Anarchism vs communism

[rocala]

If communism, as it is understood by Marxists, is achievable i.e. ''the withering away of the state", then Anarchism is also possible but as the end product.
I believe it was Trotsky who said "we are all anarchists in the final analysis".

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes... like I said, Capitalism without a heart is no different than Communism or Marxism.

But even when I worked for Winn Dixie, they had employee stock options (that some didn't participate in), they had educational programs (that some didn't participate in) and they had a retirement fund.

I had a friend working at an Office Equipment place that after work would go and fix appliances. He now has two appliance stores.

Capitalism with a heart offers those options. Marxism offers everyone a flat rate (if I am not mistaken). It also offers the elimination of family and religion.

I don’t know if that’s true. Communism as a principle says that people work and contribute as they are able and are compensated for that equally. (Again I could be wrong, but that’s generally the vibe I have gotten from palling around with communists.)
These shows of charity that you describe are often praised by the commies I know.
Hell the anarchist youtuber “Re Education” literally just made a video where he happily feeds the poor and needy from donations given by other antifa activists.
As for religion, Jesus is the most communist example I can think of.

 

[Kenny]

I don’t know if that’s true. Communism as a principle says that people work and contribute as they are able and are compensated for that equally. (Again I could be wrong, but that’s generally the vibe I have gotten from palling around with communists.)
These shows of charity that you describe are often praised by the commies I know.
Hell the anarchist youtuber “Re Education” literally just made a video where he happily feeds the poor and needy from donations given by other antifa activists.
As for religion, Jesus is the most communist example I can think of.

The problem is what classifies as able. Even in Winn Dixie, there were those who did just enough and others worked the rear end off.,

The first effort of communism was the Puritans in the US. They later found out that land ownership and to each his own efforts (while helping the needy) - capitalism with a heart was the way. Communism was an utter failure.

Why the Pilgrims Abandoned Communism

As I have studied Jesus, I find him supporting capitalism with a heart and not communism.

 

[rocala]

I suspect that both sides of this debate often look for support in the least valuable sources. Perhaps an answer is under our noses all the time.

I am left wing and very independent. Yet the happiest time of my life was in the military.

Nobody had a rank that was not earned by ability and effort. The whole system considered my welfare, education, training, health etc at all times. Work was an important thing but time was always available for our development and leisure.

If you could create a similar civilian system with a democratic side to it...well I can think of a lot worse systems to live in.

 

[Kenny]

Well not really all that political active myself, I personally just tend to go with what I believe will promote the most equal society and help those that are the weakest. The rich people will survive even if they have to wait an extra month or two to purchase yet another 1-2+ million dollar house. Yet the poor persons which can't afford decent healthcare, education etc. will have a much harder time.

I don't know where you are from? But if you are from the US, I would think that the best way to do something to try to push things in another direction, whether that is towards socialism or simply views that lean that way, is to learn as much as you can about socialism and capitalism. Because there seem to be a huge misunderstanding of what socialism actually is, and the moment someone mention the word, people instantly think about something horrible.

So to make people understand what exactly socialism is and why people wanted it back in the days, would probably be the best way. Standing with a sign yelling, I doubt will do a lot of good, because people won't be any wiser from that, but might actually just be angry at you.

I would strongly suggest watching this lecture, its very good and he explain things well I think.:

It isn't the "explaining" that is the problem... it is in the implementation that it becomes a problem.

The "changing" I saw in Venezuela. It started in the school system promoted by the professors. This person is a great example of it.

However, in its implementation it remains as it has always been... a complete disaster.

A cautionary tale that is played out so often:

Overtaxing the rich: A cautionary tale

 

[SomeRandom]

The problem is what classifies as able. Even in Winn Dixie, there were those who did just enough and others worked the rear end off.,

The first effort of communism was the Puritans in the US. They later found out that land ownership and to each his own efforts (while helping the needy) - capitalism with a heart was the way. Communism was an utter failure.

Why the Pilgrims Abandoned Communism

As I have studied Jesus, I find him supporting capitalism with a heart and not communism.

