Communism also has capitalism

[KingScorpio]

https://jadesaab.com/capitalism-through-marx-3654bca578f3

china central bankers have become its defacto nobility capitalism will always exists, it just changes its forms

[1714159353]

1714159353

[1714159353]

1714159353

[1714159353]

1714159353

[1714159353]

1714159353

[1714159353]

1714159353

[TECSHARE]

Communism requires Capitalism to exist, but not vice versa.

[BitBustah]

Communism requires Capitalism to exist, but not vice versa.

Doesn't Capitalism need police, military, contracts upheld, public infrastructure for the system to work?  Or would you rather have a completely free market where people can kill each other and take anything they want.  Hey its the free market if you can't secure your stuff its mine.

[KingScorpio]

Communism requires Capitalism to exist, but not vice versa.

capitalism needs communism, to be humane, you have no idea how capitalism was before it was challenged by communism.

[KingScorpio]

Communism requires Capitalism to exist, but not vice versa.

Doesn't Capitalism need police, military, contracts upheld, public infrastructure for the system to work?  Or would you rather have a completely free market where people can kill each other and take anything they want.  Hey its the free market if you can't secure your stuff its mine.

he is gay and wants a big mighty emperor or ceasar, to rule over him and use him as money earning cattle.

[TECSHARE]

Communism requires Capitalism to exist, but not vice versa.

Doesn't Capitalism need police, military, contracts upheld, public infrastructure for the system to work?  Or would you rather have a completely free market where people can kill each other and take anything they want.  Hey its the free market if you can't secure your stuff its mine.

he is gay and wants a big mighty emperor or ceasar, to rule over him and use him as money earning cattle.

Man you Commies never cease being entertaining. All public services do not fall under the metric of Communism, sorry. That is just not how it works. How sad it is I know more about Communism that its advocates? Interesting theory "KingScorpio", since you are constantly crowing about how great China is with its dictator for life.

[mOgliE]

Communism requires Capitalism to exist, but not vice versa.

Says the asshole again and again without ever proving his assertion because... Well... He could but... Yeah he doesn't want to.

[KingScorpio]

Communism requires Capitalism to exist, but not vice versa.

Doesn't Capitalism need police, military, contracts upheld, public infrastructure for the system to work?  Or would you rather have a completely free market where people can kill each other and take anything they want.  Hey its the free market if you can't secure your stuff its mine.

he is gay and wants a big mighty emperor or ceasar, to rule over him and use him as money earning cattle.

Man you Commies never cease being entertaining. All public services do not fall under the metric of Communism, sorry. That is just not how it works. How sad it is I know more about Communism that its advocates? Interesting theory "KingScorpio", since you are constantly crowing about how great China is with its dictator for life.

west is also a dictatorship, what do you think the central banks are?

[tracymik]

There is nothing like absolute communism or capitalism. In societies where Communism is practised there is also some form of capitalism and where capitalism is practised there is also some form of Communism. The main point here is that one system is practised mostly at the expense of the  other.

[BADecker]

Man you Commies never cease being entertaining. All public services do not fall under the metric of Communism, sorry. That is just not how it works. How sad it is I know more about Communism that its advocates? Interesting theory "KingScorpio", since you are constantly crowing about how great China is with its dictator for life.

west is also a dictatorship, what do you think the central banks are?

The difference being that in the US, Britain, Canada, Belize, Australia, and a few others, if the people press the issue, they can trade in private with any kind of currency they want. That's why the banks and the IRS are having so much trouble even thinking about controlling Bitcoin.

The good thing about this is, governments of other countries have to give their people similar freedom, or the people will look at the free countries, envy them, and rise up and replace their own governments.

The West is a dictatorship only in the way that the people don't realize how much freedom they could EASILY exercise if they wanted to.

[TECSHARE]

Communism requires Capitalism to exist, but not vice versa.

Says the asshole again and again without ever proving his assertion because... Well... He could but... Yeah he doesn't want to.

Well, if it isn't the Angry Frenchineer. I have already proved this to you several times, but you don't argue from a position of logic but a position of Pathos so my arguments fall on deaf ears. Marx himself admits Capitalism is a requirement for Communism to exist in his own writings:

"Marx divides the communist future into halves, a first stage generally referred to as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and a second stage usually called "full communism." The historical boundaries of the first stage are set in the claim that: "Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."6

The overall character of this period is supplied by Marx's statement that "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society: which is thus in every respect still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."7 This first stage is the necessary gestation period for full communism: is it as time when the people who have destroyed capitalism are engaged in the task of total reconstruction. As a way of life and organization it has traits in common with both capitalism and full communism and Marx never indicates how long this may take—the first stage gives way gradually almost imperceptibly to the second."

