Topic: Why don't we set up capitalist and socialist communes to test which is better? (Read 612 times)

capitalism is surpression not everyone joins it voluntarily

look at china today and compare it with usa,

china is able to run its own high tech road system, it is actually much more successful, then capitalist usa, that relies on hard working immigrants who abide law. debt, and everyone protecting the central bank.

nevertheless as soon as people realise the capitalist system of china the authority of its central bank will crumble

look at nazi germany, or look at the roman empire,

both attacked its neigbours to establish a slavery, the winners where of course those sitting in the centre (roman senate, deutsche reichsbank (today deutsche bank))

the us capitalism is just big faked democracy, that enriches the central bankers.

and with soviet threat gone, and world leaving them alone they will all desperately look for enemies in order to justify their bankers power and existance, with crypto in the world, the banks now are begging for regulations.

the victims of capitalism are typically the weakest of the society.

The usual quality retort we can expect from you. Thank you for your contribution woke China bro.

capitalism can be anything. us capitalism was only successful because it continously drains and stole labour from rest of the worlds thats why the us governments is so hateful of all other governments in the world (they are like bitches)

regards

Hey give me all your money, it won't be a robbery, as you like to call it. I will just hold it for safe keeping. Sounds legit right? Oh you don't just believe people because they declare something to be true? Me neither.

Democracy is inherently exclusive to individual and minority rights. Individuals and minorities will always have their rights abolished by vote under a pure Democracy. Yes, this is mob rule. All rights are property rights. Without property rights we have no human rights. You can advocate for humans flying, but when you jump off of a bridge you are sill going to splatter all over the ground. What you intended is irrelevant, the irrevocable laws of economics and human nature, like gravity outrank your intent.

I've been explicit in how it would be different and explained to you multiple times that it would be democratic and not authoritarian. It would be what you like to call "mob rule"

This is just nonsense stemming from a popular misconception that abolishing private property is the same as abolishing personal property.  They are not the same thing.  No one is advocating for the abolishment of personal property.  That is a strawman.



Also that example created success on the capitalist island by killing all of the stupid and weak people.  This is what capitalism does.  It creates poverty then uses borders in order to exclude the people being exploited from metrics to create some sort of perceived success. 

Obviously throwing ethics out of the window makes things easier but that sounds a lot more like the murderous regimes of the 20th century than anything anyone on  the left is advocating for.  Our utopia would include everyone. 

So to be clear, many of the so-called communist regimes of the 20th century were murderous and so is the capitalist idea of a utopian island.

You are the one who is making arguments then claiming in the very next reply that you never made the argument, but I am the stupid one eh? The nature vs nurture debate includes "action as well as result of action", but keep pretending your arguments are just too deep for me to understand.



This is just another way of rephrasing the "but it wasn't true Communism" logical fallacy. You don't get to summarily exclude all the horrible failures of Communism in the past and just say "nah don't worry, it is not THAT Communism, this Communism is different! I can't define how it is different in any way whatsoever, but it is different I swear!"

You guys are beating a dead horse.  No one is advocating the repeat of 20th century "communism" which is the only thing you have made an argument against.  Continuously arguing against things that aren't being argued for is the definition of strawmanning.  This whole thread is strawmen. 

Forcing the members of a commune to live without socialism will collapse the commune. "Commune" IS socialism.

Forcing members of a commune to live without capitalism will Destroy the commune. The evidence lies in all the fallen socialistic nations around the world... evn the U.S.S.R.

Such a thing is silly, because all people and communes and nations use both socialism and capitalism.

Great example to illustrate the differences between those two systems.
The one seems that have all the possibilities to grow while the other seems that they will just try to sustain their hunger.

without communism, capitalism would be just junk, with capitalist spamming whole world with their problems, you have no idea what capitalism means. whole community is full of idiots, who is supposed to controll the worlds economy? usd, euro, bitcoin, etc.

Ahahahahah

The distinction between action and result of action is irrelevant.

Sure. You're one dumb shit for sure!

