Capitalism vs Collectivism- whats the real debate?

Capitalism is just the individual ownership/control of (some) resource.

Collectivism (communism and socialism) is just the communal control of (some) resource.

I added 'some' to both definitions because the vast majority of us believe that both are important- we should each have our own clothing that we can use without a comitee meeting, and we should *not* have our own nukes that we can use without a comitee meeting.

Given that we (almost) all can agree that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness requires a degree of both capitalism and collectivism, and we're all just arguing over how much of each is best, its likely that we are labelling eachother inaccurately and this is the cause of much of the 'impasse' that occurrs in such debates.

In the interest of increasing the efficiency of communication... can you describe where you think the differences between 'capitalists' and 'communists' and 'socialists' and etc actually are?

 

Let me help you with this. Capitalism is an economic system of private ownership of the "means of production" for private profit.
Socialism is an economic system of worker-ownership and worker-control of "the means of production".
Communism is a social structure characterized by no classes (working class and capitalist class), no class struggle therefore, and a "withered" state government as remains necessary for carrying out clerical duties of records and such.

I'm a socialist. I agree that we should each have our own clothing and much more. This is "personal property" and shall remain as such.
The issue you raise of nukes is absurd. Do you really think the majority disagrees with you on this??

No, it's not about how much capitalism to allow and how much "socialist-type programs" are needed or acceptable. It's about recognizing the damage being done by capitalism's private ownership of the means of production and its resulting private profit, and how to end the damage.

Sure.
Capitalism: private ownership of the means of production for private profit.
Socialism: (has never existed as the economy of any country yet) worker ownership and control of the means of production. Profit is not primary.
Communism: (has never existed anywhere at any time) A theoretical social structure that naturally evolves under socialism when class divisions no longer exist because the capitalist has given up due to hopelessness, and the state machine has "withered away".

 

Those are not the official definitions. Whats more, the 'means' of production are quite subjective. Clothing is a 'means' to production in most industries.

If you're advocating that the official definitions be changed to reflect their common use- I could agree with that (if we can agree on what their common use is). But for now, in the interest of effective communication, we ought be using the terms as they're officially defined, or we're all effectively speaking different languages.

 

They are absolutely "official". They are not capitalists' definitions; they are true and correct ones. Who should be recognized as the authority on what socialism and communism are besides Marx? And regarding capitalism, look up a variety of dictionary definitions.

CAPITALISM:
Merriam-Webster: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"

Oxford: "An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
(the words "rather than by the state" are a reflection of standard US propaganda. The notion that state-owned businesses indicates "socialism" has been well-refuted.)

The Business Dictionary: "Economic system based (to a varying degree) on private ownership of the factors of production (capital, land, and labor) employed in generation of profits." (should say PRIVATE profits.)

Then provide your source and its definitions. WARNING: a capitalist, corporate dictionary or encyclopedia can be guaranteed to provide the standard US propaganda "definitions" that are assumed to be true. But they were not the source of the ideas and definitions of socialism and communism. Any time those systems are mentioned, the right always characterizes them (correctly) as "Marxist". So for them, use Marx as your source of definitions since that is what we're talking about.

 

don't kid yourself, without conservatives govt grows without end. Its was bigger than ever when Barry took over and still all Barry wanted was more govt. He got it and now Sanders, an open communist, wants still far bigger govt. Ever hear a liberal tell you how big is big?


Thomas Jefferson:
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

 

Under this source, in communism, the workers own the means of production, while under socialism, the government does.`

If not, what would you call a system where the government owns the means of production?

 

You already provided the sources backing my (the 'official') def of capitalism.

Its true, changing the defs of words is one form of propaganda used by the social controllers.

The version of capitalism you're talking about is currently called Corporatism. The majority of capitalism's proponents are NOT proponents of corporatism. We (by and large) understand the difference, at least at a base level. The Corporation is a manufacture of a corrupt legal system that allows private firms to avoid accountability by scapegoating a fake person (the corporation) when rules/laws are broken.

