you earn more and increase your standing in society. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work. Government intervention for the sake of legislated "equality" so the less adequate feel that they're earing a fair wage compared to the real hustlers can make or break that kind of system... at least that's how it feels.

In communism the state owns everything. In capitalism, ownership is private. With communism you have issues with the state exercising decision making which is not based on supply and demand which leads to the inefficient distribution of capital.

In capitalism while capital is owned privately, it tends to accumulate at focal points and therefore becomes inefficient as the supply side of the demand-supply curve becomes controlled by those who own the capital. So both systems have problems in that if left to themselves in their pure states they tend to become ineficient...markets eventually become dominated by a few. Communism just starts out that way.

That is why the ideal system incorproates elements of each. Which is why the richest modern societies incorporate elements of each economic system.

You came straight to the end.I would like to go through several stages.
I think the most important thing is:security of any kind, physical, material, social.
For me it is the main task of a state.

People fall into two broad categories, like animals.Domestic animals and wild animals.
Wolf does not understand the dog and the dog does not understand the wolf.
The dog is social-democratic (the left), the wolf is the liberal (right).
If a domestic animal is left in the jungle, he dies.
If a wild animal is placed in the cage, he dies or no longer reproduce.
If the domestic animals have absolute power, they make a communism and this means the death of wild animals.
If wild animals have absolute power,they make a jungle and that means the death off domestic animals.
One of instincts,what distinguishes us from animals,is the instinct for compassion
For this reason is so important: left parties and right parties to dialogue.Try to create a system where both sides can live together.
By the way, anarchy is capitalism?

You came straight to the end.I would like to go through several stages.
I think the most important thing is:security of any kind, physical, material, social.
For me it is the main task of a state.

People fall into two broad categories, like animals.Domestic animals and wild animals.
Wolf does not understand the dog and the dog does not understand the wolf.
The dog is social-democratic (the left), the wolf is the liberal (right).
If a domestic animal is left in the jungle, he dies.
If a wild animal is placed in the cage, he dies or no longer reproduce.
If the domestic animals have absolute power, they make a communism and this means the death of wild animals.
If wild animals have absolute power,they make a jungle and that means the death off domestic animals.
One of instincts,what distinguishes us from animals,is the instinct for compassion
For this reason is so important: left parties and right parties to dialogue.Try to create a system where both sides can live together.
By the way, anarchy is capitalism?



You are mixing a couple of concepts together. First communism and capitalism are economic systems...not political systems. An economic system refers to how resources are distributed within a given social system. Poltical systems speak to how decisions are made with in a given social system.

I think decisions are best made in the light of day rather than behind closed doors. Social decisions made communally generally yield better results. However, they generally take longer. And that is why you find most countries do a little mixing and matching.

Military units are generally very autocratic. But the most efficient and effective military also have channels or procedures in place to prevent autocratic abuses.

Most economic systems have a blend of communalism/socialism and capitalism as previously discussed. So the answer is there is no one pure form of social decision making or resourse allocation that is best for every one and in every situation. That is why our most effective societies use a blending of each.

socialism as in the state of Israel is the balance between communism and capitalism (which are the two extremes - left is communism and right is capitalism politically). Strike the balance. Do not let anyone tell you that socialism is communism because it is not. There is land ownership and free business enterprise. Please do not choose one of the corrupt abusive extremes. If all the people must vote on every matter rather than a representative for groups, that is the only way.

Capitalism, but Public Capitalism, like America was 150 years ago.

Not todays Modern Corporate Capitalism which is Destroying the west.

Capitalism, but Public Capitalism, like America was 150 years ago.

Not todays Modern Corporate Capitalism which is Destroying the west.

I'll raise a drink to that.

How many Jobs does China outsource compared to the US? Anyone know?

How many Jobs does China outsource compared to the US? Anyone know?

China outsources jobs?

China doesn't outsource but China is also no longer practicing communism. They have reformed their economy into a fiercely capitalist system.

As far as what system I prefer, the more goods the merrier. The more people making stuff and selling stuff is a good thing. If they can make stuff and still provide free health care and education and ensure that no one goes homeless then its even better.

China doesn't outsource but China is also no longer practicing communism. They have reformed their economy into a fiercely capitalist system.

As far as what system I prefer, the more goods the merrier. The more people making stuff and selling stuff is a good thing. If they can make stuff and still provide free health care and education and ensure that no one goes homeless then its even better.

The irony is that China is probably one of the best capitalist nations in the world now.