Exactly! A good example of the way communism defined equality is the idea of forced buyout. The government needed land to form giant agricultural complexes, so it basically seized the land from private owners and paid them a few kopecks to make it look like a genuine sale, not an outright theft it really was. I have a friend whose father owned land in one of the countries of the Eastern Bloc and was a victim of such seizures.
Another great example was compulsory work. When you finished school you were allocated by some government official to a job that needed to be done. It was supposed to be based on your skills, but in reality young people whose parents were in the party always got better positions. There's a lot of nepotism in capitalism as well, but if you don't like it, you can always work for yourself. Stay at home and be a freelancer, or start your own company. In communism you were always ordered around like a tool.


They could also install cameras and stream everyday life of the community. They could set up patronite, gofundme, social media and use various other "capitalist ideas" to get rich. After a time young people from the commie island would watch and follow the lives of people on the capitalist island and their parents would ban it, which would only escalate things and make young commies leave the community to move to the other island. How many times did we see it happen in the real world?

OK..

Lets get 2 islands and dump 1,000 people on each of them..

One is allowed to bring anything they want, buy and sell anything they want, and give voluntary charity to anyone they want.. Only the highest value people are allowed to come, so if you are poor and stupid you can't come..

The other the people are only allowed to bring what they have made themselves. They cannot have any products produced by capitalism or acquired through trade. When they get there everyone has to put everything they brought into a pile in the middle that now belongs to everyone, no personal property.. Only the highest value victim cards can come, so only the poorest, stupidest, and most whacked out people can come..

Then leave them on their island to survive, or not survive..
Maybe the commies can survive by hunter/gatherer means and grow some food if they brought some plants..

I would suggest the capitalists create a tourist attraction on their island to get people coming to spend money. They could also grow a high value cash crop for export, do internet jobs, start an industry, etc..


Sit back and watch?

People voluntarily moving to countries which provide them with better opportunities is not -stealing.
It's simply the failure of eastern european communism that led its people to flee to the prosperous western capitalist system.

You ARE NOT entitled to someone elses work!
It is not 'leeching' that you don't have a right to force someone to educate you.
IT IS leeching forcing someone to educate you.


Seizing the means of production is humanist to you?
Stealing assets people have spent their entire lives on building? And perhaps their fathers also.
Communism never worked. There has never been a communist country that didn't cause poverty.

There are too many confounding variables. For example, United States foreign policy significantly favored capitalist countries over socialist ones. Authoritarian and totalitarian governments often used socialism as an excuse to prop up their legitimacy. The USSR became state capitalist towards the end of its life while North Korea de-emphasized socialism in favor of homegrown ideologies (Juche and songun) and turned itself into a de facto monarchy in the process.

That being said, I actually think capitalism and free markets provide much more successful outcomes for society (an opinion that is probably shared by over 90% of this forum and the majority of people living in the Western world). I also think it's safe to say that authoritarian top-down strains of socialism cannot work. The 20th century was good evidence for this. But the socialism that Karl Marx envisioned was not Stalin's USSR or Mao's China or Ceaușescu's Romania.

The end goal of socialism (communism) was supposed to be a stateless, classless society where the workers (rather than the capitalist class) own the means of production. Examples of societies that most closely approached this ideal include the Paris Commune, Revolutionary Catalonia, the Zapatistas, and currently the Rojava. To the best of my knowledge, libertarian and anarchist strains of socialism (e.g. libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism) have never been implemented in the large scale during peacetime, so whether or not they have any merit is still very much an open question.

Socialist Alternative Program (Australia):

BY SOCIALISM we mean a system in which society is democratically controlled by the working class and the productive resources of society are channelled to abolishing class divisions. Only socialism can rid the world of poverty and inequality, stop imperialist wars, end oppression and exploitation, save the environment from destruction and provide the conditions for the full realisation of human creative potential. A system under the democratic control of the working class is the only basis for establishing a classless, prosperous, sustainable society based on the principle “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”.

STALINISM IS not socialism. We agree with Trotsky’s characterisation of Stalin as the “gravedigger” of the Russian Revolution. The political character of the regime established by the Stalinist bureaucracy in Russia most closely resembled that placed in power in capitalist countries by victorious fascist movements – an atomised population ruled over by a ruthless bureaucratic dictatorship masquerading behind social demagogy. We stand in the tradition of the revolutionaries who resisted Stalinism, and we fight today to reclaim the democratic, revolutionary politics of Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky and others from Stalinist distortion.