In the same way that there has never been a truly communist society on a large scale because the centralized power always turns corrupt rather quickly, we have not seen a truly large scale capitalist society (sans the corporation) for the same reason- the rich/powerful manipulate the law to legalize corruption.

What we have now, worldwide, is the most dangerous merger between corporatism and socialism. The corporations 'buy' the government, and then legislate more power to the government that they effectively control. As much as we need to end the practice of the corporation, we need to decentralize the regulatory power of government and return more control of resource to the people. The only way this can be done is to return it to the individual. Attempts to give power to the people collectively allows for an obfuscation of accountability very similar to that of corporatism. In short, both the subjective identity of the corporation AND the hulking bureacracy of socialism make it too easy for the controlling elite to hide corruption.

 

I would call it tyranny. Both corporatism and socialism are designed to the same end- for the controlling elite to monopolize power and eventually control the most important resource- humans.

 

yes good point. Obamacare is one part corporatism and one part socialism but liberals love it because the concept is too complex for them!!

 

impossible since there are millions of corporations that compete with each other. You've made this mistake before.
The solution to corporatism is Republican capitalism. What is your best example of corporations buying govt??

 

Well then your source is wrong. It is based on old propaganda.

State capitalism of course, like Russia and China.

 

The "version of capitalism I was talking about" was what two leading dictionaries said it is. And both referred to "private" business owners. That isn't "corporatism" is it?

WHOA WAIT HOLD IT....
That is a completely and utterly false formulation that follows your "because". Communism would have no "centralized power" or it isn't communism BY DEFINITION. Do you know what communism is? It doesn't seem so. You seem to think "communism" is what US propaganda called "communism" during the Cold War and ever since.

Baloney. You get private ownership of business for private profits, or you get worker ownership without profits being primary at all. The first is capitalism. We have it and we had it since the 1800s.

More BS propaganda. The two cannot be merged because they are fundamentally contradictory. You cannot have a business that is privately owned while it is owned by the workers, and you can't have a business providing private profits that are owned collectively by the workers. Wake up.

 

Corporations can avoid competition via interlocking directorate- a (completely legal) system where they cooperate covertly by 'sharing' members of boards of direcrors across multiple corporations and cooperate in 'divide and conquer,' consolidation and price fixing schemes.

Examples of corporations 'buying' govt- The Rothschilds feigned a stock market crash in England following the defeat of Napolean (of which they had sole knowledge of at the time) and ended up owning enough 'royal' stocks and bonds to have considerable influence over brittish policy. Corporations in 'The West' (Ford, Rockerfeller, Morgan, etc) in cooperation with german interests funded the revolution in Russia during WW1 by sending Lennin and a train full of gold to Moscow. Many of these same entities funded the Nazis to power before (and during!) WW2. Since WW2, the Military Industrial Complex (consisting primarily of corporations that work in unison with govt) has been manipulating US (and most world powers) global foreign policy toward destabilization in the developing world. I doubt I need to further familiarize you with this particular dynamic...

 

I got it from here: https://www.investopedia.com/video/play/difference-between-communism-and-socialism/

I've been around these arguments enough to realize they often devolve into labeling or definition arguments.

If you want to define the economic systems of the USSR and Red China as "capitalism" then sure, I'll agree capitalism is not a successful economic system, based only on that definition.

 

That's just re-tread RW propaganda. Spending, relative to GDP declined while Obama was president more than any other modern president, and, relative to GDP, by the end of his term the government was smaller than almost every year Reagan and Bush1 were in office.

But don't let facts interrupt your partisan rants.

 

'Private' ownership includes any non-government entity, from individuals to corporations. The difference between corporations and all other entities is that corporations are legally their own 'person', and can be charged with crimes (instead of actual humans being charged).

I understand that 'true' communism has never been truly realized on any notable scale (and I already ceded that...). Perhaps you would like to define communism so we can both talk about the same thing from here on out.

Workers are private entities...

