discussion Communism vs Capitalism Jubilee

[She-Rah]

10 minutes ago, Communion said:

You're not actually addressing the question. Again, you're supposing that capitalism is an inherently fair system. Your evidence to this (and I'm not sure there's actually much evidence to this claim) is the claim that immigrants from around the world can come to America and become successful themselves.

 

The question is then - why would success be different in America than other countries? Why can someone become wealthier in America than they can in other countries? Why does America have more wealth than most other nations in the world? Are then - if capitalism is an inherently equal global economic system - Americans just by large smarter and harder working than 90% of the global population to explain why so much of the world's wealth is concentrated in their hands?

 

I don't think I as an officer worker in America work harder than a child working in a cobalt mine in the Congo. Would you say I do? 

 

If you wouldn't, then you'd have to pause and acknowledge that - at some step in this economic system - there is some kind of innate unfairness and exploitation occurinng.

Once bitcoin takes over, things will be more fair and the US will no longer have an advantage it has now because of the US dollar being used as the currency most countries use for their reserves.

[DAP]

40 minutes ago, Mr. Blue_Shirt said:

When one of the capitalists said that the US government is not a capitalist government, I just burst out laughing  It has to be one of the funniest sh*ts I've ever heard in 2023.

 

How the f*ck do people say this with confidence without any sense of irony AT ALL?!

When she said capitalism ended slavery (to a Congolese man much less)

 

[Bloo]

48 minutes ago, She-Rah said:

Once bitcoin takes over

This will never happen.  

 

[Archetype]

Not ya'll trying to say Capitalism or Communism are fair.  Both are f***ed up and rely on an underclass to provide for a more priveledged and educated upperclass (this is based on practice, not theory).  I personally think a mix of capitalism and socialism could be *enough* in a near term because true successful socialism requires complete cultural and social shifts far beyond what currently living generations are capable of.  Even with that in mind, it will most likely be thanks to some form of AI-assisted governance and truly robust checks and balances that will lead to a more fair society.  Very few governments hold elected officials accountable for crimes, and both capitalist and "communist" governments are some of the worst offenders.

[State of Grace.]

11 hours ago, Delirious said:

Can we stop promoting communism please? It's dangerous and it's never going to work. 

 

There'd be no such thing as entertainment or artists making music  (edit: for those of you who are taking my statement literally, think about what I actually mean. e.g. The censoring & control of entertainment etc.)

 

If you don't like capitalistic countries then move to Russia or China 

10 hours ago, Delirious said:

What are they then? Democratic?

 

Sometimes it's okay to not make a fool out of yourself ffff

[John Slayne]

12 hours ago, Delirious said:

If you don't like capitalistic countries then move to Russia or China 

 

11 hours ago, Delirious said:

They should've been comparing democracy to communism.

I mean this in the nicest way possible: please read a book.

[constantinople]

12 hours ago, Delirious said:

If you don't like capitalistic countries then move to Russia

imagine thinking Russia is a communist country LMAOOOO we're not in 1985 anymore

[constantinople]

10 hours ago, Delirious said:

 Russia calling themselves a "federal, democratic republic"

But Russia IS a federal republic. It's a federalized decentralized administration composed by 21 republics, 48 oblasts, 9 krais, 4 okrugs, 3 federal cities and an autonomous oblast. They aren't democratic, for sure. But they aren't communist though. It's a capitalist country since 1991 when the Soviet Union fell.

 

Go read a book or even wikipedia. It's free.

[constantinople]

I cannot believe there are people who are literally supporting an ideology based on the exploitation of man by man. And if you're not white, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Kassi]

Speaking of exploitation, which sounds worse: using what you own to make a living or using what other people own to make a living?

[Communion]

15 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Speaking of exploitation, which sounds worse: using what you own to make a living or using what other people own to make a living?

Do you think having a $150k+ salary - as you've said in the past - and being in the Top 10% of American earners makes you informed on capitalism's pitfalls?

 

Do you believe you are innately smarter and more hard-working than 90% of other Americans who simply do not work hard enough? Do you believe a billionaire is similarly then 10,000x more hardworking than you are?

Edited December 26, 2023 by Communion

[Kassi]

12 minutes ago, Communion said:

Do you think having a $150k+ salary - as you've said in the past - and being in the Top 10% of American earners makes you informed on capitalism's pitfalls?

Considering I’m an immigrant who came to this country with nothing, yes, I think I’m well informed on all of the ins and outs of capitalism.

[GraceRandolph]

Those commie boys are cute and made so many great points. The capitalism side seemed pretty out of their depth. 

[rzal]

My country is still recovering from communism but capitalism isn't the tea either. We need something new. 

[Kassi]

27 minutes ago, Communion said:

Do you believe you are innately smarter and more hard-working than 90% of other Americans who simply do not work hard enough? Do you believe a billionaire is similarly then 10,000x more hardworking than you are?

It’s not that complicated.

 

Let’s say you have 3 groups. They are trying to solve their community’s water supply issue.

• Group 1 decides to dig a well
• Group 2 makes barrels to collect rain water
• Group 3 sits around drinking and talking all day

When it comes time to extract the value of their work, Group 1 will likely produce billionaires. Group 2 will turn out some millionaires. And Group 3 will be able to work for either of the first two groups by contributing their time in exchange for compensation that is commensurate with their individual skill sets.

 

In the end, the entire community is better for it. 