SOCIALISM CANNOT be won by reform of the current system or by taking over the existing state. Only the revolutionary overthrow of the existing order and the smashing of the capitalist state apparatus can defeat the capitalist class and permanently end its rule. A successful revolution will involve workers taking control of their workplaces, dismantling existing state institutions (parliaments, courts, the armed forces and police) and replacing them with an entirely new state based on genuinely democratic control by the working class.

THE EMANCIPATION of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. Socialism cannot come about by the actions of a minority. The struggle for socialism is the struggle of the great mass of workers to control their lives and their society, what Marx called “a movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority”.

FOR WORKERS to be won to the need for revolution, and for the working class to be cohered organisationally and politically into a force capable of defeating the centralised might of the capitalist state, a revolutionary party is necessary. Such an organisation has to cohere in its ranks the decisive elements among the most class conscious and militant workers. Laying the basis for such a party is the key strategic task for socialists in Australia today.

IT IS NOT enough for a revolutionary party to organise the vanguard of the class. For capitalism to be overthrown, the majority of the working class must be won to revolutionary action and the socialist cause. It is not enough to simply denounce the non-revolutionary organisations and political currents in the workers’ movement. Revolutionaries have to engage reformist organisations via the method of the united front in order to test the possibility for united action in practice and demonstrate to all workers in a non-sectarian way the superiority of revolutionary ideas and practice. We support all demands and movements that tend to improve the position and self-confidence of workers and of other oppressed sections of the population.

SOCIALISTS SUPPORT trade unions as the basic defensive organisations of the working class. We stand for democratic, militant, class struggle unionism and reject class collaborationism. We also stand for political trade unionism – the union movement should champion every struggle against injustice.

CAPITALIST EXPLOITATION of the working class and the natural world has created a situation where the profit system threatens the habitability of the planet. We oppose attempts to halt climate change and environmental destruction through measures that place the burden on working class people and the poor. We demand instead fundamental social and political change that directly challenges the interests of the ruling class. The environmental crisis can only be solved under socialism, where the interests of people and the planet are not counterposed.

SOCIALISTS ARE internationalists. We reject Australian patriotism and nationalism and fight for international working class solidarity. The struggle against capitalism is an international struggle: socialism cannot be built in a single country.

THE IMPERIALIST phase of capitalism has ushered in an era of military conflict that has no precedent in human history. The core element of imperialism is the conflict between imperial powers, or blocks of capital, which attempt by military, diplomatic and commercial means to divide and redivide the world in their own interests. In the conflicts between imperial powers (open or by proxy), revolutionaries do not take sides, least of all with our own ruling classes. Nor do we call for the resolution of inter-imperialist conflict by the “peaceful” methods of international diplomacy. Instead we fight for international working class solidarity and unity, and embrace Lenin’s revolutionary call to “turn the imperialist war between nations into a civil war between classes”. In the case of wars waged or diplomatic pressure exerted by military threat by the imperial powers against colonies and non-imperialist nations, we oppose the imperial power and defend the right of national self-determination.

AUSTRALIA IS an imperialist power in its own right. Through its own economic and military strength, and in alliance with US imperialism, Australian capitalism seeks to politically and militarily dominate its region and project power more broadly. This gives revolutionaries in Australia a special obligation to stand in solidarity with struggles of workers and the oppressed in our region against Australian imperialist intervention and control.

WE RECOGNISE Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the first people of Australia. We acknowledge that sovereignty was never ceded and condemn the crimes of genocide and dispossession committed by European colonists and the Australian state. We support the struggle for land rights, sovereignty and economic and social justice for Indigenous people.

WE OPPOSE all immigration controls and support open borders. We fight to free all refugees from detention and for the right of asylum seekers to reach Australia. We oppose racism towards migrants. In particular we reject racism towards Muslims, whose right to religious and political freedom is routinely attacked on the spurious grounds of “fighting terrorism”.

