TheRPGSite

Okay, not really, but it just occured to me that in the recent "I'm Becoming a Communist" thread, we saw reactions ranging from bemused "Whatever, dude. :rolleyes: " to "Right on, brother! :haw: ".

What would the reactions be if someone were to announce "Hey everybody, I'm becoming a Facist!" - I think we all know.

How come its socially acceptable to parade around in Mao and Che shirts and spout party slogans for fun while drinking espresso and decrying "The Man", and yet you can't slap on a spiffy brown shirt and black boots without 99% of the population wanting to smash your face in with a brick? You don't see people carrying around copies of Mein Kampf, but Mao's Little Red Book is still a best seller. Nobody is filming fawning haigographies to Hitler, yet we have "The Motorcycle Diaries" and "Reds".

Buh?

Communisim killed more people, in more countries, and ruined more lives, than Facism, and its still doing so! At best, their restrictions on personal freedom are comparable. So what gives?

Communism has a longer history. Fascism rose, got beat down badly and never really got up again. Staying power counts.

And yes, Che t-shirts never cease to amaze me. Won't even mention the movies...

Here's an article for you to consider:

The Two Totalitarianisms (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n06/zize01_.html)

Meh. The author has no problem distinguishing Stalinism from general Communism, but doesn't do the same for Fascism and Nazism...

Yup. Facism =/= Nazisim. I seem to recall a quote or something from Mussolini saying that Hitler gave Facists a bad name...

Is it the sole fact of the concentration camps and Final Solution that makes Facism so abhorrent? That people conflate the two, but somehow never heard of the Gulag Archipeligo? After all, it seems to be the one point people always bring up.

Hrm ... dunno.  In high school my wife got into a fight with a teacher ... one she was still so stoked about that I heard about it years later:  The teacher put forth the idea that democracy was the opposite of communism, and communism the opposite of democracy, and never the twain could meet.  My wife pointed out that democracy is a system of governance, and communism a system of economics, and they have about as much similarity as a peach and a hubcap.  They can't be opposites ... they're not similar enough to be opposites.

Now in theory, as an economic philosophy, Communism's got a lot going for it.  You're talking "Be economically fair to the people doing the production" and "Distribute goods in a way that endeavours to avoid injustice and hardship" and shit like that.  It sounds great.

In theory.

In practice, people seem to have an awfully damn hard time making communism happen without creating a totalitarian state, either intentionally or by slow inches.  And totalitarianism really seems to pretty much suck, hands down.

Maybe that's why communism always looks so much more appealing in places where it is way the hell distant from ever gaining any substantial political power.  As long as the people proclaiming it can stick to talking about economics ... and not the things that would have to actually be done ... they can be pretty appealing.

Fascism, on the other hand, is totalitarianism and so much more.  Even in places where it is a distant minority without a chance in hell of ever siezing the reins of power, the people proclaiming it still have to talk about What Should Be Done ... and their ideas on the subject are pretty plainly ugly.

Anyway ... just a ramble, thinking about why they might come across so differently.  I certainly agree that the history of their practical application is littered with ugliness on all sides.  Not that ... ahem ... certain other political ideologies are without stain in that regard, either. :(

Quote from: WerekoalaHow come its socially acceptable to parade around in Mao and Che shirts and spout party slogans for fun while drinking espresso and decrying "The Man", and yet you can't slap on a spiffy brown shirt and black boots without 99% of the population wanting to smash your face in with a brick?

I have to assume that this is a joke.  A very, very bad joke, but a joke none the less.  You're smart enough to not ask this question seriously.

!i!

(P.S. With regard to the Mao and Che t-shirts not being targets of brick-in-face, you need to get out more.  I have more than a couple of Ukranian and Chinese friends and acquaintences who can get a little volatile on the issue.)

Its not a "joke" its a legitmate question. Read the rest of what I wrote and the responses from others. I'm dead serious. Mass murderers are cool, and so is their ideology, so long as they have red banners with a star or hammer and sickle, instead of an iron cross. And hey, so's their political ideology that seeks to make everyone exactly alike - poor and dependent on the State for anything and everything. That worked real well in the past, eh? Guess we just need to make sure the "right" people are in charge this time around.  

My point isn't "Gee, that's not fair to Facists" - my POINT is "Why the fuck are Commies so cool and accepted?" There's another Che movie in production for example, with Benecio Del Toro as Che.

What. The. Fuck?

Now, do you have any thoughts on the actual issue?

Quote from: TonyLBIn practice, people seem to have an awfully damn hard time making communism happen without creating a totalitarian state, either intentionally or by slow inches. And totalitarianism really seems to pretty much suck, hands down.

People always seem to ignore the point that the so-called communist revolutions of the 20th century occurred in technologically-backward, authoritarian places. Look at Russia before the revolution and now. There are, currently, people starving to death in the streets and women selling themselves to foreigners, while former apparatchiks become millionaires.

Furthermore, people ignore or elide the role that the Western powers played. Do you know what Kruschev meant when he said that Soviet troops had never been on American soil, but American troops had been on Russian soil? Do you understand the history of Cuba?

