What you don't seem to understand is that these are subjective determinations. You ever hear the phrase one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? Same concept. From the perspective of the person you find extreme you're the extremist.
Do you believe in a knowable or in a subjective reality?
Both. There are things that are objectively real and there are things that are simply reflections of your feelings. Your belief on who is an extremist being an example of the latter.
I'm not sure how to answer that question. I don't know what you mean by works. Beyond having different goals they both have their merits and inconsistencies. I'm a mixed economy sort of guy and to me what works depends on what we're trying to accomplish. Maximum profits for shareholders? Solutions to human problems? Dissemination of social and technological benefits to the general population?
We'd have to get a bit in depth for that.
Do you believe that certain theories and ideas exist on a spectrum? For example, do you think there is a spectrum of thought between pure communism and pure capitalism?
Does communism produce more or less wealth, jobs, a variety of products meeting a higher variety of needs and less suffering than capitalism?
Which is better? What goals do you think communism has and does it achieve those goals?
I don't know exactly what you mean by pure capitalism or communism but human thoughts and beliefs exist on a spectrum, sure.
Again I'm not sure how to answer that because you're looking for a simple answer to a complex issue. I'm referring to the ideas themselves and you're thinking about historical results but in regards to capitalism I doubt you're calculating the cost of human life in terms of slavery and colonialism both in North and South America and the African continent, nor are you taking into account social reforms in the early 20th century to combat the effects of the great Depression or the continued exploitation of the third world and its resources for first world economic benefit.
I think think the whims of capitalists should be tempered by the goal of securing the general welfare.
It's not meant for the illiterate and I'm all out of coloring books for you.what the fk is that word salad supposed to say?
so even you don't understand it.It's not meant for the illiterate and I'm all out of coloring books for you.
So human thought and beliefs about capitalism and communism exist in a spectrum. I would say communism is a more liberal idea and capitalism is a more conservative idea. Therefore, people who believe in capitalism without any social supports are more extreme to one side and people who believe in communism are more extreme to the other side. Thus, the term extremists.
How does communism solve the problem of deciding what and how much of a product is made? How does it solve the problem of effectively motivating innovators and risk takers? How does it reward those who work harder?
Unfettered capitalism (without regulation) certainly has led to a lot of difficulty, but I wonder which system (in its purest/unregulated form) solves the problems mentioned above differently?
I agree as long it's done in a way that is intelligent and thoughtful regarding human nature and still takes into account the main benefits of capitalism. You also didn't answer my question about what communism's goals are and whether it accomplished them.
That's because you probably don't really understand any of those concepts. The spectrum isn't a straight line. You can be economically liberal and socially conservative, or economically conservative and socially liberal or you could be libertarian. You could be a crony capitalist. I imagine the variety of human thought to exist more like on a sphere than a straight line.
I get it, it just doesn't make any sense because you're imagining this as a straight line with an edge. From the perspective of the crony capitalist he's not an extremist.
Well look at sports leagues and their revenue sharing. The popular and successful teams help to support the bad and mediocre teams because without them you don't have a league.
Solves problems for whom though? Unfettered capitalism allowed slaver plantation owners to live a life of leasure and luxury but did it solve or create problems for the slaves and their families? My point is that capitalism and communism are trying to solve different problems.
No they are notThat's because you probably don't really understand any of those concepts. The spectrum isn't a straight line. You can be economically liberal and socially conservative, or economically conservative and socially liberal or you could be libertarian. You could be a crony capitalist. I imagine the variety of human thought to exist more like on a sphere than a straight line.
I get it, it just doesn't make any sense because you're imagining this as a straight line with an edge. From the perspective of the crony capitalist he's not an extremist.
Well look at sports leagues and their revenue sharing. The popular and successful teams help to support the bad and mediocre teams because without them you don't have a league.
Solves problems for whom though? Unfettered capitalism allowed slaver plantation owners to live a life of leasure and luxury but did it solve or create problems for the slaves and their families? My point is that capitalism and communism are trying to solve different problems.
What does that even mean? Communism and capitalism are representations of different aspects of human nature. Individualism and community.