WE OPPOSE all oppression on the basis of sex, gender or sexuality. We oppose all forms of discrimination against women and all forms of social inequality between men and women. The struggle for freedom from exploitation and freedom from all forms of oppression includes the liberation of lesbians, gay men, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. We fight for an end to all legal and social discrimination against LGBTI people and all forms of sexist discrimination. We support full reproductive freedom for all women.

ALL THESE forms of oppression, and others like the oppression of the young, the disabled and the elderly, are used to divide the working class and to spare capital the expense of providing for the needs of all members of society. Combating them is an essential part of building a united working class struggle that can win a socialist society. Only a socialist revolution can bring about the genuine liberation of the oppressed and the ability of every human being to realise their full potential.

If you didn't know:
Stalinism is not socialism,
Stalin repressed all communists in 1920-1930.


The crimes of Stalin and the Stalinists:
1. He Killed more than half of the first Sovnarkom (government).

2. He killed all the Bolsheviks who resisted the distortion of Marxism and its transformation into totalitarianism.

3. Spent terror all over the world against foreign communists.

4. Cooperated with the Nazis and handed over the German and Austrian communists to the Gestapo.

5. He advanced the utopian idea of ​​building socialism in a separate country and abandoned the world revolution.
According to Marxism, socialism is possible only in the whole world.

6. He refused the universal arming of the people and created the state. army and state the police
not controlled by advice.
According to Marxism, when the working class seizes power, it must arm itself and disband all capitalist armies.

7. Stalin is not Bolshevik (Marxist-socialist-communist).

Now that capitalism has led mankind to a dead end, the question of socialism has arisen, but this question stumbles upon obstacles - discrediting the socialist idea all over the world due to the Stalinist distortion of socialism.

We already run those experiments. Germany was split in two and so was Korea. Which would you rather have grown up in: West Germany or East Germany? North Korea or South Korea?

Communism superficially pretends to be humanist, in reality it is one of the least humanist systems to ever exist. The hammer and sickle are ancient symbols. The hammer represents building, creation, and Capitalism. The sickle represents harvest, destruction, and Communism. Communism from its very inception as a political movement was designed as controlled opposition to Capitalism by the banker class. They are rubbing it right in your faces with those symbols on the flag. Communism's job is to pick the bones clean after Capitalism builds a society up so that it can be harvested of resources and prepared as a clean slate to again introduce Capitalism into it for a new cycle.

comunism is defined to be humanist and pro workers, its symbols hammer and sickle stand that those governments work towards workers interests.

capitalism isnt, its simply capitalism, it could be anything, islamic european, american, russian and other capitalism.

working towards the interest and social goals of anyone.

communism only isn't providing if it is to weak to achieve its interests and is constantly forced to build weapons to defend itself.

regards

of course there is leeching in capitalism.

workers have to be educated, education costs work and time, schools teachers, even the upkeep of the pupils.

socialists state educate pupils.

capitalists then simply found a banking cartel and try to steal those.

usa policy during cold war was all about stealing educated labour from eastern europe.

they never where able to maintain their wealth level without stealing/leeching. from eastern countries.

did you ever saw uk paying to poland for their polish plumbers and nurses.

in communist countries that leeching was called "econoic sabotage"

etc

Lol, yeah ok... I just didn't get the detailed nuances of your arguments... it is certainly not the case that you made a half baked argument then forgot you made it 3 seconds later, pretended you didn't make it, and are now pretending you are just too deep for me to understand to cover up for your own self contradiction. Nah...  BTW the distinction is irrelevant anyway.

Xerxes is a king.
How can you compare a statist with capitalism?

Capitalism is voluntary interactions between individuals.
Xerxes ownes slaves and uses coercion on his subjects to go to war.
Xerxes is a literal commie - using centralized state power against the people.
There's nothing capitalist about him.

Please read the definition of nature vs nurture:

"The nature versus nurture debate involves whether human behavior is determined by the environment, either prenatal or during a person's life, or by a person's genes. "

It talks about individual behavior.

I talk about social and economical status.