Maybe I started this theard too complicated.I never talked of economic or political system.
In communism there is no job because "labor is not merchandise".
In communism, not private property.Everything is common.
Workforce belongs to the village, not yours.
I had where to sleep ?.... hmmm ..... yes
I had to eat? .. hmmmm ..... yes
I work with others? yes
But the same can say about a prison.I have where to sleep,I have to eat, go to work with others, I have no property and can not leave prison.

Communism with capitalism ,together?! There are private property (even your work force) or not?

"Communism or capitalism?" ,
Or in other words:You can share with others everything?Have no private property? or not.

The irony is that China is probably one of the best capitalist nations in the world now.

No, it isn't.

There is more to "capitalism" than finance and money; China is hardly capitalist.

Capitalism is about principle and philosophy; you can have money and banks and the whole lot and not be a capitalist society.

You could also have no currency and no banks and whatever and still be a capitalist country.

Capitalism is about individualism and private property...and minimal state intervention. China has none of that.

No, it isn't.

There is more to "capitalism" than finance and money; China is hardly capitalist.

Capitalism is about principle and philosophy; you can have money and banks and the whole lot and not be a capitalist society.

You could also have no currency and no banks and whatever and still be a capitalist country.

Capitalism is about individualism and private property...and minimal state intervention. China has none of that.

That is one of the facinating aspects of the right wing...they have a whole dictionary of old words with new meanings. :)

Capitalism as the word has been classically used describes China's economic system today. The government or politcial system is something else. Politics and economics are different. Capitalism is an economic system. Oligarchy is a political system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

I would argue against that: although capitalism refers to economics, there is within it a method of governance: private property. Private property not only lays the foundation for the distribution of resources, but it also lays the foundation for mutual respect and the adjudication of disputes.

When you have protectionism, government interventionism, corporatism, central banks, diminished privacies and liberties, bailouts, the siphoning off of wealth.........that is not capitalism.


What's the point of calling ourselves capitalists if we do not follow the moral principles of capitalism?

How is China capitalist, when their people are oppressed, and their government engages in corporate protectionist policies?

Capitalism is not a "system" in the sense that there is no pre-defined order or formula for it. All it requires is individualism and private property; from there, society is emergent, based on the interactions of individuals.

There is no top-down centralized plan for capitalism, so I do not like referring to it as a "system".

I would argue against that: although capitalism refers to economics, there is within it a method of governance: private property. Private property not only lays the foundation for the distribution of resources, but it also lays the foundation for mutual respect and the adjudication of disputes.

When you have protectionism, government interventionism, corporatism, central banks, diminished privacies and liberties, bailouts, the siphoning off of wealth.........that is not capitalism.


What's the point of calling ourselves capitalists if we do not follow the moral principles of capitalism?

How is China capitalist, when their people are oppressed, and their government engages in corporate protectionist policies?

Capitalism is not a "system" in the sense that there is no pre-defined order or formula for it. All it requires is individualism and private property; from there, society is emergent, based on the interactions of individuals.

There is no top-down centralized plan for capitalism, so I do not like referring to it as a "system".

Using your definition of capitalism, no industrial nation on Earth today would qualify as capitalist as they all have to some degree top down planning.

Using your definition of capitalism, no industrial nation on Earth today would qualify as capitalist as they all have to some degree top down planning.

Quite right, though many do come close; and while some measure of government intervention can be argued to be necessary, we definitely, definitely have way too much; just because some is necessary doesn't mean we should go overboard. The only thing that is "necessary" is defense and courts for private property adjudications; nothing else is "necessary", because from private property, you have the foundation for a society of mutual respect.


I am only pointing out, however, that the moral principles of capitalism are far more important than the present-day aspects of a modern industrial society. Capitalism is not found in banks or in dollars. Those are only things that we happen to have today. But capitalism is, first and foremost, about ideology, and moral principles; and what is the point of having jobs and wealth if we are not free, and if we do not follow the principles of capitalism?

You focus too much on preserving the status quo and not enough on ideology. Principles are more important than any bank or any corporation or any amount of dollars.

Quite right, though many do come close; and while some measure of government intervention can be argued to be necessary, we definitely, definitely have way too much; just because some is necessary doesn't mean we should go overboard. The only thing that is "necessary" is defense and courts for private property adjudications; nothing else is "necessary", because from private property, you have the foundation for a society of mutual respect.


I am only pointing out, however, that the moral principles of capitalism are far more important than the present-day aspects of a modern industrial society. Capitalism is not found in banks or in dollars. Those are only things that we happen to have today. But capitalism is, first and foremost, about ideology, and moral principles; and what is the point of having jobs and wealth if we are not free, and if we do not follow the principles of capitalism?