Quote from: SosthenesMeh. The author has no problem distinguishing Stalinism from general Communism, but doesn't do the same for Fascism and Nazism...

That's a bold assertion, but the article doesn't bear it out.

Quote from: WerekoalaNow, do you have any thoughts on the actual issue?

Yes, I have some thoughts on the actual issue.  They pertain to the fact that I had assumed that you were either making an ironic joke or being purposefully dense to provoke a response, not that you were actually being so ass-stupid as to wonder why sporting a communist-icon-turned-irrelevant-pop-icon somehow gets a pass when dressing like a Brownshirt gets a smack in the mouth.

When was the last time you heard of clashes with militant communists on US soil?  Now, when was the last time you heard of clashes with militant fascists on US soil?  Now, pair that up with the fact that the militant communists of the late 60s and early 70s tended to draw up lines along class divides while the militant fascists of the 80s and 90s almost invariably drew up lines along racial divides, and maybe you can see why I figured you were making a wry joke.

Images of Mao and Che, or old Maoist or Soviet uniforms, being worn by yuppies is a bourgeois commentary on the perceived defeat of 20th century communism.  It's revolutionary politics reduced to kitsch.  Yokels dressing up like fascists is perceived as a call to arms.

There.  See?  You knew that.  That's why I assumed you were making a bad joke and that you weren't so socially and politically dense as to need that explained to you.

!i!

I know several Russians who have emigrated to the US and don't mind you calling them Russian at all, but you can expect a fist in the face if you call them communists. Communism has a very bad history in parts of the world.

Ian. I know Facists today are associated with racism. I'm not stupid.

But why does anyone tolerate the "kitsch" of Che T-Shirts and Shining Path totebags (Way to go Cameron Diaz!). And why are people excited to join with an ideology that gave us Cambodia and the Cultural Revolution and gulags and all the attendant evils? Like I said, is it just that they think "This time, we'll do it right?" There IS no "right" way to have a communist government. And glorifying it and those who force it on their own people is accepted - why? Hell, there are plenty of people in this country who think Castro is just hunky-dory. Look at that free medical care! That's an example we should be following! :rolleyes:

You're still missing the main point of my question and the discussion, I think. Communism belongs on the ash-heap of history along with Facism, and glorifying it should be no more acceptable than glorifying Facism.

I think the authour of the article droog linked us to got it right when he commented that while there were always people speaking of "communism with a human face", no-one has ever spoken of "Nazism with a human face."

Communism represents, at least in theory, the old French revolutionary slogan, a hope for equality and fraternity, and ultimately in the course of history for liberty. Fascism presented no utopian vision, no hope - the world was as it was, bleak and empty, with the strong ruling the weak. In practice the two come to resemble each-other.

With this historical view, communism is good in theory and vile in practice, while fascism is vile in both theory and practice.

The communist vision of the future is of a utopia of brotherhood and decency; the fascist vision of the future is of wold destruction. When putting images on t-shirts and waving flags, conscious people (not the unconscious middle classes) are demonstrating their support for this vision. So the person mouthing Maoist sayings is presenting a vision of an egalitarian utopia; the person mouthing Nazi sayings is presenting a fantasy of world destruction.

Again, how they turn out in practice is not relevant here. We're asking why people can display one set of symbols with pride, but not another - it's because symbols are of dreams, not of reality. And the communist dream has quite simply more appeal than the fascist one.

The other point is that elements of communism have been accepted and welcomed in democratic states around the world. Progressive income tax, universal healthcare, a welfare system and so on - these are at their heart communist, striving towards "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." By contrast, fascism has contributed little or nothing to modern democracy, except in the sense of giving us something to reject, for example we support a separation of powers, rather than having the executive imprison people at will. We are less offended by an ideology that we've partly incorporated into our lives than one we've not.

They're both BAD - and many of us will be happier when the iconagraphy of both of those things is no longer treated as a fashion statement by some.


- Ed C.

Quote from: WerekoalaYou're still missing the main point of my question and the discussion, I think. Communism belongs on the ash-heap of history along with Facism, and glorifying it should be no more acceptable than glorifying Facism.

That's exactly the point I've been making, though.  Revolutionary communism (we're not discussing communism as an economic philosophy) isn't being glorified, it's being trivialised.  Okay, with the exception of the movies, but in those cases it's being capitalised upon.  See the irony in that?

Fascism, on the other hand, just doesn't sell as well.  It gets taken much more seriously because it's still perceived as an imminent threat to society.*  People who dress up in neatly pressed brown shirts and jackboots generally look like they mean business, and so are confronted more vigorously.  There's very little irony in casually looking like a goose-stepper.

!i!

(*As I mentioned in an earlier post, I know a few Ukranians and Chinese who do bear Revolutionary Communism in recent memory, and so still perceive it as an imminent threat to society, or at least fail to see the humor in co-opting its regalia and imagery into popular culture.  To them, the commie-kitsch ain't cool.)

Quote from: KoltarThey're both BAD - and many of us will be happier when the iconagraphy of both of those things is no longer treated as a fashion statement by some.

G'ah!  D'uh!  Could this statement have been more equivocative?

