Communism and Captialism are equal

I came to this realization of this by deconstructing the ideas of Socialism. I came to the conclusion that both can be bad or good, but it depends on who's hands it is in. If the person who is head of a company or a head of nation cares about people, and not power, then the little man will be happy.If the person wants power, than the little man will suffer. This is true in either cases of government.

Capitalism isn't government.

Communist isnt government, its the goal of socialism, a true classless society where everyone has their needs fullfilled and no one has to work more than necessary.

>>2
Essentially they are in the free market, who would be giving health care benefits?

>>3
Retarded. People's needs are infinite and no one likes to work.

>>1
Capitalism prevents dumbasses getting into positions of economic power or worthless sectors of the economy continuing to waste resources.

>>1
WOW JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE

IDEOLOGY IS A TOOL, NOTHING MORE.
OK, NOW WHAT?

>>7
I said it depends, might want to get your keyboard fixed

>>5 does not live in the real world.

There are only a finite number of things to satisfy most people. Sex, food, entertainment, shelter, etc. are all most people need in order to live a healthy satisfying life. There may be some people who do have an excessively greedy nature, but never does the entirety of humanity have an "infinite" amount of needs.

Also, your maxim "no one likes to work" is also debatable. Lots of people get off on working. Lots of people love their jobs. There are also lots of rich people who don't need to work a day in their lives and still do anyway.

So, stfu.

>>9
Yeah, so if we make someone dictator as long as they live in opulent splendour they will work for the betterment of mankind and won't say implement crazy ass ideas about collective farms and starve millions of people to death or seek to increase their power beyond totalitarian by implementing purges and sending millions to death camps.

>>10
I agree with this.

>>3
My vision of a classless society is one which eliminates the taxpayer/taxconsuer divide. Tax consumers are a priviledged class.

>>4
Please differentiate between "free market" and "open market". A market in which the government is involved is not a free market.

>>9
You're not addressing what he said. Demand is unlimited, supply is limited. Humanity has infinite needs, it lacks infinite supplies. You're seriously confusing those two.

A market in which the government is involved is not a free market.
False dichotomy. It's not either/or, but degree.

No, it's either or. Free Market = NO government intervention.

If you want some point between Free market but not a government monopoly, it's an open market. But the market can't be said to be free if the government is chaining it down.

And black markets, by their nature, are totally absent government regulation. They are the one purpetual, eternal free market which is inescapable.

>>10 does not follow from >>9

I never even once advocated communism. What the fuck are you talking about? Are you retarded?

>>12

Except saying that demand is unlimited is a baseless assumption. Take, well, me for example. I am not too big of a consumer. I don't care about having things. I just care enough to know I'll live through the next few months. Where the hell do you get this infinite demand stuff?

You think we're all spoiled, greedy bastards when that makes up only a small percentage of humanity.

>>16
Well if you think everyone is like you you're naive.

>>6
Oh yeah? Does the name George W Bush ring a bell?

Economic stimulation is vital for both ideologies. The reasons capitalism works or does not work is the same reasons socialism work or does not work.

People often mention how "communism has failed in the past and will do so in the future if given the chance".
Personally I think that is preposterous. None of the so-called "communist countries" has had the original idea of communism, but some twisted abomination.
Take Cuba for example. I'm not defending Castro's dictatorship, but Cuba’s main source of money before the revolution was selling sugar beets to America. America who after the revolution refused to import from Cuba screwed their economy over. Cuba could have been not so bad maybe, but not thanks to the U.S.

Also there are examples of capitalist country’s that have crashed. Does this mean every capitalist country will?
I wouldn’t think so.

>>19

If we looks at the world's history, pretty much every contry has crashed at one point or another, economically or otherwise.

>>5
>>12
Needs are not unlimited, wants are. Demand=needs+wants. You need roof over your head and you need three meals a day. You want six mansions on the moon and to have nineteen meals a day. Capitalism is wantfulfillment for some and workmaximation for many. Communism is needfulfillment for all and workminimization for all. You get that? One point of communism is to abolish the need to work just to satisfy the wants of others, or or put it in another way, not to produce what yields the most profit but what yields the most utility.

>>12
I dont know where you are from but where i live we have progressive taxation (you pay a percentage on your income, and this percentage increase with increasing income), which means the poor are net taxconsumers and the rich are net taxpayers. Are you trying to say that the poor are the priviledged class? Because thats just retarded.

That capitalism "works" is proof socialism "works".

REAL Communism occurs when the means of economic production are controlled by the working class, or proletariat.  This has never happened in the history of the world.  It is also uncertain whether that sort of socioeconomic makeup could even exist; when you put the power of production in the hands of the workers, the workers effectively control the capital, and the elite section of the proletariat that controls this capital is no longer part of the working class.

>>23
I disagree, the "elite section" simply has the work to control the money. And if they were true communists they would distribute the money as they should.

>>23
No, that is wrong. REAL communism is classless, meaning that it is not the proletariat that controls the means, its everybody. What you are reffering to is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, the interim phase between capitalist democracy and communist democracy. And there is no need for a few "real" communists in elite positions in the long run, if you agree that communism is inevitable because of the systematic and structural failings of capitalism. That is not coupled to the struggle to empower the working class in any way possible, and at the expense on the ruling class.