You focus too much on preserving the status quo and not enough on ideology. Principles are more important than any bank or any corporation or any amount of dollars.


Absolutely agree.These are the words. I'm so sorry I do not know English well.
I am so glad you said what I wanted.

By the way: can anyone send me the U.S. Constitution?

Absolutely agree.These are the words. I'm so sorry I do not know English well.
I am so glad you said what I wanted.

By the way: can anyone send me the U.S. Constitution?


Believe what you will, but you are mixing economics and politics...two very different subjects. You will notice in the Sciforum list of forums Business and Economics is a seperate forum from Politics. That was no accident.

[SIZE="3"]
Maybe I started this theard too complicated.I never talked of economic or political system.
In communism there is no job because "labor is not merchandise".
In communism, not private property.Everything is common.
Workforce belongs to the village, not yours.


Exactly where did you find this imaginary place?

Exactly where did you find this imaginary place?


Simple,I was born there!:shrug:


I hope I understand your allusion.
The first thing would be to define what is the job and the salary.

Communism; sorry if your experiences with it have not been uniformly good, Emil. I believe in a communism that doesn't require the political repression of other ideologies.

Two themes:communist ideology and the practical communism.
My opinion about ideology:
Ideology is great.
No poverty, no hunger, everything is shared and everyone has everything they want.
Are all friends, all smiling, no evil, almost like heaven.
Who does not want such a society?!
I can say one thing: it is a utopia.
Since I am only a human being.I'm not perfect.I'm not an angel.
I can not share everything with you and,I do not want your stuff.
If I want more, then I have to work hard.
A communist community could function as an association or organization.
And I have absolutely nothing against.
I do not want to live in communism and I believe I am entitled to this option.
Who likes communism why not look for others like him?
Make an association where everything is shared equally.
Isreal seems to have such associations.I would be curious about their opinion.
Because my English is not good,it is very difficult.
About the practice of communism I will talk another time.

Emil, communism is still evil even on paper and in theory.


Communism is immoral in theory and even more horrible in practice.

That is one of the facinating aspects of the right wing...they have a whole dictionary of old words with new meanings. :)

Capitalism as the word has been classically used describes China's economic system today. The government or politcial system is something else. Politics and economics are different. Capitalism is an economic system. Oligarchy is a political system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

You cannot have one without the other (Government & economics). If there is no economics in government, then it is just a theory. If there is no government in economics, then it is just a theory.

How much property can an individual own in communism? Who builds public libraries in communism?

How much money can other people take from an individual in capitalism? Who helps protect property rights in capitalism?

Answer those 4 questions without inferring economics in communism & government in capitalism, then I will talk to you.

Hint: try to do without twisting everything around.

Believe what you will, but you are mixing economics and politics...two very different subjects. You will notice in the Sciforum list of forums Business and Economics is a seperate forum from Politics. That was no accident.

If you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premises.

If you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premises.

I suggest you buy a good dictionary. :)

China outsources jobs?

I'm just trying to determine how a communist economy works. So apparently, they don't outsource any of their jobs.

Two themes:communist ideology and the practical communism.
My opinion about ideology:
Ideology is great.
No poverty, no hunger, everything is shared and everyone has everything they want.
Are all friends, all smiling, no evil, almost like heaven.
Who does not want such a society?!
I can say one thing: it is a utopia.
Since I am only a human being.I'm not perfect.I'm not an angel.
I can not share everything with you and,I do not want your stuff.
If I want more, then I have to work hard.
A communist community could function as an association or organization.
And I have absolutely nothing against.
I do not want to live in communism and I believe I am entitled to this option.
Who likes communism why not look for others like him?
Make an association where everything is shared equally.
Isreal seems to have such associations.I would be curious about their opinion.
Because my English is not good,it is very difficult.
About the practice of communism I will talk another time.


I thank you for your posts and your commentary. As someone actually having lived through a Communist period in your nation's history, your opinions are very, very valuable.

It may sound capitalist to say it, but I hope that we as Communists can "win your business" in time. I believe strongly in it as the better way, but I fully appreciate that everyone's experiences thereof are not completely (or maybe even largely) positive.

GeoffP, what do you feel about this:

Laissez-faire capitalism simply means live and let live; private property is a legitimate function that allows individuals to live in a society because it can effectively adjudicate disputes and let's individuals make claims as to what is "theirs"; while certainly poverty is a bad thing, there is no such thing as "freedom from poverty" short of seizing the property of someone else, and to do so would be a violation of that person's rights. Thus, someone who is poor is still free, just poor; because freedom does not have to do with material wealth, but rather in what one is allowed to do. Therefore laissez-faire capitalism, while it is risky in that there is no safety net, is still the most free you can be short of anarchy.