Well I suspect the “failures” are more complex than just the land ownerships. There are always outside competitors vying for your own failure to take into consideration.
Besides didn’t the puritans famously outlaw fun when they got to power?
Giving to the needy, abandoning self wealth, living in a community based on egalitarianism. Sounds pretty communist if you ask me.
But then I’ve been disillusioned by the cut throat nature of capitalism for some time. The US version of unfettered capitalism seems particularly cruel to me.

 

[SomeRandom]

It isn't the "explaining" that is the problem... it is in the implementation that it becomes a problem.

The "changing" I saw in Venezuela. It started in the school system promoted by the professors. This person is a great example of it.

However, in its implementation it remains as it has always been... a complete disaster.

A cautionary tale that is played out so often:

Overtaxing the rich: A cautionary tale

Pfft, Wallstreet would say that, wouldn’t they? Oh the poor billionaires having to not afford their favourite yacht because they spent a bit more on the community?
Come on, you don’t expect me to buy that, do you?
Also your link claims it’s five years out of date. Just to let you know.

Everyone uses roads. Our collective taxes are used to maintain said roads, even build more to accomodate a growing population.
Would you really charge a person living pay check to pay check more for said upkeep than say a millionaire? Or roughly the same even? The millionaire can live with parting with a bit more money than said pay check to pay check worker, I would think. And they benefit from it as well.

I’m not going to complain that part of my earnings goes towards Medicare (our healthcare system) just because there are other people living on unemployment checks. We all benefit from bulk billing doctors, we all benefit from free trips to the nearest hospital for emergency health issues, we all benefit from the emergency services (btw do you poor ******** really have to pay for calling an ambulance??)
I will certainly argue that those who make more money should pitch in a bit more to help relieve the burden from the rest of us tax payers, since we have to worry about not starving at the same time. They meanwhile have to concern themselves with which fillet Mignon they want served in their favourite sauce.
Snark aside, why shouldn’t those that make more pay more for the betterment of their community?
Capitalism with a heart you claim? Where’s the heart in giving a break to the wealthy and leaving the poor to fend for themselves?
Are there people who take advantage of our welfare system? In Australiastan there are. Probably in the US as well. But I’m not going to demand disability support be slashed because of a few lazy frauds. Who would that help?

 

[Kenny]

Well I suspect the “failures” are more complex than just the land ownerships. There are always outside competitors vying for your own failure to take into consideration.
Besides didn’t the puritans famously outlaw fun when they got to power?
Giving to the needy, abandoning self wealth, living in a community based on egalitarianism. Sounds pretty communist if you ask me.
But then I’ve been disillusioned by the cut throat nature of capitalism for some time. The US version of unfettered capitalism seems particularly cruel to me.

Basically you are saying pretty much what i am saying

Failures are complex. Modes of economics are complex.

People are trying to find a utopia and there are none. So we deal with the best possible solution.

Reality IMV:

1. It remains about the heart
2. If two people work in the same office doing the same job and get paid the same amount - most of the time - one will outshine the other and should be rewarded - capitalism
3. There are people who need help and need their pump primed. Capitalism with a heart or socialism.
4. Ownership does create a sense of purpose. A house that is owned will most of the time be taken care of better that one that is rented. Capitalism. Socialism, everyone gets the same house with the same furniture no matter if you are a doctor or a stockman - if you study 12 years or 0 years, it doesn't matter.

Capitalism with no heart:

1. I'm getting ahead no matter who I stab along the way (praise God for unions to keep the hearts right. - On the other end, Unions can run a business into bankruptcy if the hearts are not right)
2. If you are in the poor house, well, forget you!
3. etc

In that we can create laws to judge bad actions... I still think capitalism is the best. (personal view of course)

 

[Kenny]

Pfft, Wallstreet would say that, wouldn’t they? Oh the poor billionaires having to not afford their favourite yacht because they spent a bit more on the community?
Come on, you don’t expect me to buy that, do you?
Also your link claims it’s five years out of date. Just to let you know.

It's the principle that has been confirmed again and again.

For the record, the yacht construction company employs people. The gas it uses employs people. Maintenance employs people. Those who serve on the yacht are being paid. Their docking location employ people. etc etc.. All the extra gadgets employ people.