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaG'ah!  D'uh!  Could this statement have been more equivocative?

!i!

Once again, messin' with sasquatch.

:D ;)

Well, what symbology or theory does pure fascism have? It's rather easy to separate Communism from the worst excesses of Stalinism, but fascism itself is rather ill-defined. No big manifestos, no well-known symbol.

When you see a t-shirt with the "fasces" on it, it's more likely there's a history major in it than a totalitarian...

One possible answer to your conundrum is that fascism takes its manifestoes from the general culture. Many features of fascist thought are quite acceptable, particularly at this end of the 21st century. While communism, by definition, represents a break with the capitalist state, fascism is actually a development of it. Which is to say that fascism is all around you and therefore hard to see.

I refer you to this article:

Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt (http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html)

Hmm? Are we reading the same article (not that it's a particularly good one)? The link between capitalism and fascism is pretty elusive. Totalitarian systems and capitalism don't mix much.

Fascism is a particular development of the capitalist state in crisis. Lenin thought that liberal democracy made 'the best possible shell' for capitalism. That is because, under ideal conditions, the freedom of the bourgeoisie to manage their affairs without interference from the state is paramount.

In conditions of economic crisis, capitalism starts to fail on its big promise: increasing wealth for all. Social unrest follows. At this point there is little to do but for the state to step in in some way. You can try for Keynesian pump-priming (AKA the New Deal), or you can repress the population while stimulating the economy by making war abroad (AKA fascism). Repressing the population with Cossacks is difficult these days, so an apparatus of propaganda must be deployed. The appeal to tradition, 'Blood and Soil', the fixation on external enemies--it's all there.

The problem with the classic Leninist analysis of fascism is that it doesn't really explain modern China, which has gone from socialist to fascist without really having a liberal-capitalist phase in the middle.

Quote from: droogFascism is a particular development of the capitalist state in crisis.

The same can be said for communism. I don't really buy those dialectic arguments...

I'm not sure I would agree that China is a fascist state, though it certainly exhibits some of the characteristics. But then, I'm not sure I'd agree it was ever communist either.

Quote from: SosthenesThe same can be said for communism. I don't really buy those dialectic arguments...

If you're not buying, what are you offering for sale?

Patented Lederhosen with built-in diapers?

Maybe I'm a little behind on my definitions, but some of the effects of fascism just don't mix with a capitalist economy. In a totalitarian regime privately-owned capital is restricted, as is free market enterprise. Also, real capitalism is a pretty modern concept, and fascism doesn't play nicely with modernism.

I think one problem in a discussion like this is that we're usually comparing two different platforms. Communism is usually represented by the theory surrounding it (marxist, leninist), whereas the only thing fascism has is the particular implementation (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco). Pictures of apples versus rotten oranges.

Quote from: droogI'm not sure I would agree that China is a fascist state, though it certainly exhibits some of the characteristics. But then, I'm not sure I'd agree it was ever communist either.

It definitely was. Anything else is revisionist "Not a True Scotsman" crap. Now, Maoism isn't a particularly intellectually robust form of scientific socialism, and it was one of the greatest fuck ups of mankind's history in practice, but there's a difference between doing something badly and not doing it at all.

On the other hand, it no longer is socialist, except in name. The "harmonious society" kick of the current leadership is unquestionably fascist. I think it's one of the most fascinating transitions of the 20th/21st centuries precisely because history is exceeding our theories once more.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe "harmonious society" kick of the current leadership is unquestionably fascist. I think it's one of the most fascinating transitions of the 20th/21st centuries precisely because history is exceeding our theories once more.

It might also be viewed as a return to the status quo that has prevailed in China for the last few millennia.

!i!

Capitalism doesn't mix with fascism? Say what? Capitalism is inseparable with it. Go read Goebbels' diaries, there's a lovely bit where old Shicklegruber has come out of prison and makes a speech about how it's important to buddy up to the capitalists, the only true enemies are Jews and Bolsheviks. Since Goebbels had been saying that the commies had the same aims as the Nazis, and the capitalists were the ones who were destroying Germany, this really upset Goebbels, and he wondered if he should follow the Austrian anymore. Being a natural slug, Goebbels soon changed his mind, of course - but the point is, fascism in its original Italian and contemporary German form were absolutely inseparable from capitalism.

And then you get all those South American and European fascist dictatorships which were extremely buddy-buddy with capitalists of all kinds.

Sure, it wasn't free market capitalism, but then neither is what we have today.

Capitalism is the natural friend of fascism. "We've got money, you've got power, let's get together and make more of both."

No it isn't.

 Capitalism is the natural friend of Freedom and democracy.

 To restate: Fascism and communism ? They're both BAD.

 GOOD = Hugs, making out and a good movie on a saturday night.


- Ed C.

QuoteCapitalism is the natural friend of Freedom and democracy.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!  

*falls off of chair in utter hysterics*

Thanks Koltar, I really needed a good laugh.

Koltar, mate, you crack me up sometimes.

Did you study any history or economics in school? Capitalists do extremely well in fascist countries. Capitalists supported Hitler's rise. Capitalists asked General Butler to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup. Consider the United Fruit Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company) as just one example of a company which embraced fascism whole-heartedly, and even ensured that fascism would take hold in its host countries, where it could - it was good for profits.

