I loathe capitalism because it's noisy in all kinds of ways.
If communism is less noisy, it's because the state has forcibly silenced people. You can't hear them because they have a gun to their head. Don't forget that.
I have a gun to my head right now, and so do you. Try missing a payment for your phone, rent, or mortgage. If you think capitalist states don't rely on violence and the threat of violence to maintain the social order, you're not thinking clearly.
But "I loathe capitalism" doesn't imply "I advocate communism."
Capitalism and the kind of communism you're talking about are both violent impositions of large and complex legal systems. Why do I need to like either of them?
The world is run by powerful people, and I generally dislike them. It's structured by systems of bureaucratic power, and I dislike those, too.
Libertarians tend to frame capitalism as being equivalent with liberty and freedom, which makes me laugh out loud.
Capitalism and Communism are not the only possible forms of human organization. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that Capitalism and Socialism (the only kind of Communism for which there are historical records, AFAIK) are two competing and closely related patterns that happened to be dominant in the world during the second half of the 20th century.
As a result, I have a hard time believing Communist cities were significantly less noisy. And while the gun to the head probably happened more than a few times, it's probably not relevant to this discussion.
Capitalism and Communism are not the only possible forms of human organization.
What alternatives do you have in mind? Everything listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_systems#Types looks like either a form of capitalism, of communism/socialism, or a mix of the two. (There are one or two that might be considered distinct, but they look like they are only applicable at a very small scale, and even then they ultimately look pretty similar to capitalism or communism.)
I assume you're not just trying to draw a distinction between communism and socialism, since you're calling socialism a form of communism. You have another comment claiming it's the other way around, but regardless, the point is that they're very closely related.
And while the gun to the head probably happened more than a few times
The gun to the head is a necessary component of any communist/socialist system.
it's probably not relevant to this discussion
The original comment I replied to connected a dislike of capitalism with Zen Buddhism. Buddhists are supposed to care about peace in the world, not just silence for themselves. Communism is anything but peaceful. So it seems very relevant to me.
I think[1] it is a bit disingenuous to claim that every economic system is either capitalism, communism/socialism, or a mix of the two. This is not what I saw at all in the wiki page. Of course all systems have things in common, they belong to the same category after all, but each has its own unique characteristics.
By example, the Guilds system in Renacentist Europe. Is it capitalism or socialism? Each master had control of his own means of production, and hired both journeymen and apprentices to provide labor, but on the other hand, each master had to answer to the guild at large, and more directly to his peers in the same city. They had pretty strict controls over who could do business where, without intervention of the State, so in our eyes may look like a mix of capitalist oligopoly with socialism...
Except this analysis misses the point that the Guilds system was not about the control of the means of production, but about the control of knowledge and social status. Of course you can say that knowledge and social status are means of production, but that would be true only in a very abstract sense.
Regarding the "gun to the head", I insist it is not a defining characteristic of socialism/communism. Capitalism, and feudalism, and traditional economies, etc, all have their own ways to impose the will of high status individuals over the rest of the people, and more often than not this involves the threat of physical violence. That's why I don't think it is relevant.
[1] Disclaimer, my knowledge of economic systems is limited to 101 classes but still.
> Capitalism and Communism are not the only possible forms of human organization.
What alternatives do you have in mind?
A lot of the forms that predate the modern nation-state don't look much like socialism or capitalism because both of those (as well as, arguably, mercantilism, which might be distinguished from capitalism) really presume the kind of environment provided by nation-states as a context.
Capitalism and Communism are not the only possible forms of human organization.
So far so good
As a matter of fact, it can be argued that Capitalism and Socialism (the only kind of Communism for which there are historical records, AFAIK) are two competing and closely related patterns that happened to be dominant in the world during the second half of the 20th century.
Socialism is not a form of Communism, but the reverse. Other forms of Socialism besides Communism are in operational existence now, as well as being well attested in the historical record.
And, while Communism's peak was in the late 20th Century, Capitalisms was in the late 19th Century; by the mid-20th Century the influence of Socialist critiques of capitalism had largely seen it replaced by either non-Communist Socialist systems or mixed systems which blended elements of capitalism with elements of socialism (Communism itself mostly took hold in places where capitalism had never firmly established itself.)
I wonder what is your opinion on the similarities between American Capitalism vs USSR State Socialism during the cold war?
I'd say that a good point was made by Marxists I've known (not of the Leninist/Stalinist persuasion!) who referred to Soviet-style Communism as "State Capitalism" and traced the failure directly back to Leninist vanguardism recreating one of the central problems of capitalism in that it produced a narrow elite class that exercised control of the means of production and ordered society for its own benefit.