I agree that since there are many different issues, any one individual can be conservative on one issue and liberal on another. That doesn't make them any less an extremist on a particular issue just because they have a centrist or opposite leaning view on another. You could also theoretically average their views, determine whether they lean generally more right or left, as well as tallying their extremist views. This, it's possibly for extremists to exist in the world and indeed, these individuals do exist. I've spoken to many.
Who?
Sports are a highly capitalistic endeavor. They do that, as you noted, to continue to make a profit. You also didn't answer my questions:
The problems I mentioned above
I'm not saying either is without it's downsides, but wondering which system is better overall? Which countries that had capitalism eventually abolished slavery? Which countries that are communist still have slavery?
What problems are communism trying to solve?
Answer my questions above and you'll know what I mean.
What does that even mean?
Capitalism actually is both an individualistic and community oriented system because both the buyer and seller benefit. Communism doesn't benefit the community because it has no effective way to motivate, reward and respond to product demands. It's a nice theory intended to be community oriented, but doesn't work in practice.
Mexicans DID STEAL MY TOOLS. What the fuck that has to do with fake hate crimes is beyond me.
Why dont you try leaning about them and laugh at your current ignorance
Why don't you try explaining them so I can have a good laugh?
You're still not understanding the concept of subjectivity and perspective. Anyone can be an extremist from a certain perspective.
Right, a little bit of communism and profit sharing benefits them all. I told you I can't really answer your questions because they're too simplistic. Ideas are tools and they're useful for different things in different situations.
Slaves worked pretty hard, so did child laborers in early 20th century, capitalism isn't about rewarding hard work, it's about maximizing profit for investors. Labor laws that were born out of communist ideology forced capitalists to consider the well being of labor when previously they had no problem locking them into factories prone to fires or exploiting their workers in company towns.
Asking which system is better over all is missing the entire point.
The ones I just mentioned above.
Capitalists can also be incredibly short sighted and have no problem burning down the housing market for their own monetary gain.
I understand what you are saying here and I'm still arguing that extremists do exist. Some people may be better or worse at identifying them.
That's not really communism though.
Cop out
You could just as easily credit the values inherent in the Constitution as well as the legal leeway the Constitution gave for individuals and politicians to fight against unethical capitalists (note not all capitalists were unethical) for changing these practices. Again, there are certainly communistic goals that are similar to what was achieved, but that doesn't make the system communistic.
I believe your point is that communism has noble goals and that some helpful policies have had a communistic flavor. If this is your point, I agree.
Absolutely. I believe all systems need regulation for these types of reasons.
That certainly sounds like it describes professional sports leagues like the NFL or MLB who operate as a monopoly, exercises authoritarian control over all its members and the means of their production and engages in collective profit sharing.I understand what you are saying here and I'm still arguing that extremists do exist. Some people may be better or worse at identifying them.
That's not really communism though.
Here's the definition I pulled from the web:
"A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist doctrine advocating revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat that will eventually evolve into a perfectly egalitarian and communal society.
A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.
Any political philosophy or ideology advocating holding the production of resources collectively.
Any political social system that implements a communist political philosophy.
The international socialist society where classes and the state no longer exist.
A political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society"
Which means our system isn't completely capitalist either. As I said in the beginning I'm a mixed economy sort of guy and I see capitalism and communism as tools that have their various uses.
Feel free to feel that way.
The Constitution is a piece of parchment, it has no values. People have values. For a majority of this countries existence it was the values of the ruling majority to subjugate and discriminate against Black Americans. Many of the Black American civil rights heroes who actually fought for and championed equality in this country were themselves communists who saw the capitalist system that they lived under as inherently exploitative.
No, that isn't my point. Communism, like capitalism or even democracy or any other human idea about ways of organizing and working together are nothing more than tools. They have no values or goals. The people who use them do. Some of those people are good, some of them bad depending on your moral framework. It's probably more helpful to think of them like the code that makes the apps on your phone work except capitalism and communism and democracy are code that tells humans how to operate. Sometimes free market capitalism isn't the right code we need to run for some particular operation.
So then don't be so reactionary to a little socialism or communism in your life. It doesn't have to be a boogie man.
