Communism, socialism, or Capitalism If communism or socialism why if capitalism why? i feel i cant really comment on this as im not very educated on the topic
Communism or Capitalism?
Posts
Total:
38
-->
@drlebronski
If I was starting a 'new country, I 'might have an interest in Communism.
Which, to my primitive definition, is the means of vital production being in the people's hands.
As I live in a country 'currently capitalist, I'd prefer to keep things as they 'are, capitalist.
Though I would not mind people organizing to found new ventures 'within said country, that were Communist.
Nonprofit Communes for example, that contained trade schools, somewhere to live, and basic farm.
That people who were down and out in life, had somewhere they could go other than being homeless, learn job skills, have food,
Then leave.
Or 'Communities, the Amish aren't Communist I take it, but 'do seem to have a very connected community, from what I've heard of them.
Communism, because otherwise I might be silenced on the internet.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Do you mean that in the sense of near everyone having 'access to the internet, implying the internet has a communist nature, or,
That if you 'weren't for Communism, your government might suppress your ability to access the internet?
-->
@drlebronski
Communism means any old bloke can come along and use your (now the communes) tractor, run it out of gas, and leave it there because that's someone else's responsibility.
Unbridled capitalism destroys the family by forcing, of economic necessity, young boys to work in shitty Victorian factories for back to back 12 hour shifts.
In the end, capitalism needs to be reigned in and communism suffers from the tragedy of the commons.
Unbridled capitalism destroys the family by forcing, of economic necessity, young boys to work in shitty Victorian factories for back to back 12 hour shifts.
In the end, capitalism needs to be reigned in and communism suffers from the tragedy of the commons.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Capitalism suffers from tragedy of the commons. What do you think overfishing and global warming are?
There's an argument in it for private ownership, sure, but it doesn't just go away at that.
-->
@badger
You're falsly conflating the tragedy of the commons with overexploitation. Capitalism requires exploitation.
-->
@Sum1hugme
In economic science, the tragedy of the commons is a situation in which individual users, who have open access to a resource unhampered by shared social structures or formal rules that govern access and use,[1][2] act independently according to their own self-interest and, contrary to the common good of all users, cause depletion of the resource through their uncoordinated action.[3]
Tragedy of the commons is overexploitation dude.
-->
@badger
The fundamental difference is that in the tragedy of the commons, overexploitation comes as a direct result of it being a communal resource, so that's not a knock on capitalism.
So my bad, I should have said you're labeling the overexploitation of a communal resource as a shortcoming of capitalism, but that's a fundamentally communist aspect of the system.
-->
@Sum1hugme
No, tragedy of the commons presents in all sorts of scenarios, light pollution is even an example of tragedy of the commons.
- Uncontrolled human population growth leading to overpopulation.[6]
- Atmosphere, through the release of pollution that leads to ozone depletion, global warming, ocean acidification (by way of increased atmospheric CO2 being absorbed by the sea), and particulate pollution[65]
- Light pollution – with the loss of the night sky for research and cultural significance, affected human, flora and fauna health, nuisance, trespass and the loss of enjoyment or function of private property.[66]
- Water – Water pollution, water crisis of over-extraction of groundwater and wasting water due to overirrigation[67]
- Forests – Frontier logging of old growth forest and slash and burn[68]
- Energy resources and climate – Environmental residue of mining and drilling, burning of fossil fuels and consequential global warming[69]
- Animals – Habitat destruction and poaching leading to the Holocene mass extinction[70]
- Oceans – Overfishing[71][72]
- Space debris in Earth's surrounding space leading to limited locations for new satellites and the obstruction of universal observations.[73]
- A preference for sons made people abort foetal girls. This results in an imbalanced sex ratio.[74]
- Antibiotics – Antibiotic Resistance Mis-use of antibiotics anywhere in the world will eventually result in antibiotic resistance developing at an accelerated rate.[75] The resulting antibiotic resistance has spread (and will likely continue to do so in the future) to other bacteria and other regions, hurting or destroying the Antibiotic Commons that is shared on a worldwide basis[76]
- Vaccines – Herd immunity Avoiding a vaccine shot and relying on the established herd immunity instead will avoid potential vaccine risks, but if everyone does this, it will diminish herd immunity and bring risk to individuals that cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons.[77]
- Source code and software documentation in software projects that can get "polluted" with messy code or inaccurate information.[78]
- Skills acquisition and training, when all parties involved pass the buck on implementing it.[79]
It's just cited, and reasonably, as an argument for private ownership, where cultivation of land and whatever is concerned. Capitalism suffers, and big-time, in its own ways, from tragedy of the commons.