Of course, you may object that when a company uses the local government's military and police forces to ensure a monopoly, maintain exhorbitant prices and degrade the local environment, that is not "true capitalism" - but then you have to deal with people saying, "ah, but Stalin and Mao weren't true communists, either." And you'd both be equally right, and equally wrong.

United Fruit Company is NOT an example of "capitalism". They were exploiters and pillagers. Thats not what capitalism is .

 Using that group as an example is just stacking the deck.

- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarCapitalism is the natural friend of Freedom and democracy.

What a load of horseshit.  Each of those three supposed Red-White-&-Blue ideals exist independently of one another, and none of them is the natural friend of either of the others.

QuoteTo restate: Fascism and communism ? They're both BAD.

Why? Fascism, I think we can see a number of examples of how it's predicated on the strong holding dominion over the weak.  Okay.  But communism?  Why is it bad?  Because that's what you were told every day growing up in a nation that was playing economic chicken with the Soviet Union?  Or are you aware of some fatal underpinning of the communist philosophy that makes it inherently bad?  There's a reason that I referred to "revolutionary communism" in my posts above, and I think Kyle did a pretty nice job of explaining why the theory is wonderful, but the practice has been flawed.

Honestly, don't spout bland platitudes in an effort to appear diplomatic.

!i!

Quote from: KoltarUnited Fruit Company is NOT an example of "capitalism". They were exploiters and pillagers. Thats not what capitalism is .

 Using that group as an example is just stacking the deck.

And communism shouldn't be equated with bloody Stalinism or Maoist doctrine, either.  And fascism shouldn't automatically be lumped in with Nazism.  Fact is, the United Fruit Company is a glaring example of what capitalism can breed.

!i!

Quote from: KoltarUnited Fruit Company is NOT an example of "capitalism". They were exploiters and pillagers. Thats not what capitalism is .

 Using that group as an example is just stacking the deck.

Stalin and Mao are NOT examples of "communism." They were exploiters and pillagers. That's not what communism is.

Using those guys as examples is just stacking the deck.

See now this is why I don't think you're well-educated. Traditionally in debates, mentioning facts which refute the other person's assertions isn't "stacking the deck", isn't cheating - it's just part of the debate.

A few US firms which did business with Nazi Germany helping it with its war buildup and later war effort: Brown Brothers Harriman (with Prescott Bush, granpappy of Dubya), IBM (punch-card machines helped Nazis catalogue Jews for death camps), Ford, General Motors, Coca-Cola.

And then of course there are many US, British and EU companies which do business in the absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia, the theocratic republic of Iran, the military dictatorship of Pakistan, the communist dictatorship of China, the military dictatorship of Libya, and so on and so forth.

Capitalism absolutely thrives under autocratic governments.

Of course, maybe none of those large companies doing business with autocratic governments are "true capitalists." Exxon-Mobil, BP, Microsoft, Haliburton, Walmart, nup, none of them are capitalists.

And Stalin and Mao and Hoxha and Castro and Kim Il Sung and Turkmenbashi and Ho Chi Minh and Trotsky and Lenin and Kruschev and Honecker, none of them were "true communists", either.

Really capitalism has just been misunderstood, most often by the loudest proponents of it. Just like communism! Really Walmart wants you to be FREE!!! Haliburton loves democracy, that's why they got into making those rigged voting machines.

Poor old Marx was just misunderstood. He liked freedom and democracy, too. You can't stack the deck by mentioning Stalin.

Returning to the original question, it has to be mentioned that communism has had the luck of killing mostly irrelevant people. Let's face it, peasants from Eastern Europe or China aren't particularly interesting or valuable to educated Western Europeans, not to mention that they were impediments to progress - superstitious, stupid and poor. A few million here and there was a small price to pay for technological modernisation and a better future, which educated Western European were eagerly looking forward to... if not for themselves, at least for their children (after they have enjoyed capitalism for a few more years, of course).

Fascism, on the other hand, killed important folks. Industrialists. Lawyers. Doctors. Wealthy and educated men and women. People who had a voice and weren't just dots in a faceless mass - when an Ukrainian agronomist perishing in the GULAG is just a statistic, a French musician being carried away to the camps is a loss to humanity (L'Humanité).

Small things like this make all the difference.

Moreover. We are actually seeing a bit of a fascist renaissance in Hungary at this time - militaristic imagery, clothing and music is all the rage among the tween generation. When The Man is made up of of ex-socialists-turned-slimy-businessmen and liberals who want to tell you what to think, your only chance for rebellion lies in jackboots and a shaved head. Counterculture has reared its head once more, but this time it is against the 60s generation, who have fucked up our future for their selfish desires. They wanted my generation to follow them in tolerance and respect for themselves and their values, but we wanted a different freedom, one where we were allowed to be intolerant. And they don't get it. So it goes.

Sort of like the difference between the Western responses to Yugoslavia, and Rwanda?

Ah, Melan, you cynic! :D

Quote from: Kyle AaronCapitalism is the natural friend of fascism. "We've got money, you've got power, let's get together and make more of both."