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/vision_of_communism.php#7


Of course, you barely know anything about your own ideology, so you wouldn't know this. All you know is Communism makes you feel good in your tum tum.

[mOgliE]

I have already proved this to you several times, but you don't argue from a position of logic but a position of Pathos so my arguments fall on deaf ears.

Nope.

Every time you say the same thing without proving your point.

Marx merely says that communism will always emerge from capitalism because all countries are capitalist from the begining.

You're, again, incapable of making a simple distinction between necessity and impossibility.

I'll try to use small words so you can understand:

Communism not exist before 19th century.
Every country before 19th is capitalist.
Impossible to create a new country from nothing because there is no new land to create a country on.
Thus, only possibility is to implement communism on existing country.
Thus, communism can only emerge in a capitalist country.

Not because it NEEDS capitalism, but only because it has no other choice.

See the difference?

[Cnut237]

I don't think either Capitalism or Communism are viable long-term.

Capitalism relies on ever increasing efficiency and ever expanding markets. It is more a process than an end-state. It can't continue forever. I dislike the excesses of modern capitalism, and find it morally abhorrent on many levels - the move towards ever-increasing inequality, setting accumulation of money as the highest moral good, destroying the environment, causing wars, etc etc ... but capitalism has proven to be the best mechanism so far for advancing tech (in peace-time...). And whilst it has caused wars, I think the main reason that developed countries no longer go to war with each other is that the ever-advancing tendrils of capitalism mean that the successes and failures of the big economies are all now intertwined.

Communism whilst good in theory has failed in practice largely partly it is even more prone to corruption than is capitalism. Even if some measures could be devised and put in place to prevent against this, Communism is not viable because it is based on the collective power of the workers. But workers in general are on the way out as tech advances in every sector and automation starts to take over most jobs. throughout history we have needed workers, but that is gradually coming to an end as computers, robots and AI take over.

I'm not suggesting I have the answer as to what is the best system to use, I'm just suggesting that the old debate of Capitalism vs Communism is losing relevance, as neither can be an end-state.

[KingScorpio]

I don't think either Capitalism or Communism are viable long-term.

Capitalism relies on ever increasing efficiency and ever expanding markets. It is more a process than an end-state. It can't continue forever. I dislike the excesses of modern capitalism, and find it morally abhorrent on many levels - the move towards ever-increasing inequality, setting accumulation of money as the highest moral good, destroying the environment, causing wars, etc etc ... but capitalism has proven to be the best mechanism so far for advancing tech (in peace-time...). And whilst it has caused wars, I think the main reason that developed countries no longer go to war with each other is that the ever-advancing tendrils of capitalism mean that the successes and failures of the big economies are all now intertwined.

Communism whilst good in theory has failed in practice largely partly it is even more prone to corruption than is capitalism. Even if some measures could be devised and put in place to prevent against this, Communism is not viable because it is based on the collective power of the workers. But workers in general are on the way out as tech advances in every sector and automation starts to take over most jobs. throughout history we have needed workers, but that is gradually coming to an end as computers, robots and AI take over.

I'm not suggesting I have the answer as to what is the best system to use, I'm just suggesting that the old debate of Capitalism vs Communism is losing relevance, as neither can be an end-state.

you don't get the point in communism there is also capitalism

if you research old sovietunion you will realise that there were empires in it, in form of contstruction offices and enterprises, (antonov, tupulev, mikojan etc.)

these people weren't called King, Ceasar, or Lord, they were called CEO, and in most cases Director. it is still the case for china, you could also put all chinese managing directors into a house of lords like in uk

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonow

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Andrejewitsch_Tupolew

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikojan-Gurewitsch

regards

[Naida_BR]

https://jadesaab.com/capitalism-through-marx-3654bca578f3

china central bankers have become its defacto nobility capitalism will always exists, it just changes its forms

It is not true to judge the communism of China with capitalism.
China is a different situation and it is a very peculiar one.
No communist country has faced economic growth like the one that China has. So you should better give another example for your statement.