Tragedy of the commons is an argument for planning, central or how you like.
-->
@badger
It's a problem with communal resources. So to label it a problem with capitalism falsly conflates communal overexploitation with private overexploitation
-->
@Sum1hugme
It's a problem with communal resources.
It isn't. It's mismanagement of resources generally. Yes, this presents in commonly owned land, with overgrazing, where planned crop rotation or something else might be better, but it presents everywhere else also. I can make the argument that global warming is a tragedy of the commons caused by capitalism, and it would be sound.
The real problem with communism is that you can't plan around 7 billion people. Capitalism is self-organising. It comes out looking a bit monstrous, but I'm getting fed.
-->
@Sum1hugme
@badger
What is the "tragedy of the commons"?
Odd phrasing to me, somehow.
-->
@Lemming
It's when a resource is overexploited as a result of it being communal
capitalism regulated by morality, which was what the US was until recently
-->
@drlebronski
Communism, socialism, or Capitalism If communism or socialism why if capitalism why? i feel i cant really comment on this as im not very educated on the topic
Yet you have Karl Marx for your profile pic.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Have you looked at the wiki? Your differentiation between communal overexploitation and capitalist overexploitation is nonsensical.
-->
@oromagi
I like it better than the rabbit, profile picture, he had previously.
COMMUNISM- The means of production is controlled by the village. Anti-statist 19th century utopianism. Never has been, never will.
SOCIALISM- The means of production is controlled by the people. More democratic, less efficient.
CAPITALISM- The means of production is controlled by entrepreneurs. Less democratic, more efficient.
All modern free states must balance socialism and capitalism
-->
@Lemming
I like it better than the rabbit, profile picture, he had previously.
Presumably he knew something about rabbits, tho
-->
@badger
It's a differentiation between overexploitation as a result of being communal vs as a result of being privately owned. They are fundamentally different.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Actually you're just tagging a word in front of overexploitation. The world is communal. Capitalist actors, corporations or whatever you like, they play into the tragedy of commons just the same as individuals.
Overexploitation is overexploitation.
-->
@Sum1hugme
@badger
Well, in Capitalism, something can be monopolized, overexploited, at the expense of everyone else.
Or neglected, at the expense of everyone, because no one or everyone owns it, but there's no law that forces them to take collective responsibility.
Is 'that the "tragedy of the commons" for Capitalism?
Though, what do you mean by the "tragedy of the commons"? for Communism?
I'm assuming you too are talking about the two different political systems, rather than the aspect of communism that might exist within Capitalism.
-->
@badger
You cant just act like the cause of the overexploitation doesn't matter. It's totally reasonable to ask what caused a resource to be overexploited. If the cause was a consequence of it being communal, rather than it being privatized, then that is a useful distinction.
-->
@Sum1hugme
I agree. And I do buy the capitalist's argument about it where it comes to overgrazing. But there's a whole lot of tragedy of the commons in capitalism too.
-->
@Lemming
but there's no law that forces them to take collective responsibility.
It's something like this, yeah. Tragedy of the commons is an argument for planning. Like overfishing for example. Nobody owns the ocean, or there's no fence around the ocean, or there's no well enforced laws about it - as a result, we've fucked up the ocean. Private ownership might facilitate better planning, laws might make better planning - the problem arises where there's nothing, everything's a grab.
-->
@badger
I'd think often, government, whether Communist or Capitalist, just claims that the government owns said resource, in the name of the people.
Then institute fishing laws, regulations and fines.
-->
@drlebronski
Also- this forum belongs under ECONOMICS
Keep arguing