But once again, the revolution will eat its children. Or in this case, their rich uncles. A thoroughly implemented fascism will have increasingly instutionalized corporations.

And let's better not talk about finance markets, right?

Well, finance markets are closer to anarcho-syndicalism than fascism. :p

Any type of capitalism that the fascist country is good at can stay for a while, in general.

I think if there would be another communist revolution, this would probably be the same, i.e. the aim would be something like China and not Cuba. What's Chavez doing right now? ;)

Quote from: Kyle AaronSort of like the difference between the Western responses to Yugoslavia, and Rwanda?

Oh, much more than that. Sort of like the difference between Western responses to Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia. And who responded to whom. Let me tell you - it's one exciting story. We could start, for example, at differences in treatment based on which side of WW2 your grandparents fought on. :wizard:

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt definitely was. Anything else is revisionist "Not a True Scotsman" crap. Now, Maoism isn't a particularly intellectually robust form of scientific socialism, and it was one of the greatest fuck ups of mankind's history in practice, but there's a difference between doing something badly and not doing it at all.

Well, I'm happy to concede the point.

Quote from: SosthenesWhat's Chavez doing right now? ;)

I believe he's trying to merge all political parties into one, has nationalised everything except people's underpants, and also the state-owned energy company (providing 2/3 of Venezuela's exports and 1/2 the government's revenue) is branching out into soybean agriculture, building, and other stuff. (I suppose it'll give them something to do when the oil runs out. Hey, that's a lot more foresight than most oil exporting countries.)

Sounds like a dirty fucking communist to me! :p

Quote from: MelanOh, much more than that. Sort of like the difference between Western responses to Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia. And who responded to whom. Let me tell you - it's one exciting story. We could start, for example, at differences in treatment based on which side of WW2 your grandparents fought on.

At least Italy had the decency to change sides (twice) and the Turks had the sense to stay out of the second one! Come on, mate, why do you think the West sold Hungary down the river? You fought on the wrong side in both world wars. And then you rise up in '56 and expect the West to come in and help! Pffft!

Also it was payback for that Attila guy. The rape of Naissus! Never forget! :p

I now see why the rest of the world hates the United States...

It's all the unbridled capitalism that must, in the end, lead to fascism; or is a sign of fascism; or is it Nazism?

Here's where you are correct, Kyle:
When a capitalist does it wrong, it's no longer capitalism.  When a communist does it wrong; it's still communism.

Here's the difference Kyle:
When a capitalist does it right, it is capitalism.  When a communist does it right, it is communism.

If you can't see the difference, then there is no point in discussion.

Quote from: James J SkachI now see why the rest of the world hates the United States...

It's all the unbridled capitalism that must, in the end, lead to fascism; or is a sign of fascism; or is it Nazism?

Where did you read that?

QuoteWhen a capitalist does it wrong, it’s no longer capitalism. When a communist does it wrong; it’s still communism.

Wrong on both counts.  Nine times out of ten, when either capitalism or communism does it wrong, they fall back on socialism to one degree or another, flavored by the intended economic system.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaG'ah!  D'uh!  Could this statement have been more equivocative?

!i!

It's like Koltar didn't put any thought into his statement at all...

Quote from: Thanatos02It's like Koltar didn't put any thought into his statement at all...

None of his own, anyway.

I should stop. It's like kicking a puppy.

no, folks!  please continue.  we got rid of our cable months ago, and this is better than any sitcom the networks would show, anyway.  :D

Quote from: Thanatos02I should stop. It's like kicking a puppy.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a183/breadisthewin/shs_SadPuppy.jpg)

I can has fredom an democrcy? :(



...yeah, I'm sick of the LOLCats and similar twaddle too, but, y'know...it seemed fitting.

Quote from: ErstwhileI can has fredom an democrcy? :(

It'd just be too cute for me to say no...

Quote from: James J SkachIt's all the unbridled capitalism that must, in the end, lead to fascism; or is a sign of fascism; or is it Nazism?

Naw. It's just that capitalism is an economic system, while fascism and communism are social systems. So capitalism can fit within either, it's just restricted. Fascism will restrict what the capitalist can produce, while communism will restrict who the capitalist can give it to, and at what price, and how much profits they can accumulate. On the other hand, fascism will guarantee capitalism a big market for consumer goods (war materiel). So fascism restricts capitalism much less than does communism. That means that capitalism lives more happily under fascism than it does under communism. It's like Catholicism in that way.

Unbridled capitalism doesn't lead to fascism. It's just that caiptalists will naturally favour whoever is going to hand over the most cash. And that's fascists; communists have silly ideas about handing it over to the people. Of course, both fascism and communism end in corruption, which hurts profits, just like taxation.

Quote from: James J SkachWhen a capitalist does it wrong, it's no longer capitalism. When a communist does it wrong; it's still communism.

When a capitalist does it right, it is capitalism. When a communist does it right, it is communism.

Yeah, okay, I see. So when my guys do it wrong they're no longer my guys and it's not the fault of our philosophy, but when those other guys do it wrong it's definitely the fault of their philosophy. Therefore our philosophy is always right, and theirs is always wrong.

