Can Capitalism and Communism be combined?

[dawnmathieson]

Over population does not require communism, just specifically communism in China was necessary due to over population. By over population I mean people per resources. Resources include land but not restricted to. I went into some of the reasons why on my post on page 1 which are economic and related to unemployment and civil war. It boils down to the need to keep China fed and happy by keeping them employed. If China was free market capitalist you would end up with China being the richest country in the world by several times every other country, but also with the most unemployed by far. This would create huge differences in income between classes. It is fair to estimate that this would soon cause another civil war (history does love to repeat). China is not true communism of any kind but more a form of socialism that regards employment as key to happiness. In fact I do not see how China has any bearings on the idealisms of communism at all. Unlike Lenin who studied communism in Germany, Mao Zedong used a severely adapted version that I continue to argue is not the same thing at all x

[Wootah]

Over population does not require communism, just specifically communism in China was necessary due to over population. By over population I mean people per resources. Resources include land but not restricted to. I went into some of the reasons why on my post on page 1 which are economic and related to unemployment and civil war. It boils down to the need to keep China fed and happy by keeping them employed. If China was free market capitalist you would end up with China being the richest country in the world by several times every other country, but also with the most unemployed by far. This would create huge differences in income between classes. It is fair to estimate that this would soon cause another civil war (history does love to repeat). China is not true communism of any kind but more a form of socialism that regards employment as key to happiness. In fact I do not see how China has any bearings on the idealisms of communism at all. Unlike Lenin who studied communism in Germany, Mao Zedong used a severely adapted version that I continue to argue is not the same thing at all x

Lol. Justify evil how you wish but at the end of the day that's all you do. Perhaps we all need to be managed to save the planet now?
Oh hey, what ....

Explain then why the Arab nations are rebelling against the love of their dictators?

[dawnmathieson]

Lol. Justify evil how you wish but at the end of the day that's all you do. Perhaps we all need to be managed to save the planet now?
Oh hey, what ....

Explain then why the Arab nations are rebelling against the love of their dictators?

What me specifically? lol yeah humans are pretty fucked. Same reason as always because some people are poor and starving while some are incredibly rich. Current politics only usually relates to economics and unfortunately not to ideals or morals x

[chaz wyman]

Over population does not require communism, just specifically communism in China was necessary due to over population. By over population I mean people per resources. Resources include land but not restricted to. I went into some of the reasons why on my post on page 1 which are economic and related to unemployment and civil war. It boils down to the need to keep China fed and happy by keeping them employed. If China was free market capitalist you would end up with China being the richest country in the world by several times every other country, but also with the most unemployed by far. This would create huge differences in income between classes. It is fair to estimate that this would soon cause another civil war (history does love to repeat). China is not true communism of any kind but more a form of socialism that regards employment as key to happiness. In fact I do not see how China has any bearings on the idealisms of communism at all. Unlike Lenin who studied communism in Germany, Mao Zedong used a severely adapted version that I continue to argue is not the same thing at all x

Lol. Justify evil how you wish but at the end of the day that's all you do. Perhaps we all need to be managed to save the planet now?
Oh hey, what ....

Explain then why the Arab nations are rebelling against the love of their dictators?

Actually Dawn was right to point this out. China, before the revolution, faced regular famine, disease and death. This was due to the massive exploitation by the ruling class which controlled all land and seized the harvests to sell abroad for luxuries whilst the poor were worked to death - why do you think there was a revolution in the first place? Pre-communist China was evil.
Revolutions don't always go to plan, and the adage power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely was the case during the cultural revolution of Mao. But for sure the standard of living of the average Chinese citizen under communism was far better than before the revolution.; the lesser of two evils.
Right now they have embarked on a massive experiment that is very likely to be unsustainable.

[spike]

There is some blending of capitalism and communism. But I don't think we will ever see the common ownership of labor and property that communist and Marxists believe in.

