• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Time for a Leftist (and Post-Leftist) learning thread

EchoShock said:
Laissez-faire capitalism is not the first form of communism, how can it be considered the pure form of capitalism?
Click to expand...

Sorry, you confused me. Laissez faire capitalism is not communism anyway, since the most capitalist system would be no regulations at all for anything economically and it just allows the market to function as it wishes. Its pretty idealistic.
 
Spriggs05 said:
Sorry, you confused me. Laissez faire capitalism is not communism anyway, since the most capitalist system would be no regulations at all for anything economically and it just allows the market to function as it wishes. Its pretty idealistic.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant to say Laissez-Faire capitalism is not the first form of capitalism, so how can we say it is "Pure" capitalism?
 
Buck Ewer said:
Worked ??
By what measure? the Success of a handful of lords and kings?
Again success of a country's government should be measured by the happiness and standards of living of all it's people.
Click to expand...

Then capitalism is failing on a worldwide scale. Less than 50% of people are happy.
 
Democracy gives the people of any given country a participatory say in their fate. Socialism gives the people of any given country security from poverty, bad health and being destitute. Capitalism gives the people of any given country a reward for hard work and a willingness to take financial chances.
Any government lacking any one of these three things will be doomed to failure under my definition of success.
Can anyone here argue against the need to blend these three governmental ideologies to create a successful state?
I have never found a conflict between them. The hard part IMHO is maintaining a balance.
 
Last edited:
EchoShock said:
Then capitalism is failing on a worldwide scale. Less than 50% of people are happy.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where you get that figure from or the criteria set forth for "happiness" but I would argue then that only 50% of governments are willing to let the three ideologies (capitalism , socialism and democracy) work together.
 

Under socialism there is a reward for hard work... Also, democracy is not separate from socialism or capitalism, it's not an ideology.

Democracy however needs the actual rule if the people, (demos=people, cracy=rule). Something which no country has.
 
Buck Ewer said:
I'm not sure where you get that figure from or the criteria set forth for "happiness" but I would argue then that only 50% of governments are willing to let the three ideologies (capitalism , socialism and democracy) work together.
Click to expand...

But the problem is that they aren't working together.
 
EchoShock said:
Sorry, I mistyped. I meant to say Laissez-Faire capitalism is not the first form of capitalism, so how can we say it is "Pure" capitalism?
Click to expand...

Since the purist capitalism is free market and laissez fair as the purest form of communism is anarcho communism (as laid out by Karl Marx in the long term plan).
 
The reason I don't wanna use countries is because anarchism, communism, etc... Is antithetical to countries. System is an all around more accurate term.
Click to expand...
...and a more abstract term. I prefer to speak about real governments and real people.
There is no country that is even remotely communist
Click to expand...
.
I could just as easily argue there are no pure democratic states nor pure capitalistic states.
Name the COUNTRY that is a purely capitalistic state without a hint of socialism or democracy. It just doesn't happen. It is an ideology not a real pure state.
The problem is that socialist measures without total socialism cannot be considered as relatin to socialism.
Click to expand...
Why do you insist in totalitarianism? It is not realistic. Socialism like democracy and capitalism can all exist and function by degrees within any government.
The job of government IMHO is to regulate the relative balance between these three ideologies within it's country.
 
EchoShock said:
But the problem is that they aren't working together.
Click to expand...
No. That is not true.
I would argue all day long that they can and are working together.
There will always be a conflict of interest especially between capitalism ( an ideology based on greed ) and socialism ( an ideology based on altruistic humanism ) but if representative government is strong enough, through it's democracy, a balance can always be struck and maintained between them. It will never be perfect but will always be a work in progress.
It is like a three legged stool, if you will, remove any one leg and the stool will topple. If any one or two legs are too short the stool will be tipsy and not successful.
I'm not the first to draw this analogy, but I believe it is and apt illustration of the balance government must maintain for it to be successful to ALL it's people..
 
Last edited:
Buck Ewer said:
...and a more abstract term. I prefer to speak about real governments and real people.
Click to expand...

Well, if you wish. Still, the debate is about systems, not places.

Buck Ewer said:
I could just as easily argue there are no pure democratic states
Click to expand...

You would be correct.

Buck Ewer said:
nor pure capitalistic states.
Click to expand...

Make the argument.

Buck Ewer said:
.Name the COUNTRY that is a purely capitalistic state without a hint of socialism or democracy.
Click to expand...

What you don't understand is that there can be socialistic measures without the system having a hint of socialism, but rather, it will REEK of reform and attempted appeasement.

Buck Ewer said:
.Why do you insist in totalitarianism?
Click to expand...

I don't... I'm an anarchist.

Democracy is a tool, not an ideology. Socialism can be pure and have democracy. However, it can be pure and totalitarian. Capitalism necessitates the lack of democracy however.

It is not realistic. Socialism like democracy and capitalism can all exist and function by degrees within any government.
The job of government IMHO is to regulate the relative balance between these three ideologies within it's country.
Click to expand...

Democracy still isn't an ideology.

Also, socialism is antithetical to capitalism. They cannot coexist.
 

You haven't heard of socialist motivation have you? Cause there are many texts on it.
 