In other terms, nature vs nurture is about how one acts, I'm talking about what one obtains after his actions.

Hence your whole critics is based on an argument I never made.

Please think about the difference between the two then come back.

First of all what is "fair" is totally subjective, but for the sake of argument lets pretend "fair" is defined by your metric. If we just keep pumping resources into the 3rd world and they are not providing at least enough resources to maintain what they use, all that is happening is we are subsidizing overpopulation. The potential human population is infinite. Eventually there will not be enough resources for anyone, and by your metric this is "fair". The Western world balances out these factors, but this is being subverted by funneling in populations from the 3rd world who don't have these checks and balances, which is subverting this balance and making less resources available for all as a whole.

"You clearly said Sociology results shouldn't be taken into account because of how unscientific the method is." No, I didn't say this. I said Sociology is the lowest ranking of scientific rigor, and thus is more fallible than all the other sciences. So all of the history of Sociology (more than 40 years BTW) agrees with you? Interesting theory. Too bad you can't produce any of these studies for examination.

There are an infinite number of potential explanations, but lets just start with one. How about a combination of nature and nurture being the cause? Happy now? You were in fact using a false choice fallacy.

OH NOES! DON'T REFUSE TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ARGUMENT! I don't know how I would cope if you don't bother supporting your own argument! Is this supposed to motivate me some how, you refusing to make your own points?



This is you making the argument of a conclusion in the nature vs nurture debate, you are just to ignorant to realize what your own arguments consist of. Speaking of reading, you can't even read and understand your own words.

Amazing. This amount of stupidity or bad faith is incredible. So you're right if population increases when ressources are fairly distributed, and you're right if it doesn't. Easy to be right when you just don't give argument but a two way assertion right?
Are you that dumb? Don't you understand the difference between being less rigorous than maths and having irrelevant results because it's not scientific enough? You clearly said Sociology results shouldn't be taken into account because of how unscientific the method is. If you admit it IS scientific methodology then you must take its results into account then I agree with you and you'll have to answer to the last 40 years of sociology studies. I'm ok with that clearly.
Nope it's a logical fallacy if you can provide a thrid option. Otherwise it's not a fallacy but a descprition of a reality. Provide a third explanation or take this accusation back.
I won't provide any study before you admit sociology is a scientific methodology providing acceptable and reliable results otherwise there is no point in providing you with anything as you'll simply deny them.

Once you admit this I'll gladly give you a dozen of studies showing that your situation is far more linked to your living environment as a child thatn at your personal abilities.

Oh and by the way if you knew how to read (which I really start doubting) you would see that I NEVER talk about the Nature vs nurture debate which is an interesting opened debate. It is not my point, you simply use another logical fallacy to make me say shit and debunk it after. Yeah I agree Nature vs Nurture isn't settled. Never said it was. Not my point. Not what I said.

Again, your first point goes back to the question of scale. Even if some small homogeneous communities can operate Communism effectively does not prove it can be scaled to an international level. Western countries are below replacement level birthrates from natives. The populations are increasing because of uncontrolled illegal immigration, which is essentially proving my point.

All social sciences are the least scientific form of science because they are the least able to follow rigorous scientific method. This is not even a debate, it is well known even among social scientists. FFS, the man who was said to have invented Sociology as a science is the originator of the concept of the scientific hierarchy itself.

The premise you are presenting here is called a "false choice" logical fallacy. You proscribe two potential options, and exclude any other possibilities when many more options exist.

So far you haven't provided any of these studies for review anyway, so your point is moot. Again, the nature vs nurture debate is NO WHERE NEAR being concluded.

Sure because that's exactly what's happenin in countries where ressources are distrubuted in a more human way. Clearly western countries see their population raising without control that's exactly what's happening 
Hey doctor bullshit, long time no seen! So Sociology is not a science, well now that you said so I'm clearly convinced! You must be right and universities are really full of dumb people if they believe the contrary. Your argument is very logical and makes sens for sure.
Except for the FACT that social mobility is insanely low showing that either environment is more important than genetics or that poor people are sub humans. Your choice to believe what you want.
Duuuuuuuuuumb. The conclusion of the studies might be discussed but not the facts described. And the facts described are enough to prove that environment > genetics.