With such circular logic you would be torn apart in a third-rate university debating competition, or elected at a party political convention.

Perhaps this will clear it up - I cut and paste and missed fixing something.  This is what I meant to type:

Here's where you are correct, Kyle:
When a capitalist does it wrong, it's no longer capitalism. When a communist does it wrong; it's no longer communism.

Here's the difference Kyle:
When a capitalist does it right, it is capitalism. When a communist does it right, it is communism.

And I'll say it again, and this time double check I've said what I meant to say, and repeat: if you can't see why this makes a difference (which I suspect you won't with all your talk of "communist theory is happy happy joy joy"), then further discussion is pointless.

Dude, that's a series of fucking tautologies, seemingly coupled with the a priori assumption that capitalism is inherently beneficial, while communism is inherently deleterious.

I think you're right about one thing, though -- further discussion is apparently pointless.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaDude, that's a series of fucking tautologies, seemingly coupled with the a priori assumption that capitalism is inherently beneficial, while communism is inherently deleterious.

I think you're right about one thing, though -- further discussion is apparently pointless.

!i!

Nonesense - without further discussion, I wouldn't have such a cool description! Thanks!

Adn the best part is - it nails it perfectly.

You guys are asking for WAY too much typing on a board where I go to check out roleplaying stuff.

 Remember the guy who was talking about doing a Holocaust RPG?  I said some words on there touching on that.

 This "thread" that I'm posting in was done as a sarcastic spinoff joke from the one saying "I'm becoming a communist".

 I've met relatives and indirect victims of both Communism and Fascism. Talked with them. So yeah to me the short version is : They are both "Bad". I could say evil ...but a lot of people like to argure that word's usage as well.

What I see of the people that I know and meet who were NOT born in America and come here ? They LIKE capitalism and Democracy.  Whether they call it that or not. In the mall that I work at there are TWO Japanese families that own or run 2 to 3 businesses there, a Korean family that runs an ice cream booth in the food court, and there was the Palestinian gentleman that ran the art store next to where I work.  He and I used to talk on slow days - a LOT.  He was very proud of becoming an American Citizen 8 or 9 years ago. Said it was one of the happiest days in his life.
There was also the woman from Uzbekistan (spelling?) who worked at the WAL-MART I used to work at. She would also say she prefers democracy over how she lived 20 to 30 years ago.

So yeah I simplified things to:  Communism is Bad and Fascism is also Bad. Just because they're short sentences that doesn't make them any less true.

 Now I'd like to go back to talking about adventuring merchant crews in the 57th century for awhile up in the RPG section....


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarSo yeah I simplified things to:  Communism is Bad and Fascism is also Bad. Just because they're short sentences that doesn't make them any less true.
- Ed C.

It's not being accurate or backed up that's throwing the wrench in it.

Look, dude. You're free to come and go as you please, but if you don't want to say anything but flat-ass platitudes, then gtfo and post in your role-playing threads.

I'm mostly here to read role-playing threads too, when they're not the same old slagging on other people's shit. But when I'm in Off Topic, I post in good faith. Snark is fine, but platitudes are boring and pointless. Put some meat in your discussion or don't bother.

Quote from: James J SkachAdn the best part is - it nails it perfectly.

Yeah, especially the "a priori" bit.  I have to tell you man, that's really nothing to be particularly proud of.  Go you.

!i!

Quote from: KoltarWhat I see of the people that I know and meet who were NOT born in America and come here ? They LIKE capitalism and Democracy.  Whether they call it that or not. In the mall that I work at there are TWO Japanese families that own or run 2 to 3 businesses there, a Korean family that runs an ice cream booth in the food court, and there was the Palestinian gentleman that ran the art store next to where I work.

G'uh...dude.  Japan, (presumably South) Korea, and Israel/Palestine are all democratic and capitalist nations.  What the hell are you talking about?  You're apparently conflating democracy and capitalism with Americanism.

QuoteThere was also the woman from Uzbekistan (spelling?) who worked at the WAL-MART I used to work at. She would also say she prefers democracy over how she lived 20 to 30 years ago.

Yeah, and on the flipside of things, I have an old friend who had immigrated from Beijing who once confided in me, "Here in America, you can have lots of things, but life is hard.  In China, you didn't have much, but life was easy."  A bit of bitter-sweetness there, if you get my drift.  Capitalism ain't cake and punch at every meal, and communism ain't the bitter fruit you're always told it is.

!i!

I met an old Russian woman who thought that present-day Russia is no improvement on the Soviet era.

Quote from: droogI met an old Russian woman who thought that present-day Russia is no improvement on the Soviet era.

During my travels in Russia, I met a few locals who felt that way. I only visited Moscow and St Petersburg though, so I couldn't comment on the more rural areas of the former USSR. And obviously, I only spoke with Russians who knew English. But I was definitely surprised by the number of Russians who seemed to think things were either better in the Soviet era, or not really much different.
 
As a casual observer, I wouldn't have described all the capitalist development in Russia as positive.  At least, not what I saw.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkAs a casual observer, I wouldn't have described all the capitalist development in Russia as positive.  At least, not what I saw.