>>21
Demand is unlimited. Needs are unlimited. Wants are unlimited.

I don't 'need' three meals a day, I usually live on one. I would LIKE to have 50 meals a day if someone else is making them for me, I'm not going to go through the effort to cook more than I feel like I'm going to get a return on the effort. I have infinite demand for meals. I have little need for meals.

When you actually consider all the taxes, not just the income tax, the poor pay more taxes. And even the income tax isn't really progressive in practice. The rich incorporate to massively reduce their tax burden. It's progressive up to the middle class and regressive after that in practice. People like you complain one minute about "tax cuts for the rich" then go on and talk about how the rich are paying so much more in taxes and it's a good thing.

Bureaucrats (almost always middle-class) are also major tax consumers. In fact, 70% of the money for the Welfare system is paid out to bureaucrats administrating the system, that's money going to the middle class, only 30% of the money actually goes to the poor.

Communism is the Natural State of Man, when anthropologists study primitive tribes, they discovered that the tribes had no class system, no proletariat, no bourgeoise, all the members of the tribes were equal, this is how our ancestors lived thousands of years ago, it is not natural to have a class system.

>>26
You have little need for meals? So then, you wont die it you dont eat or drink? Or is that a choice? People like you try to paint the world in with the chicago school ideology and then say it was like this all along. Your needs are finite and absolute. There is a certain number of calories, carbohydrates and proteins that your body needs, and if it doesnt get it it will slowly but surly die. You do want to eat, but you also need to eat. Maybe this is a semantic question, but i have always thought that people like you just dont accept reality for what it is, and therefore you suck at any hard science like biology or physics.

I agree about the rich and their taxes, meaning that they dont pay enough and that the system is inefficient in taxing them properly (im from sweden btw). And yes, the poor pay relatively more in sweden since they pay a flat VAT for example (in absolute rates the rich pay the most per capita of course but i assumed you realized this). But they are also the main consumers of benefits like welfare and healthcare, so it evens out in a way, if the system provides adequate quality (and it does this in sweden, highest lifesaving rates in the EU). But it is as you say, bureaucrats are a mess, and the system should be streamlined, making it easier for poor people to get their money. 

>>27
I want to believe this, but i dont know if science actually agrees. Still, there has been some societies with remarkable classless structures and egalitarian views.

>>27

I think you had to have certain people as leaders to make society work. That's how it is with lower pack animals like wolves and apes with alpha males on top and lesser males on the bottom, and I don't think that would have changed too much with early humans.

>>27
When everyone is dirt poor, everyone is equal yes. Communism can only be maintained at that standard of living, and only with small communes. Large-scale communism won't work, and high-standard-of-living communism won't work. Only when the resources used are abundant and near omnipresent, and when they take very little effort to make, can communism sustainably exist.

>>28
I have less need than you say I need. My needs are finite, not absolute. If you reduce how much I get to eat, I'll adapt. I'll do less, or do it with less effort. I'll surely die with or without you cutting off my food supply. And I'm good at science. I'm not big on biology, but physics and astronomy and chemistry and stuff keeps my interest.

And nobody should pay taxes reguardless of income. It's thinly veiled theft.

>>30
"And nobody should pay taxes reguardless of income. It's thinly veiled theft."

Is that how you view taxes, as theft?

Theft - Involuntarily depriving someone of their property.
Taxation - Involuntarily depriving someone of their property because the law says so.
Law - Written will of the Legislature.
Legislature - Group of people.
Thief - One who commits any kind of theft.

Who says taxation is involuntary? In order to live with all the luxuries society gives (like, uh, police protecting your property from others) you have to pay taxes. You can live as a hermit in some out of the way mountains if you prefer, but most of us will pay taxes since it is done for our own sake, not for anyone else's.

That said I think we have a lot of unnecessary taxes.

>>30
First, read about some of the north american indian nations. They were dirt poor in the sense that they owned nothing, but they did not need a concecpt of property, and still they could achieve remarkable civilizationary advances, like a participatory democracy in a confederacy of six nations (the Iroquois) before any democracies evolved in Europe. I´m no friend of primitivism, and i am not sure if these societies were really as egalitarian as it is sometimes claimed, but if i would have lived in those times i would have preferred north america pre-columbus before europe any day.
There is enough money spent on the the iraqi war effort to make every human being a millionaire. So in what way are we not living in a abundant world? The only reason there is scarcity, is because thats good business.

Okay, english is not my first language but if you agree that your needs are finite, then they are limited, yes? And you realise that your needs is not connected to your wants in the sense of nutrition and so on, its regulated by nature and not will, its not something you choose or are responsible for? You may think that you dont need vitamin C and that you will adapt to a life whitout fruit, but you will suffer malnutrition and death. Equally, you need shelter, you need clothes, you need people, you need hygiene, you need health care, you need medicine and so on. These are very different from wants, because when people dont fulfill their needs they suffer and die.
In other words, there is already enough resources to satisfy everybodies needs, but since needs does not equal profits, is capitalism not capable to achieve this. Or put another way, AIDS vaccine is developed when people with purchasing power gets AIDS. If only poor africans get it, is there no incentive for private business to invent it. 