Spriggs05 said:
Since the purist capitalism is free market and laissez fair as the purest form of communism is anarcho communism (as laid out by Karl Marx in the long term plan).
Click to expand...

The purest form of capitalism is the capitalism that survives. Just like the purest form of communism is that which survives (it just so happens that Marx and I do not disagree on this, that anarcho-communism is the final goal of communism).
 
EchoShock said:
Under socialism there is a reward for hard work... Also, democracy is not separate from socialism or capitalism, it's not an ideology.

Democracy however needs the actual rule if the people, (demos=people, cracy=rule). Something which no country has.
Click to expand...
Of course no country can hope for a pure democracy. Some where it has been demonstrated that the size limit for a pure democracy is about 200 people. Representative elected governing is the pragmatic compromise.
Other compromise balances are: If capitalism is taxed too high the incentive to venture into capitalistic endeavors disappears. If capitalism is not taxed enough the security of a safety net from bad health and poverty disappears. If the safety net is too attractive incentive to work disappears.
It's all about balance. Not absolutes.
 
EchoShock said:
The purest form of capitalism is the capitalism that survives. Just like the purest form of communism is that which survives (it just so happens that Marx and I do not disagree on this, that anarcho-communism is the final goal of communism).
Click to expand...

As the final goal of capitalism is to accumulate capital, the best way to do that is through unrestricted free markets and let the will of the market take its course (ideally, but since we live in reality the same can be said for communism. ). Unfortunately this is not the case.
 
Hey, I just downloaded the new tapatalk so I'll have I get back to you guys later cause I can't figure out how to quote worth a damn with it, but once I figure it out I'll get back to you.

Good night, I've had a good time with this.
 

I'd agree with everything written there, except maybe your definition of socialism.

Sure, according to Marx, socialism is the transitional period where capitalist elements are destroyed. But that's just one of the many socialisms. We can look at democratic socialism, which calls for a mixed (state and worker ownership) economy, and no eventual abolition of state. Or folks like me, who advocate "deficient socialism" (market socialism), tolerating markets for their innovative potential and ability to judge demand. Too, the socialism of Lassalle, which spoke of the state as a necessary tool of the prevailing ideology - which is very much the case today in Cuba and Venezuela.

So I'd broaden the definition of socialism to say: any system where the means of production is owned democratically.
 
Also, socialism is antithetical to capitalism. They cannot coexist.
Click to expand...
Absolutely untrue . I could not disagree more.
Socialism and capitalism work together all over the world including the USA. All countries with high standards of living MUST have both to get those high standards of living.
What you may be trying to express is that greed the motivating force for capitalism may seem antithetical to humanistic collective altruism which is the motivating force for socialism...but just as both motivations exist within any given individual they can and must exist within any given country's government if it is to be successful.
The simplistic thinking that they can not exist together is just not looking at the reality of successful governments throughout the world.
You plug your ears and close your eyes and say "no no no I don't want to believe it". You are not being pragmatic or honest when you make such an absolute falsehood.
 
It looks like I'll have to make due without my quoting cause I need to respond to this.

Socialism is antithetical to capitalism as socialism favors the abolition of classes... Capitalism creates classes.
 
Why do you insist in totalitarianism?
I don't... I'm an anarchist.
Click to expand...
Anarchy is a totalitarianism.
I don't know any anarchists that are just a little anarchistic.
You may be a first.
Pretty much all of Europe are countries that are socialistic democracies where capitalism thrives. I would also put The USA in that category. All these countries have a high standard of living.
China's standard of living is on the rise due to their embrace of capitalism. They will never reach the standards of happiness of Europe or the USA however without democracy.
Again you erroneously put socialism and capitalism at odds with one another. They are not.
 
You need to look up some definitions.

Anarchy cannot be totalitarian by definition. To be totalitarian you require rulers, which is the entire point of anarchism-you don't have rulers.
 
EchoShock said:
Socialism is antithetical to capitalism as socialism favors the abolition of classes... Capitalism creates classes.
Click to expand...
Some level of classism is healthy to give an incentive for people to better themselves. Sharply and deeply divided classes have the effect of incensing revolution. The action of capitalism and socialism together act as a balance to one another.
Again... the forces that drive them may be antithetical to one another but just as drag , thrust, gravity and lift are antithetical forces to an aircraft the balance between them co-existing together allow the craft to fly in a controlled manner.

Capitalism and socialism keep each other in check when balanced through democratic governmental regulation allowing any capitalistic social democracy to fly.
Tell the people of a country like Germany that to be successful they must either give up their capitalism or their socialism because you believe they can not co-exist, and they will tell you where to go.
 
Last edited:
EchoShock said:
You need to look up some definitions.

Anarchy cannot be totalitarian by definition. To be totalitarian you require rulers, which is the entire point of anarchism-you don't have rulers.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. I confused total extremism with totalitarianism.
I apologize. A true anarchist would not give allegiance to any leader. That would be like an atheist giving allegiance to a church.
But neither socialism nor capitalism need be totalitarian, nor totally extreme to exist within any economic system. Both can be compromised and still work well within the confines of any successful country's economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…