3 ms·

"In contrast in a capitalist system the capitalists can prosper from the communists desire not to exploit their fellow men" Why do you give Intellectual or per

"In contrast in a capitalist system the capitalists can prosper from the communists desire not to exploit their fellow men" Why do you give Intellectual or personal superiority to communist? Part of my family comes from a former communist country. The were slaves of a communist elite that of course wanted to exploit fellow men on a level that a person living on a Western society could not understand(like rapist and murderers controlling the police). Some of them(people at the party) could barely read and write, let alone sum and substract. Chosen incompetents because they served the party better. Thinking on your own was a bad habit there. Personal charity does not make you communist or contrary to capitalism. Communist forces OTHERS to work for free for the community(and specially for those who control the community).

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
As the quote says ~"in capitalism man exploits man, in communism it's the other way around" (credited to JK Galbraith). The premise of the thread is that there has never been a truly Marxist state; personally I've not seen any evidence for a truly communist one either (but admit my knowledge is relatively weak). Most states called communist appear to be communist dictatorships and this is where this aphorism fits rather well. >Why do you give Intellectual or personal superiority to communist? // Probably the same reason you consider it to be superiority I'm claiming!? State capitalism and so-called Communist Dictatorships are not in the least communist (in the sense reviewed here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society). >Communist forces OTHERS to work for free // That's dictatorship. It was a corollary to the point I was making. Unless everyone is committed to the communist ideal it seems it _cannot_ work - one rogue element (who wishes to have more power) will break the classless society. Whilst on the contrary in capitalism rogue elements that stand against, for example, exploitation of workers - choosing to see them as people rather than merely a means to profit - helps to calm the revolts that would otherwise inevitably come to the fore. It's like being a violent person amongst extreme pacifists - the violence will win easily. In the converse situation the pacifist merely helps to extend the reign of violence. Communism requires the consideration that all men deserve to be treated as though they are equal in worth. Capitalism, in full, requires that people be treated as a commodity to be exploited. Capitalism has morals purposefully ignored; communism has them as a central axiom. Sure you can casts capitalistic versions of a state in which selling people and exploitative wage setting is outlawed ("Western Capitalism" tends towards this though both negative aspects exist within it of course), for example, but you're moving away from pure capitalism then by allowing workers "ownership" of their own time and resources.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago

As the quote says ~"in capitalism man exploits man, in communism it's the other way around" (credited to JK Galbraith). The premise of the thread is that there has never been a truly Marxist state; personally I've not seen any evidence for a truly communist one either (but admit my knowledge is relatively weak). Most states called communist appear to be communist dictatorships and this is where this aphorism fits rather well. >Why do you give Intellectual or personal superiority to communist? // Probably the same reason you consider it to be superiority I'm claiming!? State capitalism and so-called Communist Dictatorships are not in the least communist (in the sense reviewed here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society). >Communist forces OTHERS to work for free // That's dictatorship. It was a corollary to the point I was making. Unless everyone is committed to the communist ideal it seems it _cannot_ work - one rogue element (who wishes to have more power) will break the classless society. Whilst on the contrary in capitalism rogue elements that stand against, for example, exploitation of workers - choosing to see them as people rather than merely a means to profit - helps to calm the revolts that would otherwise inevitably come to the fore. It's like being a violent person amongst extreme pacifists - the violence will win easily. In the converse situation the pacifist merely helps to extend the reign of violence. Communism requires the consideration that all men deserve to be treated as though they are equal in worth. Capitalism, in full, requires that people be treated as a commodity to be exploited. Capitalism has morals purposefully ignored; communism has them as a central axiom. Sure you can casts capitalistic versions of a state in which selling people and exploitative wage setting is outlawed ("Western Capitalism" tends towards this though both negative aspects exist within it of course), for example, but you're moving away from pure capitalism then by allowing workers "ownership" of their own time and resources.