What you mean to point to is irrelevant. The fact is even if the resources were more evenly distributed, you know what would happen? Human population would just continue to increase infinitely until there were not enough resources for anyone. You aren't solving anything, you are describing a fantasy.

I never said anyone deserves anything. Facts are facts regardless of what anyone deserves. Your so called studies are based in Sociology, which first of all is the least scientific of any school of science, but this specific debate of nature vs nurture you are pointing to is an ancient and never-ending debate no where near being concluded. Your so called studies regarding this mean nothing even if they were valid, because the premise itself (that it is proven one way or the other) is flawed.

What can you say to people with so much bad faith?

You realize I was pointing at the failure to DISTRIBUTE ressources of capitalism right? Not at the overproduction.

But when you claim that homeless people deserve to be so, when you deny the thousands of studies showing that what you do in life is dependant on who your parents were and not what you do, when you're blind to the systemic contruction of poverty and inequalities, what can you understand about capitalism failure?

You see a ver strange world. I just hope you didn't have children that's all. Then you won't have to worry about the rock landing.

Both systems are capable of abuse. Only one of them is a failed model in its own right.

ever heard of capitalist countries that just seek to burn and abuse their population? thats the norm in milliania of human history, not the exception like currently

meet xerxes a persian capitalists, that was capitalism during 99% of human history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NV9DSykTbo

Ever heard of any socialist program in any capitalist country ever?

ever heard of the polish plumbers in uk?

capitalists have a systemic behavior of leeching of the work of others,

bitcoin also leeches, the electricity and the work of the teachers of a nation who educated the workforce.

regards

In capitalism everyone is being taken care of.
If you take a look around yourself, each town in the modern world has a soup kitchen where you can get free food, each town has a red cross where you can also get free food&supplies for your home, most towns have homeless shelters where the homeless can reside.

But do you know why most of the homeless don't go to homeless shelters?
Because they don't want to.

Once you meet a couple of homeless people (I did), and you try to help them out, you'll soon realize there's a reason why they are homeless.
Each single homeless guy I met is an alcoholic, drug addict or a gambler.
If you take a simple walk through the London streets, you'll realize every single homeless guy is holding a cigarette in his hand (a pack is 10 GPB) while 90% of Britons do not smoke.
How can he afford cigarettes if he can't afford food?

It is because begging for food results in more money than begging for cigarettes.
And begging is quite a lucrative business. Some estimates say you can earn a 100$/hour on busy locations.
.
I give a homeless guy a 20 kuna.
He goes into the shop and comes out with the most expensive glass beer.
Not the cheap 2L one, but the expensive 0.5L one.

Further away, I tried to buy them food.
I tell the guy, I won't give you money, but I'll buy you something to eat.
So, we go the bakery, 'I'm allergic to ___', oh okay, there's ____, ......pause...
'I'm not really hungry, bye'.

Whoever is hungry in this time in the western world can be fed at any given time by attending a soup kitchen or the red cross, even going to the church would most definitely result in the person being fed.

There is 0 people who can't acquire basic neccesities for life without them willingly doing so in the west.

The people who are called 'unlucky' are purposly being homeless as they wish not to do work when work is proposed to them, they wish not to reside in a shelter when giving the opportunity, and they wish not to save money but rather drink it.

You can claim the moon is made of whipped cream, that doesn't make it so. What a horrible system! It produces abundance! I think you are having some trouble with basic logic here. You have this utopian idea in your head that it is possible to provide for everyone. Technically, that is true, but we would all have to live under basically totalitarian rule and have others making all our decisions for us. That is the BEST CASE scenario, one which is quite unlikely considering the human population is potentially infinite. What is more likely though is we get the totalitarianism and even more people die. I have explained many times why Communism is a failed model, because it is totally inefficient, ignores human nature, and provides no incentive for people to create the capital we all rely on to survive because responsibility for survival is collectivized to the state.

I have purposely made them conservative in order to avoid the exaggeration card.
The point would be valid even if the death toll was 10% of what it is.
Unforunately, a 100 million died from Marxist ideas.



