Are Capitalist rule and Communist rule the really the same thing?

I have a theory...
The further from the middle you get the closer you get to the opposite extreme. Look at the Nazi's and the Soviets completely opposite idealogies but in the end they wound up with similar systems. Now lets compare Capitalism and Communism.

Everyone knows what happens under unrestrained communism ( state control of most if not all aspects of industry), what happens with capitalism though? Isnt the ideal state of capitalism one in which the state has little or no control over industry? hence the drive for privitization without government regulation. What happens when this is taken to the logical extreme and industry controls the goverment? Isnt this basically communism but with a different name? What is the difference between a society where state runs industry and a society where industry runs state?

Interesting idea, but with a flaw: you are assuming that a communist state has ever actually existed in our world. This is false. There has never been a true communist state, just like there has never been a true capitalist state (capitalist as in, Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith style capitalism), because Wealth of Nations decried monopolyzing and other dishonest industry activities, which are now an important part of the economic mode of production in most western countries.

I believe that neither system can truly exist in the real world with out a major reprogramming of the human psyche. What exists in the real world is really just the same system brought about by human greed but with different names which is basically what i'm trying to get at. Perhaps it is unfair to use the names of the ideals to describe the brutish models of the real world but for lack of anything more accurate I think we'll have to stick with what we know and call them what we call them for sake of clarity. That is at least until someone makes up a more accurate name.

Originally posted by boogyman
I have a theory...
The further from the middle you get the closer you get to the opposite extreme. Look at the Nazi's and the Soviets completely opposite idealogies but in the end they wound up with similar systems. Now lets compare Capitalism and Communism.

Everyone knows what happens under unrestrained communism ( state control of most if not all aspects of industry), what happens with capitalism though? Isnt the ideal state of capitalism one in which the state has little or no control over industry? hence the drive for privitization without government regulation. What happens when this is taken to the logical extreme and industry controls the goverment? Isnt this basically communism but with a different name? What is the difference between a society where state runs industry and a society where industry runs state?

Oh boy, apparently everyone doesn�t know what happens under unrestrained communism, most specifically you. So here is a little introductory lesson, the entire goal of communism it to permanently eliminate all aspects of the superstructure (i.e. state) and leave everything within the hands of the workers who become the ones to determine how industries are run and resources distributed.

As seen from that your entire theory is basically void because the base elements do not fit your comparison. If you would like to make a more accurate comparison swich Stalinism with each instance the word communism is used. Only then will you have an accurate theory. But in any case the last two questions shall be answered�no and very little.

I understand that Commuism is not the same as Stalinism its just that the average American does not. I was trying to prove a point to the free market capitalists that the system they espouse leads to the very system the claim to hate so much (not the Communist ideal but the Stalinist reality) unfortunately everyone is either missing the point entirely because they feel like Im insulting communism or dont seem care enough to comment.

Oh well...

Originally posted by socrepLT

Everyone knows what happens under unrestrained communism
Oh boy, apparently everyone doesn�t know what happens under unrestrained communism, most specifically you. So here is a little introductory lesson, the entire goal of communism it to permanently eliminate all aspects of the superstructure (i.e. state) and leave everything within the hands of the workers who become the ones to determine how industries are run and resources distributed.

You described Capitalism; the people (workers) control every aspect of Capitalistic society. It is the consumer who decides what resources is use---which company stays in business and what the ultimate cost of products will be.

Basic supply and demand is all Capitalism is----nothing more.

Communism is a committee of people---making decisions for millions of people----which is bureaucracy at its worst, and produces nothing but limited goods, zero quality, scarcity, large blocks of apartment living units, cramped living spaces, and Third World living conditions.

Stalin had every intention of making the USSR the perfect Communist state, he used the same formulas or recipe of Marx and he created the only thing possible for Communism---crap!

Originally posted by sleeper
You described Capitalism; the people (workers) control every aspect of Capitalistic society.

lmao! are you serious? By its very definition, capitalism is the exploitation of the workers by the capitalist class for profit. The ONLY thing that the worker in a capitalist system controls that is of any worth to anyone is his or her ability to work, and this is sold in exchange for money so that the worker may lbe reasonably healthy, but more importantly, able to work. Tell me, when the exchange is made, and the worker does his work for the wage, why is it the capitalist that keeps and sells the finished product, and not the worker? If the exchange of work for pay is fair, then shouldn't the worker own some of the product he created?