[Communion]

28 minutes ago, Kassi said:

It’s not that complicated.

 

Let’s say you have 3 groups. They are trying to solve their community’s water supply issue.

• Group 1 decides to dig a well
• Group 2 makes barrels to collect rain water
• Group 3 sits around drinking and talking all day

When it comes time to extract the value of their work, Group 1 will likely produce billionaires. Group 2 will turn out some millionaires. And Group 3 will be able to work for either of the first two groups by contributing their time in exchange for compensation that is commensurate with their individual skill sets.

 

In the end, the entire community is better for it. 

You believe billionaires accumulate billions in wealth through performing physical labor? Or you're acknowledging that people who decide to build a well are not the people who do the physical work of actually building said well?

[kataraqueen]

12 hours ago, Miss Show Business said:

Communism is just the other side of the fascism coin. An extremist ideology that has dire consequences in every place it has been tried.

 

I hate how normalized it is (online, at least) and find myself rolling my eyes at people blaming capitalism for everything instead of advocating for more checks and balances. Most of what the left wants in countries in europe aren't communist countries. I feel like the fringe of people who advocate for communism, spoil progressivism for everyone else by proving every far right and right wing accusation to be true.

Yougoslavia's downfall was not a consequence of its communistic nature and actually thrived under it

[Hurem]

Communism vs capitalism debates are stupid because neither form of pure system will work. The key is in taking best aspects from both sides and trying to minimize the bad things.

[Communion]

44 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Considering I’m an immigrant who came to this country with nothing, yes, I think I’m well informed on all of the ins and outs of capitalism.

What do you think is the success rate for someone in the Bottom 20% of income earners of a country outside of the West to end up as a Top 10% income earner in America?

 

Why do you think it is that the vast majority of migration to America is concentrated amongst those considered high income earners in their countries of origin?

[Kassi]

7 minutes ago, Communion said:

You believe billionaires accumulate billions in wealth through performing physical labor? Or you're acknowledging that people who decide to build a well are not the people who do the physical work of actually building said well?

That's where they all start (minus the few who inherit it), yes.

 

Meaning, Group 1 has to prove that the economics of building a well will work. The risk Group 1 takes on is that the time and manual labor spent digging for the well will be wasted should they not find water or find that the water is contaminated.

 

Once the initial group proves it works, they can systematize the operation of the well (using Group 3's labor). However, the well could still dry up or become nonviable over time. So they bear both the upside and potential downsides of their endeavor. 

 

 

[loveisdead9582]

I was scrolling by and almost thought this read Communion VS Capitalism. Then I come in and surprise surprise…

[John Slayne]

5 minutes ago, Kassi said:

That's where they all start (minus the few who inherit it), yes.

No they don't, but even if they did at the beginning at the end of the day their money comes from other people's labour. That's literally what capitalism is about, if everyone was compensated fairly for the value they actually contribute we would not have billionaires. 

 

Take someone like Elon Musk, do you genuinely believe his labour contributions to the world are worth billions? I'm sorry but that's so laughable to me.

[Kassi]

15 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

That's literally what capitalism is about, if everyone was compensated fairly for the value they actually contribute we would not have billionaires. 

Tech companies have some of the highest compensation packages comprised of value-based compensation like stock options (Google) and profit sharing (Salesforce), yet their founders are still billionaires. 

 

The issue in the case of fair compensation is more market dynamics than anything. The more common a skillset is, the greater the downward pressure on compensation.

[Communion]

6 minutes ago, Kassi said:

The issue in the case of fair compensation is more market dynamics than anything. The more common a skillset is, the greater the downward pressure on compensation.

 

?

 

By virtue of the above - if we believe accumulation of wealth is inherently linked to merit - the argument is that somehow CEOs have become 1000x more productive than workers today versus how much more productive they were than workers decades before?

[John Slayne]

4 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Tech companies have some of the highest compensation packages comprised of value-based compensation like stock options (Google) and profit sharing (Salesforce), yet their founders are still billionaires. 

 

The issue in the case of fair compensation is more market dynamics than anything. The more common a skillset is, the greater the downward pressure on compensation.

You haven't answered my example but sure - do you think that system is fair though? Just because a skillset is 'common' doesn't mean it's not necessary, in fact our society is held together by basic, 'unskilled' labour. In some cases, this labour is even unpaid (modern slavery or reproductive labour performed mostly by women in patriarchal capitalism). 

 

Moreover, the market dynamics you describe don't work that way. Most millionaires and billionaires are not geniuses nor do they possess any abnormal skillsets that'd make their wealth justified. It's a combination of luck, privilege, and exploitation of others that make a person rich, not their 'entrepreneurial spirit'. This is even more evident now than it was in the past. Nowadays a handful of companies have monopolies over entire markets and industries, there's very little room for actual capitalist competition. It's not a coincidence that the wealth inequality has been getting worse for decades, the system clearly favours the rich and makes the richer regardless of what they contribute to society. 

 

So, even if your market dynamics argument was relevant to this discussion (it's not because anti-capitalists reject it in the first place, you haven't argued why it's good), the way you described it is still inaccurate. These things have been critiqued and debunked for centuries now. 

 

Doctors, nurses, retail workers, etc. all held the society together during Covid, do you think capitalism rewarded them for the risk they took and the labour they performed? No, they are worse-off now than they were before. Meanwhile greedy CEOs did nothing but sat on their assess and got richer.