Hmm, I think thatâs actually definition of communism, although I agree the difference is not clear. Communism is a social and economic system in which all (or nearly all) property is public, not private. That is, resources are shared by everyone. Not to be confused for socialism, which only grants to everyone the ownership of the means of production -- not necessarily all property.
the premise of the thread was to argue that capitalism requires socialism. capitalism produces and allocates; socialism produces nothing but redistributes what has been produced. if there is nothing produced, there is nothing to redistribute. capitalism needs nothing but the rule of law and moral fiber. socialism needs capitalism. the exact reverse of the thread's premise. incidentally, and I touch only briefly on this, "Marxist socialism" is the antithesis of private property. There is no individual, only the collective. It is a bastardization, an ideal, a condtradiction and a diabolical deception at the same time. Ironically, capitalism depends on a "collective," as well: a collective of autonomous, responsible (moral fiber) individuals free to act under the rule of law for the benefit of their individual interests, which adds up to acting in the interest of the group at large by laws of nature (the Invisible Hand). Socialism is a bastardization and distortion of this healthy society. It has been said that Marx viewed socialism as an inevitable transition period during which a free market society is brought, through revolutionary means, into chaos (breakdown of rule of law to facilitate the theft of private property for purposes of redistribution) and spontaneously reorganizes itself into communist utopia. In other words, socialism is an economic and social train wreck in progress. It is nothing to strive for. It is even sadder to endure the train wreck and find that their is no bridge to utopia, because utopia does not exist. Communism is mirage. Pursuit of it leads to hell on earth.
This started as an interesting thread. It is too bad ideological blinkers don't allow for irony, else we'd all be having a good chuckle over some of the comments being made by people driving to state-subsidized jobs over state-provided roads in state-subsidized vehicles fueled by state-subsidised gasoline to transmit words over a state-created network built on state-funded research designed to tie together state-funded institutions and all riding on the back of a state-mandated utility. About the only thing missing are holiday postcards from a state-created park. The most basic aspect of socialism, without which capitalism grinds to a slow crawl, is an agreement on the medium of exchange of value, ie, Money. Money itself is an element of socialism, since its very definition, creation and ownership belongs to the state. History has been quite clear: state ownership of everything is a disaster, as is state ownership of nothing. Capitalism needs socialistic elements just as surely as Socialism needs capitalistic elements.
You guys need to stop thinking in theoretical terms and think in real life historical examples. The whole textbook definition of capitalism as being this free market entrepeneur fair chance ideology is a myth. Capitalism existed before the definition was even thought of. The basics of it were capital, wage labor & production and that's it. Capitalism as we tend to think of, requires socialistic controls because raw capitalism eventually transforms the wage labor into serfs.
Capitalism requires Socialism to function properly just as God requires the Devil. Socialism is a boogeyman that keeps capitalists on the straight and narrow path. You can see the result of the imbalance left by the general death of socialism (USSR collapsing); the US has adopted more socialist ideas in the last 20 years than in the hundred years before. Without socialism as a "signpost of evil", we forget about being Libertarians (true Capitalists) and settle for being Republicans or Democrats (the "masters of your ethics" or "masters of your wallet"). A couple US-based examples off the top of my soggy and bruised melon, probably applicable to most of the world: -- a law to cover every aspect of life; -- tax reform, not tax elimination; -- government expansion -- bureaucracy controlling every life more than ever before; -- "necessary measures" taken against the freedom and privacy of the people; -- no true land ownership (allodial title); -- laws made -- in secret, natch -- to benefit friends of government; -- slow death of miranda rights; -- global imperialism on a historically unparallelled scale; -- fiat currency as opposed to real money; -- central banking to usurp the free market; -- YOUR LIFE STORY HERE Oh! It seems I've got to go; there are some armed men in Black Combat Gear at the front door who would like to talk to me about this post. If I survive and make it back from Guantanamo Bay, I might have to apologize to harrytrader for thinking he was crazy for telling us about Echelon.
I did not read all the posts, so maybe someone already mentioned this. In the communist manifesto, Marx wrote that capitalism was the sole reason for the great modernization and industrialization that was taking place at the time (1850s) in Western Europe (Germany, England). Socialism, he wrote, cannot run through a wooden plow, it needs an industrial setting. Thus, he reasoned, capitalism was absolutely NECESSARY for socialism to form. Thus, socialism <b>required</b> capitalism. I know you are asking the opposite, but maybe this will benefit the discussion in one way or another. Cheers
Homo-capitalistus: Human being driven by his thirst for money and wealth. Can work countless hours and risk what he's got for the hope of getting a little more. Homo-socialistus: Human being driven by the same desire as homo-capitalistus. But he relies on protests and political intervention to acheive his goals. Wouldn't be caught death working to earn his money!
No No No -- to answer a professor's essay and get an A you must first understand the professor and what he wants. Harry asks that we think out of the box. He does not want - definitions - he wants politics, intrigue and conspiracy. So lets review. Capitalists used whatever means necessary to dominate and acquire wealth. Now they know that other capitalists will be clawing at the pot of gold. So in the same wacky way you have soros, gates, and buffett spouting socialist crap, you had, Rockefellers and Duponts and others saying we got our wealth. Now lets find a way to sustain our wealth. Let us put up barriers in the form of taxes to stop other familys from keeping all their wealth. But first we will establish our trusts. Then we will take those taxes that prevent others from getting to our level and redistribute them to provide for our defense and to get the workers fat poor and happy so they do not revolt. The question was a trick -- it should have been "Why do Capitalists need socialism" Answer to stay exclusively rich and powerful.