I have come back from Ukraine with similar impressions. The breakdown of public order and the emergence of unlawful groups taking power into their own hands while an ever-present but impotent bureaucracy stays around is not a nice thing. As much as Yeltsin and people like him were slobbered all over by the Western press, all I know of them suggests that they would have been sent to jail for life in a honestly democratic system. It is no accident that Putin, who could restore a semblance of normality, is so highly regarded by so many Russian citizens after widespread disillusionment with Yeltsin's "democracy".

One of tonight's reruns of Anthony Bourdain's show, is a visit to Moscow.  during his visit to the Red Square there was actually a small group of demonstrators, marching Soviet flags, and banners calling for the return of the old Communism.

I've always gotten the impression that the return of an anarchic capitalism to Russia, as well as the general weakness of the government after the collapse, left a world that is rather a shiny gloss over what's really not much better than what you'd find in the poor parts of places like Vietnam.  Sure, there's McDonald's and Giorgio Armani stores in downtown Moscow, but there's also a lot of people who're still as poor and miserable as they were before, and to top it off, corruption is everywhere, organized crime is one of the country's biggest industries, often being run by the same KGB thugs who previously sent people off to the gulags.  

I wouldn't necessarily start quoting The Who lyrics to describe the situation, but I can certainly see how, from a day to day life perspective, of someone who maybe isn't even really caught up with the new capitalism, one could find themselves missing the old days.

I believe it is important to mark the difference between longing for the „good old days” of state socialism, and wishing for security and a decent livelihood. The first sentiment is understandable but misguided, while the second is entirely legitimate, eben when it is wrapped up in the former. If democracies fail their citizens, they start to produce leaders who will fix things the autocratic way. Putin and Chavez are both products of states which couldn’t (or didn’t want to) address basic needs posters on these boards are taking for granted. This is why I believe that restricting the perspective on systematic transformation to providing negative rights and creating a market economy is deeply flawed (not to mention that in Russia, not even these were available to the common man, only to privileged groups with connections and social capital). Without opportunities, rights are entirely worthless. Therefore, a libertarian position is immoral to take in post-socialist societies.

QuoteTherefore, a libertarian position is immoral to take in post-socialist societies.

There are those of us who think it's an immoral position to take regardless of location or past history.  Indeed, I think part of what renders the philosophies of libertarinism so ridiculous is a lack of analysis of past history.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYeah, especially the "a priori" bit.  I have to tell you man, that's really nothing to be particularly proud of.  Go you.

!i!

Methinks, perhaps, you're missing the importance of the a priori aspect.

If you look at the statement, I made no specific judgement.  I did not explicitly cast my preference on either system - hence the tautological nature of the statements.

The point is, if I believe, a priori that communism is inherently preferable to capitalism, and you don't - or vice versa - then trying to convince each other, or even discuss it with any hope of common understanding, is a far-fetched enterprise.

Calling a truce and moving on in a non-judgemental way - which is what I was trying to do, essentially saying we will agree to disagree - was the point.  And I can honestly say "proud" is not my goal here at TheRPGSite - success!

But I still like your description - it's shiny!

You can't believe capitalism and communism are a priori, at least if you're using that term in its ordinary philosophical sense. You're attempting to find a way to say "I believe these things about capitalism and communism without any proof, and I am unwilling to change my mind," that doesn't sound as stupid as that does.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou can't believe capitalism and communism are a priori, at least if you're using that term in its ordinary philosophical sense. You're attempting to find a way to say "I believe these things about capitalism and communism without any proof, and I am unwilling to change my mind," that doesn't sound as stupid as that does.

I'm really quite confused by this.  I don't claim either capitalism or communism are a priori.

I am convinced of the truth with respect to these two systems. I suspect that others are likewise convinced, most assuredly in ways different from me. Further discussion will diverge as both sides make claims that make absolutely no sense to the other because of the inherent assumptions about the two.

Therefore, to discuss it further is pointless. Neither will change minds because our beliefs about the two are settled. I don't claim to not have any proof. I doubt anybody who would argue it would claim they don't have any proof.  I claim that the proof will unacceptable/misunderstood/meaningless to either side, right or wrong.  So why argue?

So just to put your angsty-emo-philosophical mind at rest, pseudo. I believe many things about communism and capitalism. I have experience and proof. It will be meaningless/useless to debate it with someone who has significantly different beliefs about communism and capitalism and believes they have proof. So I'm doing one of the things you apparently think is "wrong," I'm agreeing to disagree.

But you go ahead and argue it.  You argue it with all your heart and mind and every book you can muster on the subject.  Good luck with that.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm really quite confused by this.  I don't claim either capitalism or communism are a priori.

I am convinced of the truth with respect to these two systems. I suspect that others are likewise convinced, most assuredly in ways different from me. Further discussion will diverge as both sides make claims that make absolutely no sense to the other because of the inherent assumptions about the two.

Therefore, to discuss it further is pointless. Neither will change minds because our beliefs about the two are settled. I don't claim to not have any proof. I doubt anybody who would argue it would claim they don't have any proof.  I claim that the proof will unacceptable/misunderstood/meaningless to either side, right or wrong.  So why argue?