Nevertheless, under capitalism there is the sense of community that communism hoped for. Most capitalist practicing countries have universal health care, pensions and shared utilities, like electricity, security and transportation. Ironically, most capitalist countries have better social security systems than ex-communist countries now have.

We will never again see a true communist economic system. It was a closed system that bred corruption, contempt and inefficiency. Communist economic policy bred stagnation because it stifled creativity at the bottom. In politics communism also bred corruption, and mismanagement because it remained closed and entrenched in its own ways. Because of its narrow ideology and centralized power structure communism never sparked the 'creative tension' that was essential for sustainability, both in economics and politics.

Ex-communist countries still suffer from crippling corruption because old ways die hard. It is acknowledged that this corruption poses a big threat to the free market principles in which these countries have pinned their hopes on for having more productive and healthier societies.

[Arising_uk]

Actually Dawn was right to point this out. China, before the revolution, faced regular famine, disease and death. This was due to the massive exploitation by the ruling class which controlled all land and seized the harvests to sell abroad for luxuries whilst the poor were worked to death - why do you think there was a revolution in the first place? Pre-communist China was evil. ...

Hmm... not knocking the idea that Mao was the first to actually feed all the people but we do only have Mao's and his followers word about this?

[Arising_uk]

... Unlike Lenin who studied communism in Germany, Mao Zedong used a severely adapted version that I continue to argue is not the same thing at all x[/b]

Hmm.. but both decided to ignore his historical materialism with respect to the development of Socialism from Capitalism? Both appeared to take the same pragmatic approach to Marx's analysis of the base and superstructure and just decided to skip the proles and bourgeois class war by just killing all the bourgeois.

[chaz wyman]

Actually Dawn was right to point this out. China, before the revolution, faced regular famine, disease and death. This was due to the massive exploitation by the ruling class which controlled all land and seized the harvests to sell abroad for luxuries whilst the poor were worked to death - why do you think there was a revolution in the first place? Pre-communist China was evil. ...

Hmm... not knocking the idea that Mao was the first to actually feed all the people but we do only have Mao's and his followers word about this?

Are you asking me, or telling me?

[chaz wyman]

There is some blending of capitalism and communism. But I don't think we will ever see the common ownership of labor and property that communist and Marxists believe in.

You still have not clued yourself up about these concepts. Marxism assumes capitalism. Where Communism was practiced it never put the means of production on the hands of the workers but used the model of capitalism to instil a state corporate capitalism.
You are still confusing what is a good system; democracy and social justice with capitalism.
Capitalism without socialism is Libya; Brazil; Syria.
State Capitalism is Stalinist Russia.

Captitalism with socialism is the US, UK and Europe. If you prefer to call socialism a dirty word then you can say 'social democracy.'

But one thing is for sure capitalism is an evil that needs to be controlled for the benefit of the people, and this has been shown to be social democracy.

I'm guessing you are an American.



Nevertheless, under capitalism there is the sense of community that communism hoped for. Most capitalist practicing countries have universal health care, pensions and shared utilities, like electricity, security and transportation. Ironically, most capitalist countries have better social security systems than ex-communist countries now have.

We will never again see a true communist economic system. It was a closed system that bred corruption, contempt and inefficiency. Communist economic policy bred stagnation because it stifled creativity at the bottom. In politics communism also bred corruption, and mismanagement because it remained closed and entrenched in its own ways. Because of its narrow ideology and centralized power structure communism never sparked the 'creative tension' that was essential for sustainability, both in economics and politics.

Ex-communist countries still suffer from crippling corruption because old ways die hard. It is acknowledged that this corruption poses a big threat to the free market principles in which these countries have pinned their hopes on for having more productive and healthier societies.

[Arising_uk]

... Are you asking me, or telling me?

Asking. Do you think Mao had no famines?

[Arising_uk]

There is some blending of capitalism and communism. But I don't think we will ever see the common ownership of labor and property that communist and Marxists believe in.

