capitalism v communism

[KLM]

Originally Posted by macafee2

capitalism v communism

From what I understand the West, the capitalist West in WW2 supported to a large extent the Russians the Communist East. Providing food, weapons and transportation. Why therefore do the Russians or communism oppose capitalism when it would seem that capitalism drives benefit?

macafee2

OK, USA burgers ! poor beggars. .

[wraymond]

To answer the question, we and they were allies in the basic sense that they were in danger of the German leaders subjugating them. Allies are not necessarily the best of friends. So, an Eastern front in opposition to a common enemy usefully divides the resources an oppressor can muster. An oddity is the fact that when you wrap a flag round you, rarely can it be recognised.

A common purpose brings opposites together (strange bedfellows) in a central agreement – survival against the oppressor. Essentially, there is mutually attractive purpose, only the means differ.

In both systems an elite controls the lower orders, always for their own gains and supremacy.

Communism, started by theoretic philosophers eager to escape Middle Age serfdom and carried forward by ruthless revolutionaries, can be seen in the origins of the EU today and is abhorrent to many in the capitalist world because of the very limited share of the proceeds of trade compared to capitalist systems. No matter which system is used the capacity for corruption is endemic.

It’s just that the governors make the choice between either control by political force or by social bribery. In one way or another both use Nationalism as a basic tool when necessary but if anybody can magic up a better way, let’s hear it. A plague on all their houses.

[chillyphil]

I've heard it said that the only political difference between east and west us that in the west you get to vote for a new dictator every four or five years!!

[Darcydog]

There is more checks and balances in the Western system of government and capitalism has the advantage that shareholders in companies can dictate to the board of that company and force change if they do wish. In the same way we have a vote as to who governs us. Locally - we have local government elections in just a few weeks time.

We set up similar democratic systems in Hong Kong - the CCP has just destroyed this.

Yes corruption exists but compared to the old Soviet Union levels of corruption in the West is very low.

Soviet bureaucracy was a grossly irresponsible intellectually incestuous nightmare. It pursued corporate advantage with non of the checks and legislation we have in the West to prevent bad practice.

The Soviet system had little regard for ecological damage or for the health of its population. Whilst in the West - if a company abuses its position its headline news and films like Erin Brockovich win awards. But in the Soviet Union such actions were endemic.

So Capitalism has the distinct advantage of power being held by individual people and whereas we must always watch out for organisations and individuals having too much power, and take steps to prevent it, the old Soviet system actually divorced its people from having any say at all.

If you did speak out - you as often as not ended up in jail.

In the USSR managers had little reason to fear retribution from people below them in the pecking order. But they faced losing their careers if they failed to meet set Soviet targets. So the incentive was to cut corners and not worry about the environment.

The population could do little about the various environmental catastrophes in the USSR. Your “Propiska” (residence registration) stated where your home was and there you stayed.

There was a joke in the USSR that in the Heavy Metal ore smelting centre of Nizhny Tagil in the Urals, the children’s sandpits in the schools were increasingly becoming a minerals resource.

If you look up what the USSR did to the Aral Sea you can start to get a feeling for just how “toxic” (pun absolutely intended) communism is/was. Rivers were diverted to irrigate cotton fields. Originally a fishing industry existed on the lake. Now the lake, which was the fourth largest inland “sea” in the world - has all but dried up and the exposed soil blown away in dust storms.

And then there is Chernobyl of course. What happened there is an example of the flaws both in management and basic design - plus build “quality”, of which there was precious little.

Lake Karachay near Chelyabinsk had radioactive waste dumped in it from the nearby nuclear processing plant. Signs say not to walk on its shores because doing so can cause irreversible health damage.

So on balance - whilst we must always be mindful of those who think that they are more “right” than the majority and seek to sideline Democracy (the LibDems tried this at the last election and both the party and its foolish leader paid the price) - I do believe that, warts and all, Democracy is very much the best option.

[SideValve]

The problem is that we often get confused with the arguments between capitalism vs communism and democracy vs fascism. You can have a fascist capitalist state and you can have a communist democratic state.
I sometimes think it doesn't mater which system you adopt as long as everyone is on board with it. The USSR took an impoverished mess and made it into a super-power, the Nazis did the same with Germany. Both had elections, local councils etc. and a welfare system but ruling parties that increasingly stifled (and murdered) opposition. Both grew out of former monarchies related to our own.

[wraymond]

.

Originally Posted by SideValve

The problem is that we often get confused with the arguments between capitalism vs communism and democracy vs fascism. You can have a fascist capitalist state and you can have a communist democratic state.
I sometimes think it doesn't mater which system you adopt as long as everyone is on board with it. The USSR took an impoverished mess and made it into a super-power, the Nazis did the same with Germany. Both had elections, local councils etc. and a welfare system but ruling parties that increasingly stifled (and murdered) opposition. Both grew out of former monarchies related to our own.

Don’t really think so. Would like to know of a communist state that is a real democracy (as here for instance).

