capifodfmdfdfio
Both communism and capitalism are a form of social organization, that is associated with trade and industry in the economy and discusses the ownership of property. (comparison web site)
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/uwu7c9/communism_and_capitalism_are_two_sides_of_the/:
If one were to stand back and evaluate the communist and capitalist systems from the perspective of history, it becomes clear that the differences between the two amount to different implementations of the same core worldview.
The communist/capitalist mode of thought is fairly straightforward: Humanity is ever advancing on a linear trajectory towards an ultimate state of comfort and happiness, to be brought about by perfect social organization via the economy. This zealous "utopian" idea is one place where Lenin and Ronald Reagan could shake hands in full agreement. Any difference of opinion comes down to correct implementation of this guiding principle
The "economistic" value system is taken for granted in our age due to the fifty or so years in which capitalism and communism presented the only two opposing social frameworks. It is a worldview vastly marginalized in the scope of human history.
The concept of linear progress is quite dubious and controversial to say the least. Traditionally, history has been viewed as a cyclical process of expansion and contraction. Civilizations rise and fall in the spirit of their age, a process that may last for over three millennium. The idea that history is "progressing" towards something concrete was expressed only in the limited form of eschatology.
The Doctrine of progress fundamentally stems from the Christian desire to "Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it, have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Every culture has had some sacred understanding of nature, but no culture in history before the European Christian tradition placed such an emphasis on subduing and dominating nature. It is then not hard to realize why the Europeans of all peoples would be the ones to conquer nearly every corner of the Earth for the first time in history during the 18th through 20th centuries. The quest to "subdue" and "dominate" all that is natural (including human beings) had taken on a secular character by that point.
Once seen as a means of better understanding God's creation, the natural sciences had become a goal in of themselves by the time of Francis Bacon. It's worth noting that this emphasis on naturalism was a purely European phenomena at this point. The great Arab, Mesoamerican, Chinese and Hindu thinkers were more likely to be mathematicians or metaphysicians.
As Europe began to "subdue and dominate" other continents, so spread the concept of linear progress, evermore justified by growing scientific achievement. The civilizations dominated by metaphysicians were no match in wars fought on physical battlefields. And thus the present situation took form.
This foundational belief in linear progress coupled with a purely materialist worldview became the basis of Marxist and capitalist thought. The philosophy of ethics, interpretation of history, sociological method, and overall worldview of these two systems are more often than not noncontradictory. This is evident when you step back a few centuries and see what was thought for most of human history. Chronological snobbery and her sister Eurocentrism are mostly to blame for the ignorance on this matter.
Ironically enough, "anti-colonial" Marxist movements played a huge role in upending non-western societies and replacing their belief system with a purely western adaptation. In that sense Mao Zedong was the last great western imperialist.
TL;DR Capitalism and communism are based on the same idea that utopia is possible through economic organization. The goals and overall value system are shared by both ideologies, and this is a fringe worldview in the scope of world history.
They never follow through on the implication that because Marxism is a focused critique of Capital, that communists are better at capitalism than the bourgeois.
Capitalism and Communism both deal with scarcity (distribution of resources both natural and man made), so solving this problem makes most the whole '-ism' thing obsolete.
Communism and capitalism both claim to be `modern' ideologies above all else. Yet their roots lie in the same 19th century `liberal' world view.
Communism, and capitalism both the same in ways
Communism is the state owning asset, but if people wanting promotion, they'll still try to outdo their peers.
Same with capitalism, Capitalism without regulation will also lead to stagnation, because for a massive corporation, its cheaper to kill off the competition than to actually improve.
Communism: keeps the rich getting richer while the poor struggle more and more under the guise of equality
Capitalism: keeps the rich getting richer while the poor struggle more and more under the guise of equality
For sociologist Peter Berger, communism and capitalism both adopted a “sacrificial” conception of development in which myths of “progress” and “growth” claimed their share of victims, much as Aztec priests had once used ritual murder to propitiate the gods and save their civilization. In his book Pyramids of Sacrifice, Berger writes that the “elite almost invariably legitimates its privileged position in terms of alleged benefits it is bestowing or getting ready to bestow upon ‘the people.’” More often than not, however, these promised benefits accrue to the elite, not the masses.
