so let's recap: you said that abuses took place under communism, implying that therefore we cannot ascribe the violence of labor under capitalism to capitalism, or imagine that anything could be otherwise. this is already a nonsequitur, but then the explicit example you provided was shown to be highly spurious, so now you've resorted to just begging the question. do you have anything else to contribute to the discussion here or are you just twiddling your thumbs?
My final point would be this: whether its capitalism, communism, or some other mishmash, if humans are involved and are building the system, someone is gonna get the short end of the stick.
So when I wrote "this is my final point", that didn't count as a final point? Wow, I didn't know that it didn't work that way. Thank you for correcting me.
Communism as a system is structured to reduce exploitation of workers by eliminating the profit motive and instead produce on a centrally planned basis to meet everyone's needs.
Capitalism as a system is structured to exploit the maximum amount of labor to generate high profits for the capitalist class.
Both systems will have instances of exploitation of labor. The difference is one of them is structured around increasing it, the other decreasing it to the point of abolishing it entirely. Judging socialist projects because of cases of exploitation of labor, in their nascent stages, is like criticizing capitalism in the aftermath of the French Revolution because there were still parts of France that maintained similar conditions to Feudalism for some years.
I could argue that we're still in the nascent stages of capitalism. Claiming "nascent stages" is like claiming "but that wasn't real communism. If we did this this way it would be better."
We're at least 200 years into capitalism and it's reached the end of its lifespan. As the USSR and now China, DPRK, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos and some other places demonstrate. Even if they didn't prove that humanity is ready to transition into the next stage of development, we would know that capitalism is on its death bed for one simple reason: if it continues for much longer it will destroy almost all life on the planet. The best thing about capitalism is it's lifespan.
No argument there. Just goes to show how destructive it is. Almost like the increasing concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands with the increasing impoverishment of the masses of workers is a recipe for revolution. We can marvel at how rapid the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production led to it's end.
I would simply remove the baby first. it's not a good metaphor for your purposes because throwing a baby is actually difficult to do by accident, whereas throwing out bathwater without a baby is very easy and does not in any way require that. In this case we would retain labor- and lifesaving industrial technologies, but reject the hoarding of profit and the enslavement of human existence.
Do you think there are never any human labour abuses under communist regimes?
so let's recap: you said that abuses took place under communism, implying that therefore we cannot ascribe the violence of labor under capitalism to capitalism, or imagine that anything could be otherwise. this is already a nonsequitur, but then the explicit example you provided was shown to be highly spurious, so now you've resorted to just begging the question. do you have anything else to contribute to the discussion here or are you just twiddling your thumbs?
Acktually ....
My final point would be this: whether its capitalism, communism, or some other mishmash, if humans are involved and are building the system, someone is gonna get the short end of the stick.
The problem isn't the -isms, it's people.
That is about the most absurd claims I have heard in a long, long time.
Does expose that you see other humans as problems instead of as humans.
That quote about how under capitalism, you begin to see other people as obstacles to your freedom
Great quote, who is it from?
deleted by creator
Yes. You worked it out. Well done.
So when I wrote "this is my final point", that didn't count as a final point? Wow, I didn't know that it didn't work that way. Thank you for correcting me.
deleted by creator
Communism as a system is structured to reduce exploitation of workers by eliminating the profit motive and instead produce on a centrally planned basis to meet everyone's needs.
Capitalism as a system is structured to exploit the maximum amount of labor to generate high profits for the capitalist class.
Both systems will have instances of exploitation of labor. The difference is one of them is structured around increasing it, the other decreasing it to the point of abolishing it entirely. Judging socialist projects because of cases of exploitation of labor, in their nascent stages, is like criticizing capitalism in the aftermath of the French Revolution because there were still parts of France that maintained similar conditions to Feudalism for some years.
I could argue that we're still in the nascent stages of capitalism. Claiming "nascent stages" is like claiming "but that wasn't real communism. If we did this this way it would be better."
You might’ve read what he wrote but you didn’t quite understand it.
Oh man, you got me, I am a communist now.
We're at least 200 years into capitalism and it's reached the end of its lifespan. As the USSR and now China, DPRK, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos and some other places demonstrate. Even if they didn't prove that humanity is ready to transition into the next stage of development, we would know that capitalism is on its death bed for one simple reason: if it continues for much longer it will destroy almost all life on the planet. The best thing about capitalism is it's lifespan.
That's pretty short.
No argument there. Just goes to show how destructive it is. Almost like the increasing concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands with the increasing impoverishment of the masses of workers is a recipe for revolution. We can marvel at how rapid the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production led to it's end.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Oh man, you got me, I am a communist now.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
This isn't a sport, nor a zero sum game. We're discussing something. There is no winner or loser, that's not how a conversation works.
Again, do you treat all discussions as some kind of debating game?
I'm considering not becoming a communist purely to avoid having to encounter characters like the one in this thread.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Oh woah, got me there, bruv. Guess we should throw the bath water out.
deleted by creator
Now it's my turn to ask for sources.
deleted by creator
I would simply remove the baby first. it's not a good metaphor for your purposes because throwing a baby is actually difficult to do by accident, whereas throwing out bathwater without a baby is very easy and does not in any way require that. In this case we would retain labor- and lifesaving industrial technologies, but reject the hoarding of profit and the enslavement of human existence.
I previously assumed yes, but you seem to be struggling to find an example.