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.

holy fuck socialists are stupid

I think the OP is retarded. Of course the same factors affect communism and capitalism. If 50% of people in a country would resort to petty crime if given the chance, that would cause problems in both systems. However like someone said earlier

"It's not either/or, but degree."

Crime affects capitalism to a lesser degree because government resources are focussed purely on law enforcement, because people actually have the incentive to care about their work andtake measures to prevent crime or to lessen it's effects by taking it into account when calculating the effect of crime into their finances etc.. Also communism combines both the government and the economy into one, meaning it is easier for people in charge of sectors of the economy to corrupt the representation process and the law so they can unfairly redirect luxuries towards themselves.

If I wanted to lead a life of crime and could choose between living in a socialist or capitalist country of equal wealth I would choose socialism, since all I would need to do is join the military, suck some balls, get myself into a position where I can scratch a few backs etc... Socialists like to pretend the bureaucracy that runs their system of government is not a "state", but it is. It is unavoidable and by attempting to roll everything into one all they end up with is a machiavellian paradise. Of course that was their intention from the beginning as socialism is just tyranny parcelled up in fancy ideals which ignore the fundamentals of true liberty.

>>42

However, a lot of crime occurs within the lower class, and this is because they don't have the resources to feed and house and clothe themselves. Within a socialist framework you can feed and house and clothe these people, preventing crimes due to social status from happening.

>>43

Crime does not occur because people are poor. Rich people commit crime too. Crime is committed because the criminal believes that they'll benefit from it, that the risks outweigh the rewards, that the benefits exceed the costs.

A poor an that can't feed or house himself would not commit crime if everyone else was able and willing to defend themselves and their property. Machineguns cost about $80 to build. The poor can afford this, but the government prohibits it. The poor are poor because of crime, crime is increased when the people are disarmed.

>>43
Actually the socialist government corrupts the economy to the extent that the poorest workers in capitalisms can often afford more than socialist economies hand out for free. It is also a popular belief within socialism that punishment is wrong, thus violent crime would be the norm.

>>44
Good point also.

>>43
So do you see where you've gone wrong?

>>46
>>44

I didn't say that all crime result from being poor, but being poor is a big factor. After all, so much crime happens in poor parts of the US. It's impossible to deny the relationship between being poor and committing crimes. After all, it would be advantageous to steal when you can't afford food.

>>47

It would not be advantageous to steal food when you're more likely to eat lead.

>>48
It would be more advantageous to work for food.

>>48
Once again, you think like middle class members, if poor people cared about the risk of criminal activity (prison), they would work for their food.
However, there is a pervasive fatalistic mentality in poverty mindsets, and to them, they feel not in the least in general control of what happens to them.  If they get away, thats how the cookie crumbles, if they get caught/killed, thats just how the cookie crumbles.  Impoverished people lack empowerment, they don't feel in control of their own fates, which is a big reason why they take risks and resort to criminal behavior.

>>50

Most of them do work for their food, dumbass.

And the ones that won't will kill themselves off until they're no longer a problem.

>>40
1. Yeah, but you said it had to be tiny and under developed. I gave a counter example of a huge higly developed society. And what i am really saying is that the idea of property is needed for capitalism, and this idea is not given by nature but by a certain culture at a certain point in time. Meaning that communism is possible in this world.

2. I am not claiming to know exactly what you need in specific terms, and you are an idiot to believe that i did. You are dodging the question again, but i take it as an admission of defeat.

3. Demands is not equal to needs. And wants are unlimited as you said. But needs are finite, and there is enough resources in the world to end starvation, homelessness, general sickness (meaning people dying for easili curable diseases), poverty. But your rebuttal to that is that the greedy poor starving sick children would just want more. Nice. My win.

4. Have never claimed different. Take reading courses.

5. capitalism is not an idea, its a mode of production. Read moar.

6. The specific factors leading to human death and suffering is arbitrary yes. But the importance of evaluating those factors is not. And the benchmarks were for capitalism, so i dont get how free markets would apply. Is many free markets a capitalism win or loss? Do you see the difference between your suggestion and the number of dead by starvation and exposure? I can explain more if you have a hard time grasoing the concepts. And yeah, just because stalinism is bad capitalism is not good. Read more logic. (And btw, more people starve in india, the world largest democracy, than in china, the world largest totalitarian state, go figure). 

