Wars happen for a number of reasons, and there should be a distinction between offensive and defensive wars.
In theory, capitalism is incompatible with war as it is assumed to be a system of fair exchange. Many economists and philosophers followed Ayn Rand in promoting this idea. Obviously it is NOT such a system, and is instead a relentless amoral pursuit of profit and value extraction, and will cheerfully use war to obtain resources while simultaneously extracting value via defense industry stocks. It also uses war to crush any opposed ideologies, which is censorship in its most violent form.
I am not familiar with how communism or socialism is compatible with war outside of Rand’s claim that socialism consumes resources leading to demand for more which must be taken from neighbors rather than using a system of free and fair exchange.
ah. In that case, we can all acknowledge that communism and capitalism have both lead to significant wars and violent non-war actions on the populace.
The Korean war, The invasion of Hungary, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, sino/soviet border conflict, Chinese invasion of Vietnam…
…but let’s not pretend that war is the end-all be-all of government criminality. We can look at democide, or just atrocious neglect that had occurred quite a few times in communism, add well as abuse of the populace.
…now, I’m not claiming capitalism is good. But Communism isn’t some panacea that prevents tensions and violence.
Indeed, there should be a distinction. But Communism isn’t exactly angelic in its tendencies, any more than capitalism is.
Ayn Rand was a bitter individual who turned her bitterness into a philosophy, helping many people all across the world turn their own pain into bitterness. I’m not a fan.
Neither capitalism nor communism are strangers to violent censorship, particularly where it concerns opposition to ideology.
There are things that capitalism does better, and there are things that communism does better. Clearly, the ideals and genuine attempt by some in communism to establish sound philosophical merit is there, and that’s a good first step. However, the infeasibility of implementation of an effective communism that can also compete with capitalism just isn’t there. Concessions are made, and capitalism (or authoritarianism) becomes more and more present, but in ways that aren’t acknowledged.
The reality is that capitalism is powerful, and that there is no way of ensuring ideal human behavior. Government and economic systems fail here, and tend to reflect the vices the people in general hold in esteem (whether they would acknowledge that or not).
The proper grounds for change isn’t government or economic system, but in the moral ideology of the people. It has to do with the values the people hold in esteem, and are willing to back with action. Any system of governance or economy will begin to reflect those underlying values, whether the starting point be communistic, capitalistic, monarchic, oligarchic, or any variant of governance or economic system.
Communism promises to be the next leap forward. It’s only natural to reach for it. But it does not provide what it promises. A dream is not enough. An evolutionary platform must incorporate what exists, not deny it.
That doesn’t mean we can’t find in communism (and other systems of life) what attracts us, and learn to build systems of love and power in our own lives that reflect those things we love so dearly. Once you’ve given up on the dream - truly, and without bitterness or apathy - it’s only natural to do so.
Wars happen for a number of reasons, and there should be a distinction between offensive and defensive wars.
In theory, capitalism is incompatible with war as it is assumed to be a system of fair exchange. Many economists and philosophers followed Ayn Rand in promoting this idea. Obviously it is NOT such a system, and is instead a relentless amoral pursuit of profit and value extraction, and will cheerfully use war to obtain resources while simultaneously extracting value via defense industry stocks. It also uses war to crush any opposed ideologies, which is censorship in its most violent form.
I am not familiar with how communism or socialism is compatible with war outside of Rand’s claim that socialism consumes resources leading to demand for more which must be taken from neighbors rather than using a system of free and fair exchange.
…that difference is entirely which side of the battle line you’re on…
Who was the aggressor: Germany or Poland? Israel or Iran? Iraq or the US?
Are you saying that there is no such thing as a right or wrong, good or bad side to a violent conflict?
If so, prove it.
yeah, that’s why I sidestepped that one. It’s an easy pathway into “no, you!”
Who was the aggressor: Germany or Poland? Israel or Iran? Iraq or the US?
Are you saying that there is no such thing as a right or wrong, good or bad side to a violent conflict?
If so, prove it.
No, are you just scrapping for a fight?
No, I’m saying that it’s only “no you!” for bad faith actors. I’d like to think that isnt who we’re dealing with in this site.
ah. In that case, we can all acknowledge that communism and capitalism have both lead to significant wars and violent non-war actions on the populace.
The Korean war, The invasion of Hungary, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, sino/soviet border conflict, Chinese invasion of Vietnam…
…but let’s not pretend that war is the end-all be-all of government criminality. We can look at democide, or just atrocious neglect that had occurred quite a few times in communism, add well as abuse of the populace.
…now, I’m not claiming capitalism is good. But Communism isn’t some panacea that prevents tensions and violence.
THE EMPIRE DID NOTHING WRONG!!
Indeed, there should be a distinction. But Communism isn’t exactly angelic in its tendencies, any more than capitalism is.
Ayn Rand was a bitter individual who turned her bitterness into a philosophy, helping many people all across the world turn their own pain into bitterness. I’m not a fan.
Neither capitalism nor communism are strangers to violent censorship, particularly where it concerns opposition to ideology.
There are things that capitalism does better, and there are things that communism does better. Clearly, the ideals and genuine attempt by some in communism to establish sound philosophical merit is there, and that’s a good first step. However, the infeasibility of implementation of an effective communism that can also compete with capitalism just isn’t there. Concessions are made, and capitalism (or authoritarianism) becomes more and more present, but in ways that aren’t acknowledged.
The reality is that capitalism is powerful, and that there is no way of ensuring ideal human behavior. Government and economic systems fail here, and tend to reflect the vices the people in general hold in esteem (whether they would acknowledge that or not).
The proper grounds for change isn’t government or economic system, but in the moral ideology of the people. It has to do with the values the people hold in esteem, and are willing to back with action. Any system of governance or economy will begin to reflect those underlying values, whether the starting point be communistic, capitalistic, monarchic, oligarchic, or any variant of governance or economic system.
Communism promises to be the next leap forward. It’s only natural to reach for it. But it does not provide what it promises. A dream is not enough. An evolutionary platform must incorporate what exists, not deny it.
That doesn’t mean we can’t find in communism (and other systems of life) what attracts us, and learn to build systems of love and power in our own lives that reflect those things we love so dearly. Once you’ve given up on the dream - truly, and without bitterness or apathy - it’s only natural to do so.