Defending the Truth

1) I am not accepting. I am making my standard. That is the advantage of capatilism.

2) It is impossible to give everyone a High Standard, so communism provides everyone a lower standard. That's just foolish. Why accept less if you can have better?

3) Communism suppresses innovation.

People thought democracy wouldn't work for the same reasons; human flaws. They thought that the people needed, and demanded to be governed by authority, by kings, emperors, sovereigns, or whatever, and couldn't govern themselves. This is essentially the same argument, only rehashed today for communism. Because communism is indeed a further democratization of society.

It would be kind of illogical for me to assume, however, that because the arguments for societal liberalization in the 18th Century were correct, that today's specific arguments mean they are correct as a consequence. But what I am saying is for you to remember this historical context, and throughout history equality and freedom almost always turns out to be the best and most human coarse of progression.

So you shouldn't automatically denounce communism (or socialism for that matter) with such preconceived notions as the 'human inability to freedom and equality'.

Oh but I do. Until proven otherwise. Once Communism works, give me a call.

Whereas I disagree, I thank you for a logical, clearly written argument.

With that said, Capitalism is just as bad as Communism. I've said this before many a time on other threads that were closed down.

Yes, making your own success is a bad thing, good point. Go jump in a bottomless pit. Now.

Never said it was. Look at society in America. It is just as hard to make a wealthy living here as it would in a country ruled by Communism.

The threads were closed due to childishness

How do you figure that? My aunt was a waitress for 15 years, now she owns a 18 million dollar house in San Diego. It's this leftist defeatist crap which pisses me off. Anyone can be a someone in this country, we're just getting lazy.

Indeed, but the disadvantage of this is that it can be (if you control the means of production) at the expense and exploitation of countless others. Hence inequality, and not always for reasons of competence/incompetence.

I wouldn't say that it's impossible, only improbable. It also depends on the particular state you're talking about, and of coarse of your perspective. Obviously if we redistribute wealth in the United States, it's going to be of a much higher standard of living than if we were to do it across the entire world. I would say that either way, obviously it won't necessarily bring everyone to the levels of "high", but it's also not at the levels of low. It would bring everyone in the middle. We won't be driving Lamborghinis, but at least no one would be starving.

Also, capitalism can't survive without the low. So, whether you believe that everyone has an equal chance or not, capitalism still demands that people fulfill the jobs no one wants. It also demands that a certain amount of people be unemployed (to control inflation). It demands this, so the rich will go to great lengths to keep the low the low. We've seen this throughout history, and still today. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer. By theory, capitalism is supposed to give everyone equal opportunity; but we still have yet to accomplish that goal.

Also, many communists (Marx included) thought that capitalism and subsequently socialism were required before communism were to be installed. Because (among other things) it would urbanize and industrialize the country prior to revolution, which was a precondition. Socialism would then help give the proletariat and everyone else class conscious and extrapolate upon this with humanity. This is just one of the reasons why communism failed in Russia.

Obviously, in theory, not true. I say in theory because it hasn't been practiced yet. Many people go on about how communism hasn't succeeded, but it really hasn't been practiced...and those that closest to it's doctrines have succeeded (Spainish commune, etc.).

This might make as much sense to say that capitalism suppresses innovation because in capitalism (pure capitalism, that is) the object in society is to maximize profit and not to contribute any significant gains in humanity. In fact, a true capitalist might like to keep the status quo, because it means that they hold their particular monopoly on that market, and they squash competition.

However, this is quite true with pure capitalism, but we both know it not to be true with today's capitalism (mixed economy). Likewise I don't think it's true with communism. I think the only difference is to what ends; obviously with capitalism it would be for profit (and could thus undercut altruism), and in communism it would be for altruism.

This is, in essence, why I believe communism is almost ahead of its time (at least for many cultures, especially the United States). Not until altruism and the human condition become the ends of society rather than profit margins or pieces of paper (even if it means the suffering of other humans), can true communism really take place. Plus, the fact that true communism is a global system doesn't help the idea that communism is achievable today or in the near future.