 

>>32
If the law says so, what's the problem?

>>53
The law doesn't describe right and wrong. If they passed a law against heterosexual intercourse and started busting people for having sex, would you still be saying "If the law says so, what's the problem?" This is a lesser version of the same kind of stupidity.

>>52

Yes, it has to be tiny and have a low standard of living. If you measure standard of living exclusively in terms of food and shelter, maybe they had a standard of living. Indian standards of living were low enough that they could sustain it with communism.

"I am not claiming to know exactly what you need in specific terms"

"needs are finite"

If you don't know what my needs are, you cannot know that they are finite. You can guess at what is required to keep me alive (although at the standard of living where I am barely kept alive I would rather die, and thus my wants are less than what you believe they are). You cannot know what my wants are except by my choices. If you take away my choices, you cannot know what my wants are.

When you say "U said: Profit must money u idiot! No U." I have to believe YOU are the one that should be taking reading courses, dumbass.

Capitalism is not just a means of production. It's an idea also. Big arguement over meaning of capitalism, etc.

Capitalism = free markets and private property. You have to have both to have capitalism. The capitalist method of production is corollary to Capitalism.

Number dead by starvation and exposure is not a failure of capitalism. It would be a failure of socialism because socialism assumes collectivism, but it's not a failure of capitalism because capitalism is individualist.

Democracy != Capitalism. And I think India has a higher death rate because it has a higher birthrate, because china has caps on how many kids you can have. That example sucks ass.

>>55
"Indian standards of living were low enough that they could sustain it with communism."
Democracy (b4 europe) does not increase the standard of living then i assume?

"If you don't know what my needs are, you cannot know that they are finite."
Take more physics classes. I know your needs are not infinite, thereby i know that your needs are finite. And by this i mean that need is finite, both individually and collectivally, and the absolute ammount needed by each person varies, but it is always finite due to the definition of needs, what you need to not die and live healthy, its not arbitrary or choice. And i dont care about your wants, they have never come into question except as an example what needs are not.

"I have to believe YOU are the one that should be taking reading courses, dumbass."
Yeah, whatever. Still your loss however as no refutation, just dodging. Accept like a man, dog.

"Capitalism is not just a means of production. It's an idea also.""Capitalism = free markets and private property. You have to have both to have capitalism. The capitalist method of production is corollary to Capitalism."
Well okey, that is clearly not what i meant by it but i play ball. I guess by the second statement that there is no capitalism in world by the moment since there is no unregulated market (black market fails since its quite regulated by the mob and other protections agencies)? And am i rite in interpreting that there is no capitalist "method" of production yet since capitalism as in free markets+private property is not true anywhere yet? Do you see what i did there? I refuted you by making your definition absurd or at least meaningless in the present context. If you want to call an UFO capitalism go right ahead. Just do it somewhere else.

"capitalism is individualist"
And how can it be that? Is it more than a method and property+markets? Is it also a political philosohy? Or is it a n ethos? Maybe its a religion? You may be individualist and you may want capitalism to be it, but want does not make it so.

"Democracy != Capitalism. And I think India has a higher death rate because it has a higher birthrate, because china has caps on how many kids you can have. That example sucks ass."
Well, since capitalism is whatever you want it to be that does not matter. And its dead by starvation, not deathrate.

I am not >>38.

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.

WRONG. "Poor" is subjective. When you don't have the concept of property "poorness" has no meaning. The only reason you think the Ameri-Indians were poor is because you have a DVD-player and Air-conditioning.

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.

How is him doing that any different from your assessment of who is poor and who isn't? There is a difference between needs and wants. Humans have the ability to make logical choices and adapt to any situation. Outside of the obvious need there isn't much else. You think free choice invalidates >>38's claim, but it actually proves his point if you could get your head out of your ass for one second.

It has never been ethically/morally right or socially acceptable to give in to greed and every want or whim- your attempt to put the negative aspects of man into a a positive light has been noted as a failure.

>>54
They woulnd't make a law like that because laws are made to serve the society. Taxes are made to serve society.

1. I retract that and propose instead the phrase more in line with what I intended, "Communism can only sustain a low standard of living." Granted, I can't define exactly how low, it depends upon various factors I don't know, like whether or not there happens to be massive amounts of food, shelter, air conditioning units, et cetera laying around, and how dedicated the people working within a communist framework are to make it work. But the standard is lower than the current standard of living.