>>34
The first part of that post was irrelevant. Reread what I said and you'll realize you didn't contradict what I said and may have affirmed it.

Needs are finite. All needs are wants. I don't need shelter, I live in Florida, where the climate is always good. I don't need clothes, I live in Florida, where the climate is always good. Humans lived for thousands of years when the best medicine was questional folk remedies and prayer.

And if I give up on life and don't give a shit about whether I live or die anymore, I won't need anything, will I? A need is just a more urgent classification of want in terms of human satisfaction.

There is not enough resources to satisfy everybody's needs. Resources are limited. Stop saying profits out of the context of money. It makes you sound like an idiot.

Capitalism doens't assume it knows things it doesn't like precisely what everybody's needs are, that they want to live at a standard of living where they have nothing more than they need, and other things. I'd like to know how you came across this information. As without this information, all that you're saying is irrelevant as you have no way to put it into practice and have it work.

>>35
I agree, I think the only way Communism would work is if we lowered population to 2 billion.I think people need to fucking understand this and have 1 kid, why can't we be more like China :(

>>33

"Who says taxation is involuntary?"
What happens if I don't pay taxes? Guess what, they throw me in jail.

"In order to live with all the luxuries society gives (like, uh, police protecting your property from others) you have to pay taxes."
1. No you don't. If I wanted police protection, I'd pay for it by myself. I'd rather spend $340 on a shotgun and protect my property from others.
2. That doesn't make it voluntary.

"You can live as a hermit in some out of the way mountains if you prefer, but most of us will pay taxes since it is done for our own sake, not for anyone else's."
That doesn't make it voluntary. That you voluntarily pay taxes doesn't mean I can choose not to pay taxes.

"That said I think we have a lot of unnecessary taxes."
All of them.

>>35
Jesus, the abundancy of idiocy never ceases to amaze me. I will try to keep this short as your reading comprhension seems to be failing.
U said: When everyone is dirt poor everybody is equal and communism works. I gave an fine example of democratic civilization where property did not exist as we know it and which was fairly egalitarian. This civ was large (i assumed you knew that) by that times standard. So i refuted your claim. Either accept, answer in kind or of GTFO.
U said: Your needs are finite and you dont need shit because you live in florida. And you think that needs are part of wants, but wants were infinite so that seems to make no sense to me. And when you are suicidal you dont need anything? For that you get my special retard medal! All people who are starving in the world are suicidal, they are hungry because of choice! Or you didnt get that we were talking about larger enteties than you floridian homestead? You are dodging because you cant accept defeat. That makes you weak. Train harder little man.
U said: Not enough to satisfy everybodys need, there are limited resources. This is the first thing that is actually true, but not in the sense you mean it. Resources are limited in a longer timeframe but at the moment we (the human race) produce more than we consume (due to a little thing called competition, i´d like to explain how it works but i doubt that you´d be able to grasp the concept). This is of course not sustainable, but that is a question we will have to deal with later. Peoples needs first i say. And if enough money to make everybody in the world a millionaire is wasted in iraq we surely must live in an abundant world?
U said: Profit must money u idiot! No U.
U said: Capitalism does not read crystal ball about needs! No and i have never said it did, reread if it was not clear. The functionality of capitalism can be evaluated by studying certain criteria, benchmarks we can expect from a mode of production. One such benchmark is development. Another is longievety. A third is poverty and starvation. Freemarket supporters claim all these can be fulfilled by the system itself, yet when it clearly fails they claim that it was somebody elses fault. Capitalism, if it as good as you say, given the affluence we have achieved, should have fulfilled everyones needs by now. The reason it has failed, or rather, why never can succed is that fulfilling needs is not good business. If poor people have aids in a free market they will have aids in eternity. But i guess you would claim that the lazy bastards should invent their own vaccine. And living in florida that is a comfortable opinion. Just remember, all towers fall eventually.

>>37

Again, if you want to live completely independently from society, go ahead, no one is stopping you. In fact, I'm encouraging you. At least then you wouldn't have a computer to post on 4chan anymore.

1. You affirmed what I said. I said "Communism works when people are poor." You said "Look at this poor society where they were communist! See! It works!" You did not rebut my point. You demonstrated it true, dumbass.

2. I was showing you that what YOU say I 'need' isn't what I actually need. Your perception of reality is inherently flawed. You do not know everything. You do not know what needs are. You only think you know what most people need.

3. At this moment, so many resources are unavailable that there is not enough. And even if there was enough to meet current demands at current prices, we'd just want more.

4. Profit exists only in money.

5.  Capitalism doesn't know the future, because it doesn't know anything, it's not a person, it's an idea.

6. Your benchmarks can only be arbitrary. If I set a benchmark as "How free the market is", then your ideal fails a benchmark. There is no unit of measurement for "development" so you can't benchmark it. I don't know what you're talking about with "longevity". I understand the word, not the context. Poverty and starvation are arbitrary standards. Besides, communism doesn't have a really good track record for that. And communism is NOT a cure for AIDS.