They pay the bulk of the income tax that help those who don't pay taxes at all.


Coveting their money isn't the answer. Being jealous of what they have isn't the answer.

Everyone uses roads. Our collective taxes are used to maintain said roads, even build more to accomodate a growing population.
Would you really charge a person living pay check to pay check more for said upkeep than say a millionaire? Or roughly the same even? The millionaire can live with parting with a bit more money than said pay check to pay check worker, I would think. And they benefit from it as well.

I’m not going to complain that part of my earnings goes towards Medicare (our healthcare system) just because there are other people living on unemployment checks. We all benefit from bulk billing doctors, we all benefit from free trips to the nearest hospital for emergency health issues, we all benefit from the emergency services (btw do you poor ******** really have to pay for calling an ambulance??)
I will certainly argue that those who make more money should pitch in a bit more to help relieve the burden from the rest of us tax payers, since we have to worry about not starving at the same time. They meanwhile have to concern themselves with which fillet Mignon they want served in their favourite sauce.
Snark aside, why shouldn’t those that make more pay more for the betterment of their community?
Capitalism with a heart you claim? Where’s the heart in giving a break to the wealthy and leaving the poor to fend for themselves?
Are there people who take advantage of our welfare system? In Australiastan there are. Probably in the US as well. But I’m not going to demand disability support be slashed because of a few lazy frauds. Who would that help?

You mean like this?

 

[SomeRandom]

Basically you are saying pretty much what i am saying

Failures are complex. Modes of economics are complex.

People are trying to find a utopia and there are none. So we deal with the best possible solution.

Reality IMV:

1. It remains about the heart
2. If two people work in the same office doing the same job and get paid the same amount - most of the time - one will outshine the other and should be rewarded - capitalism
3. There are people who need help and need their pump primed. Capitalism with a heart or socialism.
4. Ownership does create a sense of purpose. A house that is owned will most of the time be taken care of better that one that is rented. Capitalism. Socialism, everyone gets the same house with the same furniture no matter if you are a doctor or a stockman - if you study 12 years or 0 years, it doesn't matter.

Capitalism with no heart:

1. I'm getting ahead no matter who I stab along the way (praise God for unions to keep the hearts right. - On the other end, Unions can run a business into bankruptcy if the hearts are not right)
2. If you are in the poor house, well, forget you!
3. etc

1. Okay that I can agree with.
2. Pretty sure communism doesn’t argue against that. Just that everyone is compensated for their own labour. I think.
3. Of course we should help those in need. Like our “commie” health care system. People can choose to spend more on private health if they desire it. But my taxes go towards its upkeep (I wish the government would stop underfunding it) and criticism aside it helps the most vulnerable in society. That is not capitalism, last I checked. That’s an attempt to help ameliorate issues within a capitalist society. The capitalists are the ones trying to privatise our health care system. Because in their eyes it’s not profitable enough!

I agree with your criticisms about capitalism with no heart, but those issues stem entirely from a capitalist mindset imo. Good Samaritans are usually the exception. But I praise them nonetheless for their community minded approach.
Also I don’t think even anarchists allow people to just own your own house.

 

[SomeRandom]

It's the principle that has been confirmed again and again.

For the record, the yacht construction company employs people. The gas it uses employs people. Maintenance employs people. Those who serve on the yacht are being paid. Their docking location employ people. etc etc.. All the extra gadgets employ people.

They pay the bulk of the income tax that help those who don't pay taxes at all.


Coveting their money isn't the answer. Being jealous of what they have isn't the answer.



You mean like this?

View attachment 42049

Yes? I think? A snippet of your PEW research on taxes (?) doesn’t really help me gauge anything properly I’m afraid. But then again I barely understand our breakdowns of my own taxes when my government boffins outline what portions of my tax money went to.

 

[Nimos]

It isn't the "explaining" that is the problem... it is in the implementation that it becomes a problem.

The "changing" I saw in Venezuela. It started in the school system promoted by the professors. This person is a great example of it.

However, in its implementation it remains as it has always been... a complete disaster.

A cautionary tale that is played out so often:

Overtaxing the rich: A cautionary tale

Sorry but that is one terrible article and the example is absolutely rubbish if you ask me.