Yes.
Capitalism will produce food, while communism will not.

Money is just an instrument of exchange.

What represents the prosperity of the people is what they can afford in their regular lives, and capitalism provides them with fridges filled with food, with cars to get from point A to point B, with TVs, laptops, computers, internet, phones etc.

Communism, well, it fails at food already.

I don't remember when capitalism did
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor


So, your argument against capitalism is that it produces everything in such abundance it can even be thrown away?

Well this is the part where I claim that capitalism is an extremely shitty ressource allocation system as it produces more than the needs of the population and still manages to get millions of people starving.

But that's probably the part where you claim that communism wouldn't have allowed anything at all and everyone would have died because... Well you won't have to give a reason but you'll be still right.

Is this the part where you claim everyone who ever starves is a direct result of Capitalism, as if Communism would have fed them as if by magic?

That's not virtue signaling, that's trying to have a bigger point of view than just "hey capitalistic countries are making more money" yeah thanks dumbass, communist countries don't even have money normally so yeah they're not going to produce the same things.

Really wanna go with the death toll?
You understand that capitalism lost this battle decades ago right?

Those numbers are quite conservative as well.

Pinochet killing a 1000 communists is totally proving communism is a superior system.
Especially when these 3 regimes have such little death tolls
Mao Tse Tung - 40+ million
Stalin - 28 million
Pol Pot - 3 million

Just keep virtue signalling.

Oh then if you don't take into account anything else that $/capita then I guess the comparison is easy.

Of course it tells a lot about your ability to conceive the world, but at least the comparison is easy.

What have you been smoking?
What are you talking about?


Which oppression are you talking about?


Hong Kong - 46 193$ / capita (https://prnt.sc/o1czob)
Taiwan - 25 026$ / capita (https://prnt.sc/o1d0g0)
China - 8827$ / capita (https://prnt.sc/o1d04f)

Hong Kong literally has a higher GDP per capita than Germany
While China is at Serbia levels.

Chinese GDP per capita until 2000. was <1000$/capita, only after China embraced capitalism and free markets its GDP started doubling each 5 years or so, while it was still a communist state it was one of poorest in the world

And still, even today, countries inhabited by Chinese peoples that haven't embraced communism in the past are enjoying an enormously larger amount of prosperity

Hong Kong is 5 times richer to that extent that a large portion of people in Hong Kong don't consider themselves Chinese anymore as they wish not to associate themselves with China

The same thing happened in the 3x richer Taiwan where people started to identify to identify as Taiwanese instead of Chinese.

3 still exists today and there is no cold war.
5 did exist during the cold war but how is that justification of anything?
Both were in the cold war and both were inhabited by the same culture.
One climbed walls under threat of murder from armed guards in order to get to the other 'oppresive' side and the other just lived regular lives.


There is no leeching in capitalism.

If you are able to provide what the market needs, you are awarded.
If you are not able to, you are not awarded.
I would compare it to nature and Darwinism.

Who provides what the people need is awarded.
Who provides pointless things with no use in life is not.

you have no idea what capitalism means,

without communism a capitalist society becomes basically a big scam with ICOs and coiner capitalists throwing printed money on each other.

there is no social progress etc.

the problem with capitalism is that it has no honor, and tends to leech of others.

without the leeching capitalism would never work or be long term successful.

usa and uk are dependent on eastern european immigration to run stable, now after brexit, they have alienated the communist eastern europeans and are crushing.

besides its not a choice to be capitalists, thats something "god" decides.

according to judaism

Are you fucking kidding me?
1 and 2 both HK and Taiwan have been crushed by China. 3 and 5 was just a cold war zone and one of the two countries saw his camp disappear. 4 is a joke right? What do you want? To compare which dictatorship was worse? Wanna talk about how great Pinochet was?

Capitalism and colonialism always produce winners and losers.  The contrast in those places is proof that capitalism works but does nothing towards suggesting it is better.  The oppression produced by capitalism is the motivation for socialism, not the result of it.   The world would be a better place if these drastic contrasts did not exist at all.

because the capitalist communes will try to leech of the socialist ones, like it was the case during cold war.