First part of 2 is thereby irrelevant.

There's a difference between needs and wants, but not with respect to economics. If you need something to live, that doesn't necessarily mean you want it. If you need something you don't want, someone else is defining your needs as if they were your wants and giving you things they believe you "need" that you don't want. Needs economically are urgent wants.

I contest the statement that it has never been ethically or morally right or acceptable to be greedy and want things. You have been socially conditioned to believe it is, that doesn't mean it has always been. You live in a different culture from mine. In the circles I travel in off the internet, people understand, respect, and don't care that I care about myself first and others second. It is certainly socially acceptable where I am.

>>58
No they're not. Laws are made to reward political friends and punish political enemies. That's how politics works. There's a general conception that laws and taxes "serve society" but that doesn't make it so.

>>59

OBJECTION! Morality is a construct created for the benefit of society. It is not and never was a cultural thing. The reason why greed is frowned upon is because it is necessary for people to be giving in order for all members of society to live healthily.

>>59 There's a difference between needs and wants, but not with respect to economics. If you need something to live, that doesn't necessarily mean you want it. If you need something you don't want, someone else is defining your needs as if they were your wants and giving you things they believe you "need" that you don't want. Needs economically are urgent wants.

Also, this over complicates the idea of needs. Socialists focus on satisfying the biological needs of the people who can't afford them. Economic needs may be different but thats not what any of us are talking about when we say "needs."

>>62
Children need exercise and nutrients to grow into healthy adults. They almost never want this. A parent who helps his child to fulfill his wants is at best spoiling the child and at worst abusing it through negligence. If you have cancer you need a operation, even if you dont know you have cancer. If you are uneducated about nutrients and you loathe all vegetables and fruits you still need them. The economic (and i mean chicago school-type economics here) view of needs is meaningless when discussing political philospohy and ethics.

>>63

You can fairly say "You need X in order to Y." You can't fairly say "You need X."

Kids need exercise and nutrition in order to become healthy adults, there's some merit to that. If I have cancer, I might need an operation to live. This could be true.

However these things are needs for satisfying ends, not needs that I simply must have. If I do not want the particular end satisfied, then there is no reason to provide it. You can't assume that I want something just because I need it to satisfy a condition you deem to be a problem.

>>60
So tell me then: What would the society be like if the government didn't theive us of our money?

>>65

The government would implode due to lack of income, creating a market for things where we normally have bureaucrats doing things. People would demand the services that government normally provides, and the obvious way to do so with minimal infrastructure requirements would be subscription-based service. Private fire departments already do this. It wouldn't be hard for the police to adapt this system.

The poor would be better off, the police would focus on protecting you rather than enforcing stupid laws, the roads would be used intelligently, Fedex would replace the post office, your income would immediately jump by about 20% just due to not paying taxes, you could buy a machinegun for $75, gas would be 50 cents cheaper in an instant, and become progressively cheaper after that, the terrorists would stay mad at us for 20 years and then get back to killing each other, and you'd never have to apply for another license or permit for the rest of your life.

>>66
You rightists are all so fucking egocentric. Seriously, go back to being 6.

>>67

I'm not a rightist. Agorism is libertarian left.

>>68
two words for you

Politics 101

>>66
"Things get cheaper and I get to keep more of my money"
I agree with 67, that is pretty egocentric.
Maybe people look at themselves as individuals, pro tip though; People aren't.
You live in a country and you need to contribute to your country to make it a better place.
A doctor wouldn't be able to what he does if it wasn't for the farmer or fisherman to get food for him, or the car repairman that makes sure he gets to work.
Those people might not have the same education as the doctor but they make the country run just as much as he does.
And that is why people need to share and contribute to education(equal education for everybody), healthcare, eldercare. Some people don’t afford this, but they deserve it just as much as anyone else.

>>64

However, it doesn't matter whether or not you want your ends satisfied or not. That's always up to the individual. We're not arguing against that. There are, however, people deprived of the ability to feed themselves, or pay for medicine, or whatever. The thing is, they don't have any choice. Whether or not they can live is no longer up to them.

>>65
Some other entity, probably not as benevolent, would eventually take the governments place and restart the thievery. If the end of taxes didnt come with a agorist brainwash for all people. But it seems that only the state or a statelike entity is capable to do anything like than...