Originally posted by General Zapata

Originally posted by sleeper
You described Capitalism; the people (workers) control every aspect of Capitalistic society.

lmao! are you serious? By its very definition, capitalism is the exploitation of the workers by the capitalist class for profit. The ONLY thing that the worker in a capitalist system controls that is of any worth to anyone is his or her ability to work, and this is sold in exchange for money so that the worker may lbe reasonably healthy, but more importantly, able to work. Tell me, when the exchange is made, and the worker does his work for the wage, why is it the capitalist that keeps and sells the finished product, and not the worker? If the exchange of work for pay is fair, then shouldn't the worker own some of the product he created?

I lived under Marxism and Capitalism the difference is night and day.

Left-wingers own nothing, they have zero freedom, they live in poverty and they work----for what? If you can't own anything or go anywhere what is the point of living?

Capitalism---I work, get paid, buy house, car, boat, go on vacation, I am free to go anywhere I choose, spend the money I make from working anyway I wish.

Which is better for the worker? Duh!

Again I'm talking about extremes here not your entry level capitalism I'm talking about what happens when you have a corporation so powerful it overruns the government to the point where the interests of Govt. and company are identical.
While this sounds unlikely this very posible under a laissez faire freemarket capitalist system. Look at it from an evolutionary standpoint. A corporation wil eventuallyl evolve to the point that it becomes leaner meaner and more "efficient" at policing its interests then any other company or governmental outfit. Once it has reached this juggernaut point what is to stop it from seizing control to perpetually maintain its own interests? End result being a system where state is no different then industry and vice versa.

Originally posted by boogyman
I understand that Commuism is not the same as Stalinism its just that the average American does not.

clap clap clap* I simply had to clarify.

Originally posted by boogyman
I was trying to prove a point to the free market capitalists that the system they espouse leads to the very system the claim to hate so much (not the Communist ideal but the Stalinist reality) unfortunately everyone is either missing the point entirely because they feel like Im insulting communism or dont seem care enough to comment.

Oh well...

Well in essence they are the same, really what the Stalinist Soviet Union and the United States are simply two different forms of capitalism, State and Bourgeoisie, while polar opposites in forms of methods of production and such forth, both enslave the worker and use their labor to the benefit of either the state, or an powerful elite. In truth for all their differences they both still serve the same purpose and as such one is not �better� than the other, as many say.

Originally posted by sleeper
You described Capitalism; the people (workers) control every aspect of Capitalistic society. It is the consumer who decides what resources is use---which company stays in business and what the ultimate cost of products will be.

Bzzzt�while you may be correct that the workers �control� how society is run through a capitalist system they do not hold true power over resources, distribution, and production. All of the true power lies firmly within the hands of the capitalist class; all that the workers of today can do is influence decisions made. Secondly explain how a goal of capitalism is elimination all aspects of the superstructure?

Originally posted by sleeper
Basic supply and demand is all Capitalism is----nothing more.

The socio economic system that is capitalism is, how to say, slightly more complex than�that.

Originally posted by sleeper
Communism is a committee of people---making decisions for millions of people----which is bureaucracy at its worst, and produces nothing but limited goods, zero quality, scarcity, large blocks of apartment living units, cramped living spaces, and Third World living conditions.

Obviously you did not read my introductory lesson. And instead have resorted to the normal communism is terrible because of (China/ Cuba/ Soviet Union/ etc.) notwithstanding the polar opposites that they all were to communist ideology and the fact that communism has not yet been seen on this planet and the fact that communism must pass through a stage of international socialism and as such communism must be completely international as well�oh, and the lack of the state. But nice try!

Originally posted by sleeper
Stalin had every intention of making the USSR the perfect Communist state, he used the same formulas or recipe of Marx and he created the only thing possible for Communism---crap!

No, Stalin had every intention of screwing over any and all true Marxist revolutionaries destroying their fledgling society and banishing or murdering any who disagreed with him. Then using the then good name of Lenin and Marx to do as he pleased and distort their ideals into extremely warped versions or complete opposites all to cement his lust for absolute power. Furthermore, that simple paragraph easily demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of Russian and Soviet history as well as the workings of the Marxist ideology. Find some better material than that which is pulled out of a sixth grade textbook.

Originally posted by sleeper
I lived under Marxism and Capitalism the difference is night and day.

WAIT!! You mean you're from the future! Seriously, what�s it like? Because as of the year 2004 no socio-economic communist system has yet to spring up. So you must obviously be from the future! How�d ya figure out the whole time travel thing anyway?