I would say that in many ways, during the Cold War, the "capitalist" mixed economies of the West -- even, though less so than some if its European allies, the US -- were more substantively socialist than the USSR and its allise following the same basic structural model.
Comments
If communism is less noisy, it's because the state has forcibly silenced people. You can't hear them because they have a gun to their head. Don't forget that.
I have a gun to my head right now, and so do you. Try missing a payment for your phone, rent, or mortgage. If you think capitalist states don't rely on violence and the threat of violence to maintain the social order, you're not thinking clearly.
But "I loathe capitalism" doesn't imply "I advocate communism."
Capitalism and the kind of communism you're talking about are both violent impositions of large and complex legal systems. Why do I need to like either of them?
The world is run by powerful people, and I generally dislike them. It's structured by systems of bureaucratic power, and I dislike those, too.
Libertarians tend to frame capitalism as being equivalent with liberty and freedom, which makes me laugh out loud.
If I took on debt, that means I voluntarily agreed to have a gun to my head. Surely you see the difference.
Capitalism and Communism are not the only possible forms of human organization. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that Capitalism and Socialism (the only kind of Communism for which there are historical records, AFAIK) are two competing and closely related patterns that happened to be dominant in the world during the second half of the 20th century.
As a result, I have a hard time believing Communist cities were significantly less noisy. And while the gun to the head probably happened more than a few times, it's probably not relevant to this discussion.
What alternatives do you have in mind? Everything listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_systems#Types looks like either a form of capitalism, of communism/socialism, or a mix of the two. (There are one or two that might be considered distinct, but they look like they are only applicable at a very small scale, and even then they ultimately look pretty similar to capitalism or communism.)
I assume you're not just trying to draw a distinction between communism and socialism, since you're calling socialism a form of communism. You have another comment claiming it's the other way around, but regardless, the point is that they're very closely related.
The gun to the head is a necessary component of any communist/socialist system.
The original comment I replied to connected a dislike of capitalism with Zen Buddhism. Buddhists are supposed to care about peace in the world, not just silence for themselves. Communism is anything but peaceful. So it seems very relevant to me.
I think[1] it is a bit disingenuous to claim that every economic system is either capitalism, communism/socialism, or a mix of the two. This is not what I saw at all in the wiki page. Of course all systems have things in common, they belong to the same category after all, but each has its own unique characteristics.
By example, the Guilds system in Renacentist Europe. Is it capitalism or socialism? Each master had control of his own means of production, and hired both journeymen and apprentices to provide labor, but on the other hand, each master had to answer to the guild at large, and more directly to his peers in the same city. They had pretty strict controls over who could do business where, without intervention of the State, so in our eyes may look like a mix of capitalist oligopoly with socialism...
Except this analysis misses the point that the Guilds system was not about the control of the means of production, but about the control of knowledge and social status. Of course you can say that knowledge and social status are means of production, but that would be true only in a very abstract sense.
Regarding the "gun to the head", I insist it is not a defining characteristic of socialism/communism. Capitalism, and feudalism, and traditional economies, etc, all have their own ways to impose the will of high status individuals over the rest of the people, and more often than not this involves the threat of physical violence. That's why I don't think it is relevant.
[1] Disclaimer, my knowledge of economic systems is limited to 101 classes but still.
A lot of the forms that predate the modern nation-state don't look much like socialism or capitalism because both of those (as well as, arguably, mercantilism, which might be distinguished from capitalism) really presume the kind of environment provided by nation-states as a context.
Feudalism, for instance.
So far so good
Socialism is not a form of Communism, but the reverse. Other forms of Socialism besides Communism are in operational existence now, as well as being well attested in the historical record.
And, while Communism's peak was in the late 20th Century, Capitalisms was in the late 19th Century; by the mid-20th Century the influence of Socialist critiques of capitalism had largely seen it replaced by either non-Communist Socialist systems or mixed systems which blended elements of capitalism with elements of socialism (Communism itself mostly took hold in places where capitalism had never firmly established itself.)
Ok, I stand corrected. This is not at all what I remember from my highschool/uni_101 classes, but it was 20 years ago.
I wonder what is your opinion on the similarities between American Capitalism vs USSR State Socialism during the cold war?
I'd say that a good point was made by Marxists I've known (not of the Leninist/Stalinist persuasion!) who referred to Soviet-style Communism as "State Capitalism" and traced the failure directly back to Leninist vanguardism recreating one of the central problems of capitalism in that it produced a narrow elite class that exercised control of the means of production and ordered society for its own benefit.
I would say that in many ways, during the Cold War, the "capitalist" mixed economies of the West -- even, though less so than some if its European allies, the US -- were more substantively socialist than the USSR and its allise following the same basic structural model.