Lets see what some of the rich people themselves say:

It's not often you see someone stand up and say, "Tax me more!"

Yet that's just what famed investor Warren Buffett has done in an op-ed in the New York Times headlined, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." Buffett says that very wealthy people like himself pay lower tax rates than the middle class, thanks to special tax categories for investment income.

"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks," he writes.

As an example, Buffett said he paid an effective tax rate of 17.4 percent, while people who worked in his office made much less but paid higher effective tax rates of between 33 percent and 41 percent, averaging 36 percent.

PolitiFact - Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others

From another article:
Billionaires paid 23% of their income in federal, state, and local taxes in 2018, according to an analysis of tax data by the University of California at Berkeley's Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman for their upcoming book "The Triumph of Injustice." The average American, meanwhile, paid 28%.

"The US tax system is a giant flat tax — except at the top, where it's regressive," Saez and Zucman wrote in "The Triumph of Injustice." "As a group, and although their individual situations are not all the same, the Trumps, the Zuckerbergs, and the Buffetts of this world pay lower taxes than the teachers and secretaries."

The wealth gap in America is widening, and even billionaires agree that the system that created their wealth is unsustainable

The top 1% of Americans own 40% of the country's wealth, Zucman wrote in a paper circulated by the National Bureau of Economic Research in February.

Several billionaires, including JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio, have said the current levels of inequality are unsustainable, Business Insider previously reported.

Income inequality is at the highest level ever recorded, the US Census Bureau said in September. Real median household income grew 0.8%, to $61,937, in 2018, the smallest increase in three years, according to the Census Bureau. The majority of the US economy's growth over the past decade has gone to the wealthy and the owners of financial instruments, Timothy Smeeding, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison who studies poverty and economic mobility, previously told Business Insider.

American billionaires paid less in taxes in 2018 than the working class, analysis shows — and it's another sign that one of the biggest problems in the US is only getting worse

Giving an absolutely rubbish story about 10 people going to dinner and having to split the bill is not really useful, when it doesn't even seem to reflect what some of the richest people in the world themselves say, when it comes to how taxes work. If that article you linked was true, why would Warren Buffett go out and say the things he did, he could simply have said nothing or just denied it, if it weren't true, but he didn't?

 

[Tambourine]

It's the principle that has been confirmed again and again.

For the record, the yacht construction company employs people. The gas it uses employs people. Maintenance employs people. Those who serve on the yacht are being paid. Their docking location employ people. etc etc.. All the extra gadgets employ people.

Ah, the trickle down theory. Unfortunately for your claim, the bulk of all consumption is being done by the majority population, not the wealthy capitalists, so markets for luxury goods are fairly marginal compared to large scale consumer goods production, so giving the working class more money actually generates far more wealth for everyone.

They pay the bulk of the income tax that help those who don't pay taxes at all.

They also earn the bulk of all income worldwide, far more than they would ever pay in taxes.

Coveting their money isn't the answer. Being jealous of what they have isn't the answer.

Do you actually think that accusing people of "jealousy" with no basis in facts is going to convince anybody?

 

[Tambourine]

Those poor, "overtaxed" rich people receive more in income after taxes than the other 80% combined:

 

[Kenny]

Those poor, "overtaxed" rich people receive more in income after taxes than the other 80% combined:

Covetousness is a horrible thing.

Isn't it something that I live good somewhere between the lowest and the second lowest (since no figures are given) with extra to spare without being upset that the highest pay 51%+ of all the taxes?

I'm happy, put away extra for the later of my later years, good family and a good life.

Are you happy? Or are you too busy comparing yourself to other people?

 

[Kenny]

Sorry but that is one terrible article and the example is absolutely rubbish if you ask me.

Lets see what some of the rich people themselves say:

It's not often you see someone stand up and say, "Tax me more!"

Yet that's just what famed investor Warren Buffett has done in an op-ed in the New York Times headlined, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." Buffett says that very wealthy people like himself pay lower tax rates than the middle class, thanks to special tax categories for investment income.

"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks," he writes.