Originally posted by sleeper
Which is better for the worker? Duh!

...the ideology that bases itself off of freeing said worker and letting him take control of his own life and receive the full product of his labor?

Originally posted by socrepLT



...the ideology that bases itself off of freeing said worker and letting him take control of his own life and receive the full product of his labor?

I don't know what system you live under but that last line you wrote describes the lives of the vast majority of Americans who live under Capitalism.

Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, all of them Socialist, were give power by the people because of the promises they made to the working class---a life of leisure with little effort (utopia).

The history books are full of those kinds of promises, all leading strait to the doors of hell.

Now you are saying that your Communism is not the same stuff as all those other forms of Communism, which have brought nothing but misery to the working class.

That's what they all said.

There are no free lunches----unless you steal someone else�s, as did Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Fidel, and countless other Left-wingers.

I'd just like to say that both "rules" appear to have a pyramid like government.

Us folks will always be at the bottom, but remember too that it is us folks who can pull the rug out from underneath them, we just need to learn how to unite.

They keep us divided for reason.

It's funny because both rules say they are the best, but in both rules, it's the common folk who will suffer. not all but alot. I've never heard of a leader at the top suffering from poverty, hungery, or sickness... have you?

you will never meet common ground on the ground where society walks.
Perhaps that is why the higher ups find common ground for us to walk on.

Either way, "they" will always control the masses...

which is why I am a libertarian, for the love of god, which is why I wish to have my own ass taken care of by my OWN ASS...

Originally posted by sleeper
I don't know what system you live under but that last line you wrote describes the lives of the vast majority of Americans who live under Capitalism.

People under capitalism are employed through a system of wage slavery. Workers must sell themselves to the capitalist class whom exploits their labor and makes it so they gain a significant product of the workers labor while the worker simply loses out. This it true of all of the world�s countries very well including the US (to which I reside). And while the US may seem better or more humane than the rest of the planet, a kinder gentler form of slavery is still slavery nonetheless.

Originally posted by sleeper
Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, all of them Socialist, were give power by the people because of the promises they made to the working class---a life of leisure with little effort (utopia).

The history books are full of those kinds of promises, all leading strait to the doors of hell.

Ok here is a basic layout�

Socialism: -International in very nature
-Transitory stage to communism
-Purpose is to immerse the workers and eliminating the superstructure
-Purely democratic by nature

Lenin: -Supported international socialism
-Saw it as a transitory stage and wrote as how to get there
-Wanted to eliminate superstructure/ immerse workers
-Set up SU as a peoples democracy
Verdict: socialist!!

Stalin: -Supported socialism in one country
-Wanted to make system permanent
-Built up state and resumed enslaving the workers
-Destroyed a democracy from the inside and set up a dictatorship
Verdict: Stalinist/ not socialist!

Hitler: -Rabid Nationalist
-Loathed communism in its very base form, considered it his greatest enemy
(also remember that facism is a radical reaction of capitalism when it sees that it is losing power and people are beginning to form class consiousness)
-Same as every other capitalist
-A complete dictator
Verdict: Fascist/ not socialist!

Any more questions?

Originally posted by sleeper
Now you are saying that your Communism is not the same stuff as all those other forms of Communism, which have brought nothing but misery to the working class.

That's what they all said.

This is nothing new, none of this has simply been pulled out of thin air; it�s been around since the moment the Soviet Union was taken under the control of Stalin. All you need do is read any of the works of Trotsky or anything about his life and the left opposition. It has been a well known fact to any that even vaguely understand communism and it�s related history that no form of communism has ever existed, and that all others whom have proclaimed themselves to be are little more than carbon copies of the Stalinist Soviet Union. There is no pick and choose to this it just simply is. No true Marxist would say otherwise and never has.

Originally posted by sleeper
There are no free lunches----unless you steal someone else�s, as did Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Fidel, and countless other Left-wingers.

Cease with the references to left wingage, communism is a completely separate socio-economic system, not some simple extreme leftist group.

When it comes down to it, all creations of men tend to go the same way given enough time, and they all fail because people do what people do best.

All systems serve some and screw others, to varying degrees, but to the same end, unless acted on by an outside force (invasion or some other pleasantry).

As we can see, all things we make are partially evil, because we are partially evil, if you buy into the modern version of morality. If not, then it's a coin toss really, depending on your persuasion.