Nevertheless, under capitalism there is the sense of community that communism hoped for. Most capitalist practicing countries have universal health care, pensions and shared utilities, like electricity, security and transportation. Ironically, most capitalist countries have better social security systems than ex-communist countries now have.

We will never again see a true communist economic system. It was a closed system that bred corruption, contempt and inefficiency. Communist economic policy bred stagnation because it stifled creativity at the bottom. In politics communism also bred corruption, and mismanagement because it remained closed and entrenched in its own ways. Because of its narrow ideology and centralized power structure communism never sparked the 'creative tension' that was essential for sustainability, both in economics and politics.

Ex-communist countries still suffer from crippling corruption because old ways die hard. It is acknowledged that this corruption poses a big threat to the free market principles in which these countries have pinned their hopes on for having more productive and healthier societies.

We might if science effectively solves the problem of 'scarce' resources.
p.s.
We've never actually seen a true communist system yet, although the Mondragón experience hints at what may be possible.

[chaz wyman]

... Are you asking me, or telling me?

Asking. Do you think Mao had no famines?

no. I think his re-organisation probably caused many - but it got sorted by the end of his regime. - by and large.
I dont think anyone knows how many died.
But who to trust with the numbers i?

[dawnmathieson]

I think Bill just wanted to flame on China and I can understand that. China is an emotional issue for us all and I too am upset by moral injustice all over the world. I merely sought to explain that the problems were much more complicated than the supposed 'Communist' government.

What I am interested in is methods of taxation. In a capitalist society taxation happens through money. Citizens pay a proportion of their wages in order for society to sustain. In a communist society taxation happens through labour. Citizens work in order for society to sustain. I am trying to imagine a society governed by both of these principles. If all citizens worked 2 or 3 days a week in a communal role in order to meet basic needs this would be taxation through labour. If done properly all basic needs would then be free including basic food, education, health, housing, electricity, telecommunications, sanitation (Basic needs are hard to classify). Then citizens would have the remaining days to operate in free market capitalism in the production of luxury products for profit. All free market capitalism in this society would have little tax, only taxation to make up the shortfall in highly qualified but essential jobs such as doctors and lawyers. This would be a society that used both the extremes of communism and capitalism as all basic needs would be met while free market trading would have low tax. I would like to explore this fictional set up used in a modern setting. At first I am exploring any fundamental problems that would arise , amending, and then I will explore more complex issues like foreign trading x

[spike]

We might if science effectively solves the problem of 'scarce' resources.

I am not sure how this relates to what I last wrote.

Nevertheless, without capitalism science cannot be expected to solve the problem of scarce resources. From capitalism and the free market science acquires the financing to do research and then the manufacturing and distribution of what it invents. For one, where would the Internet be if capitalism hadn't been there to finance its scientific research and development.

Science is a democratic institution. Science, in order to do its job, has to be free to exchange ideas within its discipline. Under communism scientists were not free to exchange and discuss ideas openly. Thus science under communism was not able to do its duty of discovering alternative resources and ways to better life. This is another reason why communism collapsed, simply because it restricted science from doing its job of advancing and modernizing society.

[chaz wyman]

We might if science effectively solves the problem of 'scarce' resources.

I am not sure how this relates to what I last wrote.

Nevertheless, without capitalism science cannot be expected to solve the problem of scarce resources. From capitalism and the free market science acquires the financing to do research and then the manufacturing and distribution of what it invents. For one, where would the Internet be if capitalism hadn't been there to finance its scientific research and development.

Science is a democratic institution. Science, in order to do its job, has to be free to exchange ideas within its discipline. Under communism scientists were not free to exchange and discuss ideas openly. Thus science under communism was not able to do its duty of discovering alternative resources and ways to better life. This is another reason why communism collapsed, simply because it restricted science from doing its job of advancing and modernizing society.

I head some weird stuff on this forum but 'science is democratic' is banal beyond imagination.
What are they teaching you at school these days?
Did they tell you that the US won the Vietnam war?
How about Reagan tore down the Berlin wall- I bet that's a good one.