Socialism and Corporatism are indeed contradictory... on paper. But what is a representative government if not, in effect, a corporation made up of *everyone*? We each have a vote (share) and there are those who's vote (shares) carry more weight than others. Its basically a corporation within which adherence to corporate policy (legalities) is mandatory. We (the common folk) can effect corporate policy only when we unite our shares (votes) and overwhelm the directors/CO's (representatives). In either case, corporation or socialized govt, the functions of the 'heads' at the top are so concealed in a web of bureaucracy that the people at the bottom can effect very little change without overwhelming unity. And the people (in both cases) are easily divided against eachother when the power is so strongly centralized at the top.

I dont understand this distinction you're making vetween 'workers' and 'private.' The 'private sector' denotes all labor not employed by the government, incuding corporations, businesses and individual workers.

 

When someone talks about socialism and communism, what is the first thing that comes to mind and what the right uses to discredit the ideas? "Marxism"! Right? Right. And why? Why is the subject "Marxism"? Well, because Marx was the main proponent and just about the only person who did such an in-depth critique of capitalism and then described the next step as "socialism". So Marx is the authority. What did Marx say socialism and communism were? Investopedia is wrong because Investopedia is not a Marxist site. What did Marx say? If we're going to claim to have a valid statement about it, we need to have a valid definition and understanding.

The question of what capitalism is and what socialism would be is not a matter of opinion. Those questions have been settled for a long time.

 

The 'real debate' in my opinion is NOT Capitalism vs Collectivism but instead Individualism vs Collectivism.

 

Great. But I have no interest in that at the moment.

OK. Whenever someone talks of communism it is known that they are discussing "Marxism". Everyone accepts that communism and any discussion around it is a discussion of "Marxism". So to be accurate as well as being "on the same page" we need to use Marx's definition of communism as our own, or we are talking nonsense by using lesser-recognized and obscure "definitions". That is what we get from dictionaries on the definition of communism.

So what did Marx say about it? He said communism is a theoretical society. He said this would be how it would come about: under socialism, the "bourgeoisie" (capitalist class) and their lackeys, which includes anyone who sides politically with the cause of the capitalists but works as an employee, would be denied any right of private ownership of business for private profit. He said the working class would gradually consolidate its power and dominance and authority such that "capitalist-roaders" would eventually just give up and accept the socialist economy and society. This may take 20 generations but it would happen eventually. And when it happens, class distinctions would disappear, -classes would vanish. And when that happens, the state machine, which is largely for the purpose of mediating the class struggle and ruling for one class over the other, would no longer be needed and so it would "wither away" until all that remains is a few necessary clerical functions to expedite society. This classless, nearly stateless society would be "communism". This is Marx's definition of communism, and you can easily see that it conflicts with what dictionaries say it is. So who are you going to believe? -the recognized source, or a corporation's definition?

You can also immediately see that such a structure cannot possibly be imposed on a society. Classes cannot be dissolved by decree nor can class struggle. They must "wither away" if they are to vanish. Also, since the state under communism no longer serves to mediate or manage the class struggle, there would be no state machinery to enforce any social structure or to impose one under communism.

So the bottom line is that communism is a fantasy that will not be seen for probably 500 years if it ever happens.

And your point?

Oh come on. You're trying to claim that socialism is capitalism. Must I really correct you on this? Gimme a break.

I think you are trying to not understand. Either workers run the business where they're employed, or they don't.

 

You are absolutely entitled to your own desired confusion.

 

Its really hard to follow you 'commies'... The last 'communist' I debated said Marx was a capitalist shill and that true communism was something I would call 'communalism' or really just cooperative anarchy... There seems to be about as many definitions of 'true communism' as there are communists. I know thats not your fault. But its not mine either.

As far as 'workers owning the means to production'... self employment is common in the US. Less common but still common are companies where the workers own shares in the company and are (at least partially) paid according to total company profits (the Les Schwab tire and mechanic services franchise is an example). Additionally, US workers have the option of unionizing, collectively bargaining with their employer. These options are available to all Americans because of capitalism. These options are difficult to attain for most americans because of corporatism.