Communism has workers own their labor while John Locke Capitalism has ownership of property as an extension of worker ownership of labor
In the book it said that Karl Marx's writings praised capitalist development and the author treats them as if Marx was a fan of capitalism.
liberal dem fb Communism is the same as capitalism ,a group who use any form of power ,to promote their elitist lifestyle. "Communism has always been about a small group of people having political and economic power" So communism is the same as capitalism :D ... Marginal rev
"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent. —Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down conpsiracy
Communism is like capitalism except the government owns everyone instead of corporations owning everyone. It is not the solution.
So what do capitalism and communism have in common? They both assumed nature's resources to be infinite and placed value on extracting resources at faster rates distributing them through an ownership-based model.Mar 22, 2017
Not quite. Both are Marxist rubbish.
Capitalism is an imagined system, dreamed up by Marx, but not evident in reality. He only “saw” it because he had defective vision. It did not exist in his day, nor earlier, nor since. It is a myth. It could never exist.
Communism is also a figment of Marxist imagination. He expected it to emerge from the (ultimate) wreckage of “capitalism” - which he assumed would collapse due to its own “contradictions.” His hope was futile - since capitalism was never going to happen, no CONSEQUENCE could follow from “it” - ever.
So the “coin” is Marx’s silly ideas. He had a lot of them. His followers maintain them all, and help them to proliferate yet more. The two sides of a silly idea are the ghostly images of yet sillier ideas.
Now go and make yourself a nice cup of tea, and appreciate that “the world” also includes people who are not Marxists - pace Galbraith.
This is a counter-intuitive statement, however it is worth spending time on it as it has some merit.
Firstly, us humans are operating all our lives with two primitive instincts, hard-coded in our brains: greed and fear. Both instincts can be traced back evolutionary, but this is a separate discussion.
Capitalist system uses and exploits *greed* at its core, in order to drive capital accumulation and profit by almost any possible (legal or not) means. Capital increase and profit generation is the main reason of existence of capitalism. The more people consume and the more indebted they are, the more they work to pay their debts and produce profit. The least they stay idle, meditate about life and think about other things such as family/free time/holiday etc the better it is. Individual wishes and needs are irrelevant, they’re cogs in the system; however some bread and circus are given to them so to happily work until they die. Elon Musk for example is the embodiment of pure capitalism but there are many others in the past that can be mentioned too.
Communist system has *fear* at its core: it has been invented as a system to replace capitalism and all its errors and excesses by force of fear and coercion (revolution). Marxism-Leninism talks about the proletariat dictatorship, where the working class institutes a dictatorship via its Party members, to wipe out capitalism (by force/fear) and replace it with (presumably better) communist institutions. Also re-education (by coercion/fear) is used to create a ‘new human/true communist’ (widely used under Lenin, Stalin and today’s North Korea and China).
Similarly, the more people work, the least they consume and the more they give their time, energy, life and family to the Communism Ideal (global revolution) the better it is. Individual wishes and needs are irrelevant, they’re cogs in the system a system that doesn’t care if they are happy or not, they just need to work until they die.
If we imagine a coin that has *greed* on one side and *fear* on the other side, we can picture why we can also write *capitalism* on one side and *communism* on the other side of it too
Also see here, here and here. Also see this article for more (archived), along with this article for more
Also from here: The blind trust of market forces (which act as “forces” only in and through human beings choosing to act by the open-ended desire for profit, i.e. greedily) is an evil and ineffective way to deal with poverty. But is this not the prototypically capitalist solution to any social problem—to let the market work? It’s odd, then, that the Pope would be called a champion of the free market by virtue of his anti-Communism. In fact, John Paul is anti-communist precisely insofar as communism leads to the same results as capitalism. He critiques the suppression of initiative typical of socialist regimes in just this manner:
It should be noted that in today's world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed…In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only "ordering" and "decision-making" body — if not also the "owner"— of the entire totality of goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost absolute dependence, which is similar to the traditional dependence of the worker-proletarian in capitalism. (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 15)
Communism is bad because it leads to a situation in which persons do not own, order, or decide in regards to the means of production, but remain subservient to a bureaucratic apparatus — just like in capitalism. In fact, the sharpest slap the Pope can think to swing at socialism is to call it “State capitalism”:
In this sense, it is right to speak of a struggle against an economic system, if the latter is understood as a method of upholding the absolute predominance of capital, the possession of the means of production and of the land, in contrast to the free and personal nature of human work. In the struggle against such a system, what is being proposed as an alternative is not the socialist system, which in fact turns out to be State capitalism, but rather a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation. Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied. (Centesimus Annus 35)
Comments
Post a Comment