Communism and Fascism are usually thought of as diametric opposites although I agree Fascist theories and practices are sometimes used to control rebellious movements no matter what persuasion the ruling government pretends to.

USSR did produce a superpower but the suppression of dissent by the people was a glaring communist trait. Further, the elections you mention did nothing for democracy by any measure!

General populations don’t usually get the opportunity to get on board with extremist partisan revolution. Activists get disappeared to a Gulag, or worse, and the groundswell subsides.

Consider what we are now in the throes of with ‘wokeness’. A manufactured phoney movement relying on the self-interest of entirely closed minds becoming influential through protest with a tiny number of adherents having undue influence.

Not long before non-compliance becomes social suicide and outcasts are pursued with name-calling like deniers or refusenicks. That movement is gradually bringing about a massive change in attitudes, not necessarily supported by a majority. In my opinion, entirely by blackmail. So, entirely within a so-called democracy but no democratic procedure!

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by wraymond

.



Don’t really think so. Would like to know of a communist state that is a real democracy (as here for instance).

Communism and Fascism are usually thought of as diametric opposites although I agree Fascist theories and practices are sometimes used to control rebellious movements no matter what persuasion the ruling government pretends to.

USSR did produce a superpower but the suppression of dissent by the people was a glaring communist trait. Further, the elections you mention did nothing for democracy by any measure!

General populations don’t usually get the opportunity to get on board with extremist partisan revolution. Activists get disappeared to a Gulag, or worse, and the groundswell subsides.

Consider what we are now in the throes of with ‘wokeness’. A manufactured phoney movement relying on the self-interest of entirely closed minds becoming influential through protest with a tiny number of adherents having undue influence.

Not long before non-compliance becomes social suicide and outcasts are pursued with name-calling like deniers or refusenicks. That movement is gradually bringing about a massive change in attitudes, not necessarily supported by a majority. In my opinion, entirely by blackmail. So, entirely within a so-called democracy but no democratic procedure!

Spot on Ray - you only have to look at the dynamics of two recent cases to identify exactly how the minority manages to pull an undemocratic “fast one” over the very same society that gives them their freedom to abuse.

Case 1

Feb 2020 Harry Miller wins his case against Humberside Police over his right to Free Speech. A single person many miles away objected to one of his tweets and complained to the police who sent policemen to Harry Miller’s place of work and told him they were there to check on his thinking and to in form him that the complaint had been logged as a non criminal hate incident that would stay on his record.

The Judge wiped the floor with the Police’s actions saying that “we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi - we have never lived in an Orwellian society”

But, to me, it feels that Pandora’s box has been opened and the lunatics have found a way of influencing those in charge.

In Harry Millers case the conclusion - to me - seems clear. The particular Policeman who’s actions were so roundly condemned by the Judge has not read or understood the sort of books as “1984” or “Brave New World” or anything by Solzhenitsyn.

Case 2

A group of unelected armchair warriors on a mission objected to certain aspects of an article in The Spectator magazine. So they wound up the cancel culture muppets and they all got onto the Co-op and said how they objected to the Co-op advertising in such a magazine.

The Co-op - like the idiot Policemen in Case 1 - jumped on the bandwagon and announced that they would not advertise again in such a magazine.

The Spectator simply announced that its editorial decisions were its own and its own alone - and promptly banned the Co-op from advertising in the magazine.

Summary

So the minority with an agenda has got used to using “the system” against society because they have no hope at gaining influence by proper democratic means and so circumvent the normal checks and balances of society.

The problem we as a society have at the moment is that if we actually stop this abuse of the system - that in itself is undemocratic.

What it needs is for more common sense from those on the receiving end of these muppets complaints. If the Co-op had said “Oh for goodness sake - grow up and read more” - they would not have reacted so stupidly.

Similarly - a better briefed Police Dept would not have said something so truly dreadful as warning to an innocent man that they “needed to check his thinking”.

Woke, Cancel Culture, Political Correctness - we must allow it - but be on our guard against those that will use any means possible to force their agenda because they know they will never be able to influence anyone via open and honest democracy.

[wraymond]

Agreed. It’s the newly found opportunities to get an audience that, previous to the advent of social media, would never have seen the light of day. Over-excitable fringe dwellers now hold the fort, chucking their bile at impressionable losers.

Throw into the mix a defenestrated police force with greasy pole managers who respond with either knee-jerk reactions or just turn a deaf’n and you have a recipe for serious trouble makers to make hay while it lasts.

[breakfastinsmethwick]

Shamelessly stolen from somewhere I can't recall:

In communism, man oppresses man, In capitalism, its the other way round.

[grivas]

Originally Posted by SCP440

I used to work with a guy who fitted out the first McDonalds in Moscow, everything had to be flown in and all the staff were sent to Germany for training.

On the day it opened there was a que as far as the eye could see all directions and it was going to cost them about a days wages for the average person for a ''meal''. They had completely run out of everything in 24 hours and they were sending in a flight every few days to keep it restocked for several weeks.

If the West couldn't defeat the USSR militarily, then why not enlist the help of a retailer?.