It is not an issue of scalibility, it's an issue of voluntary interactions.
There's a reason why trust exists and you don't trust everyone, and you choose who to cooperate with
Small communities take care of each other because they choose to, not because they're forced to.
People voluntarily organising  shouldn't be a bad thing.
The problem with communism is you don't have a choice.

-------------------
@OP

There is.
Let me name a couple

1. Hong Kong vs China
2. Taiwan vs China
3. South Korea vs North Korea
4. Venezuela vs Chile
5. East Germany vs West Germany

Same people, same culture, diametrically opposed outcomes.

This is called research.  There is no such thing as a perfectly controlled study and varying degrees of variability always occur but research can still reach conclusions based on data.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661

"Better" is subjective but socialism results in a higher physical quality of life 93% of the time.  I call that "better".

"Better" usually means the well-being of all involved  to socialists but means "i can accumulate capital to the point where i have everything i want without having to work" to capitalists.


The fundamental difference is "better for me" vs "better for the people at the bottom".

We don't do that because neither of them is the best one.
If we set capitalist and socialist communes in the same time we will discover all the disadvantages that both systems have and we will want to get rid of them once and for all!
Definitely, we will not focus on the pros but just on cons.

Seems to me that the market should control the economy.

Since they are tests, set them up with a certain amount of gold or silver coin, and let them live however they want. If they want more gold or silver, mine for it.

Better would be an altcoin, connected to all the pricing of the materials and equipment they would barter to live. They would decide on a personal trade basis how much they would pay for anything they bartered for, or if they would make the item at home.

The point being no central banking system to control money. Let it happen naturally.

As Techshare pointed out when we all lived in small villages we had a communal system and people were eager to help everyone.  When you know every person in your tribe you are emotionally connected to them.  Now people see their resources going to help outsiders and criminals and are against it.

Scalability is in fact a very valid argument. Small Socialist/Communist organizations can work because the members of the group all know each other, have high levels of trust, as well as accountability. At scale none of these factors are valid any longer. Simply look at the death of gifting based economies brought on by outside influence for further evidence of this. Communism does in fact require Capitalism to function, and your argument of what came first is incorrect if not asinine. Humanity for most of human history consisted of small collectives that were largely indistinguishable from Communism. Market economies of scale are largely a new invention, while the basic concepts of "free markets" or open trade are not at all new. The fact is even these communes relied upon market trade in order to function, as would modern Communism. The fact is Communism provides disincentive to create resources as personal responsibility is collectivized to the whole. Capitalism creates the required inductive force to motivate actors within it to create the capital goods required for either system to exist. Communism is neither effective nor efficient at managing and creating these requirements, hence Communism requires Capitalism, but Capitalism does not require Communism. This is something even Karl Marx himself admits.

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." - Critique of the Gotha Program, April-May 1875, Karl Marx, P. 5

Scale argument is dumb as there is no reason for a system to work on a scale and not work on another one.

Also you have the idea that communism requires capitalism which is false, it's just that capitalism was first so communism can only emerge from a capitalist country. It doesn't mean it needs it, it's just that it doesn't have any other choice.

I would refer you to the USSR in the 70s and 80s and the US during the same time.

It wouldn't be a scalable test. Socialism/Capitalism only really works at small scale. Also Socialism/Communism require Capitalism to function, but not vice versa.

Not sure if this belongs in this forum or in the economics forum but anyway...

Why don't we just set up capitalist and socialist communes to test which economic system is better once and for all?

Both supporters of capitalism and socialism have different ideas on what is best for the people. They both want to live in a happy, safe, and prosperous society but they disagree on which economic system is better for achieving these goals. There are good arguments coming from both sides of the political spectrum but to the best of my knowledge, there has never been a controlled study that compares capitalism and socialism directly.

Now you may be thinking, "The whole 20th century was that, no?"

Well, sort of. But there were still too many confounding variables. For example, many authoritarian and totalitarian governments used socialism to justify their existence. US foreign policy was also another confounding variable that tended to affect certain economies either more positively or negatively than others.

Thoughts? Opinions?