Most americans (think they) prefer the ease of simply working for a set hourly (or monthly) amount. This (coupled with the preference for corporations to use this dynamic for wage slavery) means that this type of work is whats primarily available in the job market. But ultimately its still voluntary. People are collectively choosing this system by not actively taking the necessary steps to promote something else.

Im not saying socialism is capitalism. Im saying corporatism is socialism.

If communism is simply the means of production being owned by the workers, then communism is capitalism because capitalism is the private ownership of resource (workers are 'private', the means to production is 'resource').

 

As are you.

 

Well, I'd be very suspect of that person and that argument because Marx was anything but a shill. There has been a protracted and concerted effort on the part of anti-communist agents of capitalism to distort, confuse, deceive, and mislead the left in hope of pitting one section against another. The vast majority of people recognize communism as a Marxist idea, and it doesn't really matter in the first place because you and your kids will never see a communist society anywhere, ever. And BTW it is incorrect to label me a "communist". A Marxist maybe or a socialist, but not a communist or a liberal.

That's fine. But the self-employed is hardly the "enemy" of the working class. In fact, they are OF the working class no matter what their aspirations may be. The actual "enemy" of the working class (which is you and me) is the topmost 0.05% of the corporate elite. Then there are those of any other category who side with that 0.05% and defend them even though doing so is completely contrary to their actual class interests though they don't know it.

There are various policies and tricks capitalists use to get workers to believe they have a stake in working hard for the corporate success and to work harder and with greater commitment. For example, there are about 30,000 co-ops in the US but only about 1,000 of them are worker-owned and operated. You just identified one type: ESOPs. But again, they have nothing to do with worker ownership and control.

huh? Which is it?

Actually, around 1950 approximately 25% of the labor force was unionized. Then capitalists and their ideologues and politicians set to work to undermine and crush the union movement. Regulations of unions were passed making them less attractive. Union membership plummeted to about 7% and even that was not good enough for the capitalists. So they developed the notion of "right to work" laws to finally and completely kill unionization. And all the while unions were and are about obtaining better conditions under capitalism. They don't oppose capitalism or advocate worker control. So they have no role in this discussion.

That is sort of like saying that people choose and want our two parties because they never elect a Congress or a president from any other party. It's a sort of "self-fulfilling prophecy". Certainly there are those workers who would choose traditional employment given the opportunity to choose, but much of that is due to simply not knowing, not having any experience, and not seeing anyone who has experience with WSDEs. IOW it's an unknown and not many are willing to take the leap of faith to find out about them. But all they need is time and examples.

But that's nonsense. Corporatism is doing great damage to the working class. Corporatism is the enemy of the public. Look what it has done in abandoning workers and taking production overseas for cheap labor. Socialism is opposed to private profit from private ownership of business, and it stands for worker ownership and control. Your view as you expressed here is one of the items of propaganda and brainwashing promoted by capitalists for years in their effort to confuse us and pit us against each other in that way. Don't fall for it!

You have not digested what I've already said. I explained communism and socialism. Communism is not "the means of production being owned by the workers". Communism is CLASSLESS SOCIETY. It is collectivism. Your statements "communism is capitalism" and "workers are private" should make clear to yourself the depth of your confusion that you've obediently absorbed because you are seriously confusing things. You should have instantly stopped and realized that we have had a very long history of capitalists and their politicians and agents working hard against communism and Marxism.

If you are interested and willing to overcome the influence of long-term propaganda and brainwashing, I can help you because I have overcome most of it in myself already. But you need to decide for yourself what you want: class clarity or capitalist confusion.

 

How is 'classless society' acheived? What does that look like? Does it involve wealth redistribution?

 

I have already given that. Apparently either you didn't read it or you are incapable of understanding. See post 2 and particularly post 19 on the previous page. Then tell me in your words what I said.