As an example, Buffett said he paid an effective tax rate of 17.4 percent, while people who worked in his office made much less but paid higher effective tax rates of between 33 percent and 41 percent, averaging 36 percent.

PolitiFact - Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others

From another article:
Billionaires paid 23% of their income in federal, state, and local taxes in 2018, according to an analysis of tax data by the University of California at Berkeley's Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman for their upcoming book "The Triumph of Injustice." The average American, meanwhile, paid 28%.

"The US tax system is a giant flat tax — except at the top, where it's regressive," Saez and Zucman wrote in "The Triumph of Injustice." "As a group, and although their individual situations are not all the same, the Trumps, the Zuckerbergs, and the Buffetts of this world pay lower taxes than the teachers and secretaries."

The wealth gap in America is widening, and even billionaires agree that the system that created their wealth is unsustainable

The top 1% of Americans own 40% of the country's wealth, Zucman wrote in a paper circulated by the National Bureau of Economic Research in February.

Several billionaires, including JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio, have said the current levels of inequality are unsustainable, Business Insider previously reported.

Income inequality is at the highest level ever recorded, the US Census Bureau said in September. Real median household income grew 0.8%, to $61,937, in 2018, the smallest increase in three years, according to the Census Bureau. The majority of the US economy's growth over the past decade has gone to the wealthy and the owners of financial instruments, Timothy Smeeding, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison who studies poverty and economic mobility, previously told Business Insider.

American billionaires paid less in taxes in 2018 than the working class, analysis shows — and it's another sign that one of the biggest problems in the US is only getting worse

Giving an absolutely rubbish story about 10 people going to dinner and having to split the bill is not really useful, when it doesn't even seem to reflect what some of the richest people in the world themselves say, when it comes to how taxes work. If that article you linked was true, why would Warren Buffett go out and say the things he did, he could simply have said nothing or just denied it, if it weren't true, but he didn't?

So go to a flat tax but don't complain if you pay more taxes?

 

[Nimos]

So go to a flat tax but don't complain if you pay more taxes?

Not sure, what you are asking?

 

[Milton Platt]

And are either really achievable?

So I’m not really great at politics. A lot of the theory flies over my head. I’d rather waffle on about Sartre or Oscar Wilde than Marx or Heigel (sp?)
But I’m trying to do better. Find a home for my confused self.
I’m not really a fan of capitalism. Anarchism and communism appeals to my desires for a world without hierarchies. But I’ve always dismissed their goals as too unreachable due to human nature being inherently selfish and greedy. But I’ve seen people pull together to support charities, feed the homeless, build schools, ethically source whatever etc. So clearly I’m just being a cynical doomer.

So am I just buying into the capitalist notion that we are just selfish greedy materialistic ********?
Leftists often say the same about humanity, but I guess they’re trying to use that as an impetus to change for the better.

Can we possibly find a way to make these systems work?
And what’s the difference? I often encounter “anarchocomunists” so there’s clearly some solidarity to be found apparently.

I think it can be argued that so far, every so-called communist country has actually been a dictatorship. I don't believe that human nature will allow for true communism. It requires a totally altruistic population and totally altruistic government.

Capitalism is not perfect and must have limits. Socialism run amuck is also not viable. Many countries in fact blend capitalism and socialism, picking from both those things the population deems useful.

 

[Heyo]

I think it can be argued that so far, every so-called communist country has actually been a dictatorship.

That is by design. It's called "Diktatur des Proletariats". It's meant to last until a class free society is accomplished (so, basically, forever).

I don't believe that human nature will allow for true communism. It requires a totally altruistic population and totally altruistic government.

It requires a high level of compliance. It is similar for "true" Anarchism. Democracy also requires a relative high level (but not as high as Communism or Anarchism).
In general you can say that a working system needs more people (times power) for the system than those who are against. The interesting part are those who are indifferent. The more authoritarian a system is the more the indifferent work for the system. In a mostly free society the indifferent work against the system.

Capitalism is not perfect and must have limits. Socialism run amuck is also not viable. Many countries in fact blend capitalism and socialism, picking from both those things the population deems useful.

And in mixed economies liberty tends to be higher than in either extremes.

 

[SalixIncendium]

**MOVED TO POLITICAL DEBATES**​