Relevant quote:
"The absurdity of public-choice theory is captured by Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen in the following little scenario: "Can you direct me to the railway station?" asks the stranger. "Certainly," says the local, pointing in the opposite direction, towards the post office, "and would you post this letter for me on your way?" "Certainly," says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing."

>>72
Cthulhu?

>>32
And by the way, I want to pay taxes so it's not theft.

>>70

"Maybe people look at themselves as individuals, pro tip though; People aren't."

Yes they are. Individuals are real. Collectives are purely fictive entities. They exist only as far as they contain individuals. The collective "purple people" doesn't exist because no individuals are purple.

"You live in a country and you need to contribute to your country to make it a better place."

How was this obligation created? Why do I owe something to someone because I was born in a certain region?

>>71

They can choose to work and buy food. You can always choose whether or not you want to work, and you can always find someone that wants some work done.

I don't get to choose whether or not I get to live in a big cushy mansion rolling in money with servants doing everything for me. But don't I deserve it just as much as anyone else? Society owes me a big cushy mansion. At least, by your logic.

>>72

The market would take the government's place. The market takes the government's place wherever the government doesn't prohibit it. It would take the government's place if the government was giving away free shoes and then suddenly stopped. It would take the government's place if the government was providing free police protection and then suddenly stopped. It would take the government's place if the government was providing free roads and then suddenly stopped. When you go to Walmart, they don't steal from you, they don't charge you according to your income, they charge you according to your consumption.

Agorism is revolutionary. We believe that the end of the state will be the market throwing it off. The effective end of the state is the point where the black market has grown large enough that it can provide better protection than the government's police, and so when the police harass people, the black market protection agencies would protect the people against the police.  Smaller "government" like organizations could form, but they wouldn't be able to claim exclusive jurisdiction over areas owned by individuals not voluntarily partaking in that government, or the protection agnecies would start attacking the "government" until it left the involuntarily claimed territory alone. This would prevent other "state-like" entities from forming. Agorist and anarchocapitalist objections to the state's existence are rooted in the involuntary nature of it.

>>74
I'd really prefer you not pay taxes because the government will eventually use that money to commit theft against me. Involuntary taxation is theft, voluntary taxation is an expression of support for theft. If not for the fact that the government will use your money to harass me, I wouldn't care what you did with your money.

>>75
If people were individuals their opinion would actually matter. A single individual’s opinion is drowned by other opinions, a single individual’s opinion doesn't matter. Only if many individuals together have an opinion it matters.

If you can live and survive all by your self, you are an individual. Not very many does though, most depend on groups. For example: The employer / employee relationship. The employer depends on the employee to do work; the employee depends on the employer to provide a work.
People work in groups, not as individuals.

Individuals are not important. If you yourself make a profit that is not the same as your country making a profit. What is the point of being rich when your country suck?
Which brings us to: What's the point of not being rich when your country is?
At first I didn't think I could answer that, but then I realized: because being rich is a waste of money.

>>75
Did your mother give birth to you all alone? Did she raise and school you alone? Or did she heal you when you where injured?

I'd think not, those where the things society gave you so how can you say you don't owe society anything?

>>76

Please expand on this idea of "mattering". Don't assume democracy to do so. There is no reason to assume democracy.

Interdependance does not equate to unity.

Expand on this idea of "importance" also. Why do you assume countries? I see regions as real, but countries as entirely fictive. Which brings me to what I said before which you never responded to.

Collectives are fictive. Individuals are real. Collectives depend on the existence of the individual. Real things do not depend on the existence of imaginary things. Imaginary things depend on the existence of real things. The individual is supreme to the collective, the individual precedes the collective.

For what you are saying to make any sense, you must assume the supremacy of the imaginary over the real. Imaginary things are not above real things. In your reply, resolve this issue.

"Countries" are collectives. Businesses are collectives.

Maybe you should try answering your questions before you assume there is no answer to them. Maybe you should try being rich before you say being rich is a waste of money.

>>77

Because we paid for those things. The INDIVIDUALS who provided those services recieved payment they were owed. Once I pay them everything they asked for, I owe them nothing else.

>>1
not equal.  one failed after a few years; the other started long before the other and exists to this day.