Capitalism can not eradicate poverty
- Thread starter gore0bsessed
- Start date
Good. Since you can't name a communist country, or any communist entity larger than a village, go with the ad hominem.
It really does show how smart you are.
Artwork Portrays What Our Societies Have Become
It’s not nice, but it’s certainly close to the mark…
Steve Cutts is a London-based illustrator and animator who uses powerful images to criticize the sad state of society. Greed, environmental destruction, junk food and TVconsumption, smartphone addiction and the exploitation of animals are all issues that have inspired his work.
More: Depressing Artwork Portrays What Our Societies Have Become | MyScienceAcademy
It’s not nice, but it’s certainly close to the mark…
Steve Cutts is a London-based illustrator and animator who uses powerful images to criticize the sad state of society. Greed, environmental destruction, junk food and TVconsumption, smartphone addiction and the exploitation of animals are all issues that have inspired his work.
More: Depressing Artwork Portrays What Our Societies Have Become | MyScienceAcademy
Isn't he dead now?
It dosen't, it's totally devoid of substance, intelligence, personality, wit,and it's ugly. Disregard anything it poasts, it is deranged, an escaped victim of radiation experimentation. One of them wanders in every once in a while, it will starve soon enough, not enough wit to eat. Can't be hunted to extinction soon enough.
I would love to get into a real discussion about socialism on this forum but I guess it's just easier to misunderstand and insult each other.
It seems to be generally prevalent in CC.
Anyways, yes, socialism can survive reasonable well, unlike communism. But then socialism is like capitalism or communism in that some people seek power over others. Regular folks tend to be crushed under an autocracy or an oligarchy under socialism or communism.
I wouldn't want to get bogged down in definitions, but common usage of the terms communism and socialism are muddled. I don't want to say that common usage is wrong necessarily, because words get meaning through usage, but I feel like it's better to define communism and socialism as practically synonymous. People who want to argue for social democracy, state capitalism or even things like public roads or welfare, would probably be better off not using the word socialism.
So I don't know how you're using communism and socialism, but it makes little sense to me how one can survive but not the other.
Socialism, State owns the means of production. Communism, citizens own the means of production directly.
Are you the same as Justin Trudeau? State-owned is different than when the citizens own the means directly. It is the difference between controlling forces. When the citizens own the means of production directly, they have the control over it. Citizens have to have faith the State can be trusted when it has control.
That is close to the distinction Lenin made, I guess. It's both a common usage and the opposite of common usage. A lot of people, probably in this thread, would argue that counties labelled communist are true communist countries. But there's no way you could argue that citizens or workers own the means of production in China, North Korea or the Soviet Union. In fact, you could make a better argument that publicly traded companies in capitalist countries fit this definition of communism better.
But if that's the distinction you make, I understand your point. Communism is the more utopian of the two and therefore less attainable if not impossible.
... an autocracy/oligarchy exists currently and is quite typical in capitalism - which is literally the rule of the wealthy.
Stalin, Castro, Kim Jong Un and the ruling class in every so-called communist nation are extraordinarily wealthy, even by capitalist standards.
So, exactly how do you square this circle?
So, exactly how do you square this circle?
I'm not sure what Harpercons deal is but admitting there has never been a communist country is something a lot of communist do, though there are still some who hang on to the USSR or Cuba or China. I'm sure the half-dozen strong membership of Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) getting into fist fights comparing Mao Zedong to Deng Xiaoping.
For starters, even you just called into question the communist credentials for these countries by calling them "so-called" communists. Like I said above, a lot of communists would argue that the USSR, Cuba and North Korea are/were not communist. And again in your statement you described those countries as having a ruling class. A communist country should have no classes. And since that ruling class is extremely wealthy by capitalist standards, you're basically describing them as capitalists. They rule, they have incredibly wealth, they control the state (the means of production). They are state capitalists. Even better, under Western conservative economics that wealth should trickle down. Stalin, Castro and Kim should all be job creators par excellence according to Western economic orthodoxy.
As I've mentioned before, the odd part is that socialism (meaning worker ownership of the means of production) is perfectly feasible in the so-called capitalist countries. Again, co-ops, worker ownership of stock, partnerships. Family businesses and family farms worked by the families. All provided for in the laws of the "capitalist" countries. Practiced, too.
The only thing socialists can't do in the U.S. or Canada is force other people to be socialist.
The only thing socialists can't do in the U.S. or Canada is force other people to be socialist.
The version of communism that you want to portray exists only in theory... Texts books are great and all, l but the only functioning examples of Communist states have all been nothing but total failures on every level, including the theoretical basis.
What you are arguing for is nothing more than a good intention and a fantasy