Then we arrive at this point: people who believe in "communism" and feel that they ought to share and live in a society of sharing and equality would certainly be free to pursue this goal under a "live and let live" laissez-faire setting; they would simply have to do so on their own legitimately acquired "property", and this operation could consist only of people that would willingly join, and thus be able to opt out. Thus, there is no reason at all why people under a state of "live and let live" cannot share, build communities, work together, and donate and organize to their hearts' content.

Thus, communism can exist under an individualist, "live and let live" environment.

The problem is that private property (wealth) can be used to create more wealth, establishing separate classes of individuals. Free is all fine and dandy, so long as you're not poor: no one would root particularly for the freedom to starve. I agree that the two are distinct things.

The second proposition, however, is false, because no one would particularly care to share out everything they have if no one else is doing so: this is sort of a reverse "tragedy of the commons" ("tragedy of the privates"?). It would have the effect of retaining the reactionary upper classes while relegating the remainder of society to a semi-communal existence. Not exactly social communism, if you see what I mean. It could theoretically exist even now; but it doesn't, for the same reasons.

Believe me, I'm happy to talk with real communists,so that with true believers.
They have highly developed sense of compassion and they are always ready to help.
For this,I respect them.
I can not myself.
I help but admit that my interest is a priority.
Also recognize that it is normal that everyone individual interests before other interest.
But now Think, the result was this utopia.
People shot at the Berlin Wall.Why?
People locked in prison because they believe in God.Why?
Whole families imprisoned in the prison as one of the members did not believe in communism.Why?
I am sure that those who created communism did not want that.
But like all utopian ideas,they were taken over by corrupt people or dogmatic.
Believe me,in communism no compassion.
You do not have power,those who believe in equality.
Terror is more common, and most degrading state, fear overtake the entire nation.
I'm sure not what you want.

The problem is that private property (wealth) can be used to create more wealth This is a problem?

establishing separate classes of individuals. Of course; whoever said we would all be equal?


Free is all fine and dandy, so long as you're not poor: no one would root particularly for the freedom to starve. There can only be freedom from starvation, not freedom "to" starve; if you're free, you are also responsible for that piece of property that is yourself. You own yourself and thus you are responsible for yourself; thus you will starve if you cannot feed yourself.

However, in order to establish freedom "from" starvation, as I said, you must violate somebody else's rights, and that means you are sacrificing liberty for security (freedom from starvation). Of course, as we've seen countless times throughout history, people will create communism and still end up starving.



The second proposition, however, is false, because no one would particularly care to share out everything they have if no one else is doing so And why wouldn't people be doing so?

Are you not a communist? Wouldn't you share? And aren't there others like you?

Let us take, for example, private charity: the United States contributes more than $300 billion every year in private charitable donations. This is more than any other country and would likely be even more if people stopped with the lazy "the government will do it" mentality and started getting more involved.

This is a problem?
Of course; whoever said we would all be equal?

There can only be freedom from starvation, not freedom "to" starve; if you're free, you are also responsible for that piece of property that is yourself. You own yourself and thus you are responsible for yourself; thus you will starve if you cannot feed yourself.

However, in order to establish freedom "from" starvation, as I said, you must violate somebody else's rights, and that means you are sacrificing liberty for security (freedom from starvation). Of course, as we've seen countless times throughout history, people will create communism and still end up starving.

And why wouldn't people be doing so?

Are you not a communist? Wouldn't you share? And aren't there others like you?

Let us take, for example, private charity: the United States contributes more than $300 billion every year in private charitable donations. This is more than any other country and would likely be even more if people stopped with the lazy "the government will do it" mentality and started getting more involved.

The problem is that the driver of productive behaviors in an economy is competition and when individuals our businesses accumulate a certian degree of wealth, they can use that wealth to protect themselves from competition. And then their behaviors become inefficient. And we see this all the time.

Government sometimes and should then intervene and redistribute income in order to keep competition and opportunity in the system.

Two, The United States does donate the largest total amount to charity because it has the largest GDP of any individual country. However, it you look at charity as a percent of GDP, The United States ranks number 28, not even in the top 10 percent of charitable countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries

Believe what you will, but you are mixing economics and politics...two very different subjects. You will notice in the Sciforum list of forums Business and Economics is a seperate forum from Politics. That was no accident.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy