3 ms·

The difference is this: in communism you always end up with authoritarianism, while in capitalism it happens less and less frequently. For this reason you can a

The difference is this: in communism you always end up with authoritarianism, while in capitalism it happens less and less frequently. For this reason you can associate communism with authoritarianism. The corruption is NOT typical to capitalism, both capitalism and communism have plenty of corruption. As a citizen of a former communist state, I can say that communism has even more corruption in general. I think this is because capitalism doesn't deny that there is corruption and human beings at their innermost are not fair and just, so the capitalist institutions are designed to work around that. Communism on the other hand, assumes there is "a new man", which is fair, works as hard as they can and takes only what they need. But this is false, and never happens, so you need the state to enforce it, but then the people will still be humans and do what humans do: trade goods, services and influence, but under the table.

ajuc 5y ago
What actually happens - you get communism and capitalism and both are equally evil when applied 100%. But you can get make them less concentrated, add less or more regulation and get to some sane compromies. You end up with some kind of social welfare state with mostly free market economy. At that point it doesn't matter where you started off, it's just branding.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  > equally evil That is a very hard to defend statement...mass deportations, famine, misery and all the other staples of communism are not nearly as bad in capitalism. And if capitalist countries do this to each other, it's not capitalism per se to blame, it's other aspects of politics (imperialism, colonialism, Neo-colonialism etc.) that can be separated from capitalism. Whereas communism on its own cannot separate from its worse tenets. Being that they're not equally evil, IMO the middle ground is better to be closer to capitalism rather than in the middle. I personally believe in UBI, but I consider myself a liberal right winger. I believe UBI is good because it makes the bureaucracy and the government mostly obsolete except for the places it really matters: infrastructure, military, education etc. The UBI will be more transparent and automatic, people will know they live off other people's money, not "the government". And the government cannot keep robbing Paul to pay Peter with each and every bill. This should over time reduce the amount we spend on social programs, which is in line with what I believe as a liberal that wants less taxes.
  - ajuc 5y ago
    Well, if you attribute soviet and chinese atrocities to communism you should also attribute colonial empires atrocities to capitalism. And then it's basically arguing about the estimates. > And if capitalist countries do this to each other, it's not capitalism per se to blame, it's other aspects of politics (imperialism, colonialism, Neo-colonialism etc.) that can be separated from capitalism That's just the branding decision I was speaking of. You chose to brand the sane modern version of capitalism - still capitalism, but sane modern version of communism - socialism. That way you get the conclusion you want cause of your political beliefs. I don't really care for branding, but lets be honest - it's not some universal truth, it's just a consequence of your decision of assigning labels to political systems in a particular way. BTW famines were pretty common before Haber-Bosch process. Usually caused by natural causes + mismanagement. Sometimes also by bad intentions. None of these are political-system-specific. See the famine in Ireland for capitalist example. > This should over time reduce the amount we spend on social programs, which is in line with what I believe as a liberal that wants less taxes. As I see it in future most of the productivity will be concentrated in top 1% of people assisted by global empires of AI and automation and protected by IP laws [1]. And the rest of us will pay almost no taxes because we will provide almost no value so there's nothing to tax. If the rich fear the revolution and state control enough to pay for everybody else - we get post-scarcity. If not - we get a dystopia. Possibly both in different places or for different groups of people. As for the mechanism - I don't really care. Make it UBI or make it 95% employement with most people doing useless jobs for 8 hours a day. End result is the same. [1] thought experiment - in a world with self-improving general AI and IP laws but with no political mechanism to force someone to give up his IP to others - how do you prevent a world-wide monopoly
    - flavius29663 5y ago
      > That's just the branding decision I was speaking of. You chose to brand the sane modern version of capitalism - still capitalism, but sane modern version of communism - socialism. That is not just branding. Communism had these tenets whenever it was tried. The only logical conclusion is that it's inevitable to get there. Capitalism had it's bad years, but now it's pretty good, it lifted billions out of poverty. Communism still did intentional famines well into the 1940s, after WWII. Pol Pot was even later. By then, capitalist countries are much more tame and humane. Blaming intentional famines on the lack of fertilizers is just arguing without good faith. It's much more because of 1. lack of regard for human life and 2. central decisions like exporting food in a drought. These 2 traits are so common in communism that I believe they're inseparable.

ajuc 5y ago

What actually happens - you get communism and capitalism and both are equally evil when applied 100%. But you can get make them less concentrated, add less or more regulation and get to some sane compromies. You end up with some kind of social welfare state with mostly free market economy. At that point it doesn't matter where you started off, it's just branding.

flavius29663 5y ago
> equally evil That is a very hard to defend statement...mass deportations, famine, misery and all the other staples of communism are not nearly as bad in capitalism. And if capitalist countries do this to each other, it's not capitalism per se to blame, it's other aspects of politics (imperialism, colonialism, Neo-colonialism etc.) that can be separated from capitalism. Whereas communism on its own cannot separate from its worse tenets. Being that they're not equally evil, IMO the middle ground is better to be closer to capitalism rather than in the middle. I personally believe in UBI, but I consider myself a liberal right winger. I believe UBI is good because it makes the bureaucracy and the government mostly obsolete except for the places it really matters: infrastructure, military, education etc. The UBI will be more transparent and automatic, people will know they live off other people's money, not "the government". And the government cannot keep robbing Paul to pay Peter with each and every bill. This should over time reduce the amount we spend on social programs, which is in line with what I believe as a liberal that wants less taxes.
- ajuc 5y ago
  Well, if you attribute soviet and chinese atrocities to communism you should also attribute colonial empires atrocities to capitalism. And then it's basically arguing about the estimates. > And if capitalist countries do this to each other, it's not capitalism per se to blame, it's other aspects of politics (imperialism, colonialism, Neo-colonialism etc.) that can be separated from capitalism That's just the branding decision I was speaking of. You chose to brand the sane modern version of capitalism - still capitalism, but sane modern version of communism - socialism. That way you get the conclusion you want cause of your political beliefs. I don't really care for branding, but lets be honest - it's not some universal truth, it's just a consequence of your decision of assigning labels to political systems in a particular way. BTW famines were pretty common before Haber-Bosch process. Usually caused by natural causes + mismanagement. Sometimes also by bad intentions. None of these are political-system-specific. See the famine in Ireland for capitalist example. > This should over time reduce the amount we spend on social programs, which is in line with what I believe as a liberal that wants less taxes. As I see it in future most of the productivity will be concentrated in top 1% of people assisted by global empires of AI and automation and protected by IP laws [1]. And the rest of us will pay almost no taxes because we will provide almost no value so there's nothing to tax. If the rich fear the revolution and state control enough to pay for everybody else - we get post-scarcity. If not - we get a dystopia. Possibly both in different places or for different groups of people. As for the mechanism - I don't really care. Make it UBI or make it 95% employement with most people doing useless jobs for 8 hours a day. End result is the same. [1] thought experiment - in a world with self-improving general AI and IP laws but with no political mechanism to force someone to give up his IP to others - how do you prevent a world-wide monopoly
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    > That's just the branding decision I was speaking of. You chose to brand the sane modern version of capitalism - still capitalism, but sane modern version of communism - socialism. That is not just branding. Communism had these tenets whenever it was tried. The only logical conclusion is that it's inevitable to get there. Capitalism had it's bad years, but now it's pretty good, it lifted billions out of poverty. Communism still did intentional famines well into the 1940s, after WWII. Pol Pot was even later. By then, capitalist countries are much more tame and humane. Blaming intentional famines on the lack of fertilizers is just arguing without good faith. It's much more because of 1. lack of regard for human life and 2. central decisions like exporting food in a drought. These 2 traits are so common in communism that I believe they're inseparable.