So just to put your angsty-emo-philosophical mind at rest, pseudo. I believe many things about communism and capitalism. I have experience and proof. It will be meaningless/useless to debate it with someone who has significantly different beliefs about communism and capitalism and believes they have proof. So I'm doing one of the things you apparently think is "wrong," I'm agreeing to disagree.

But you go ahead and argue it.  You argue it with all your heart and mind and every book you can muster on the subject.  Good luck with that.

well, that was helpful :rolleyes:

Quote from: James J SkachI'm really quite confused by this.  I don't claim either capitalism or communism are a priori.

I am convinced of the truth with respect to these two systems. I suspect that others are likewise convinced, most assuredly in ways different from me. Further discussion will diverge as both sides make claims that make absolutely no sense to the other because of the inherent assumptions about the two.

Therefore, to discuss it further is pointless. Neither will change minds because our beliefs about the two are settled. I don't claim to not have any proof. I doubt anybody who would argue it would claim they don't have any proof.  I claim that the proof will unacceptable/misunderstood/meaningless to either side, right or wrong.  So why argue?

So just to put your angsty-emo-philosophical mind at rest, pseudo. I believe many things about communism and capitalism. I have experience and proof. It will be meaningless/useless to debate it with someone who has significantly different beliefs about communism and capitalism and believes they have proof. So I'm doing one of the things you apparently think is "wrong," I'm agreeing to disagree.

But you go ahead and argue it.  You argue it with all your heart and mind and every book you can muster on the subject.  Good luck with that.

I misspoke there. The kinds of beliefs about capitalism and communism you're talking about aren't "a priori" beliefs is what I meant to say.

You're misusing the term "a priori" to make your position sound more robust and well-reasoned than it really is. That is pretentious. You don't appear to know how the words "a priori" are used in reference to beliefs. I have no idea why you seized on that term in particular, since it means that you are actually gabbling nonsense.

You also adhere to an awful, anti-intellectual position on debate. You are rejecting the very possibility of rational discourse, which is a contemptible thing to do.

In short, you are pretentious and contemptible if you are honest about the positions you hold, and a lying idiot if you aren't.

Quote from: James J SkachI have experience and proof.

Well, you have experience and opinion.

Also, to be fair to James here, Pseudoephedrine, I was the one who invoked the term "a priori", though I meant it in the least complimentary fashion possible -- argument proceeding from assumption, rather than evidence.  I'm perplexed why you're so pleased by that description, James, but I believe you're just hoping to be frustrating by suggesting that I somehow accidentally paid you a compliment.  In fact, your argument amounts to a retreat from the topic that's little more than an elaboration on Koltar's "Capitalism = GOOD, Communism = BAD".  Like I said, go you.

!i!

Quote from: J ArcaneOne of tonight's reruns of Anthony Bourdain's show, is a visit to Moscow.  during his visit to the Red Square there was actually a small group of demonstrators, marching Soviet flags, and banners calling for the return of the old Communism.

Interesting... I suppose the demonstrators either lived through communism or were direct descendent's of people who did?

Because lots of folks didn't -- and I guess the dead can't protest.

They're also, apparently, easy to forget.

In theory communism is beautiful. In practice it results in mass murder. At least Fascism is honest -- you know what you're getting, and it's clear-eyed about human nature.

-E.

Well, E, on an unrelated, yet relevant, note: Apparently people living in Siberia are glad Putin is in charge, but worry he is too 'soft' and not totalitarian enough.  

Many Russians, apparently, believe that a strong, somewhat 'evil' government is preferrable.

Quote from: SpikeMany Russians, apparently, believe that a strong, somewhat 'evil' government is preferrable.

How very Russian.  They pride themselves (and rightly so!) on their ability to endure adversity.

Quote from: -E.Interesting... I suppose the demonstrators either lived through communism or were direct descendent's of people who did?

Because lots of folks didn't -- and I guess the dead can't protest.

They're also, apparently, easy to forget.

In theory communism is beautiful. In practice it results in mass murder. At least Fascism is honest -- you know what you're getting, and it's clear-eyed about human nature.

-E.

I tihnk you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say so you can take an imagined moral high ground.

Quote from: -E.In theory communism is beautiful. In practice it results in mass murder. At least Fascism is honest -- you know what you're getting, and it's clear-eyed about human nature.

If you want to get to the heart of the matter, what you're really discussing here is totalitarianism, regardless of economic theory.  And I wouldn't ever describe fascism as either "honest" or "clear-eyed".

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWell, you have experience and opinion.

Also, to be fair to James here, Pseudoephedrine, I was the one who invoked the term "a priori", though I meant it in the least complimentary fashion possible -- argument proceeding from assumption, rather than evidence.  I'm perplexed why you're so pleased by that description, James, but I believe you're just hoping to be frustrating by suggesting that I somehow accidentally paid you a compliment.  In fact, your argument amounts to a retreat from the topic that's little more than an elaboration on Koltar's "Capitalism = GOOD, Communism = BAD".  Like I said, go you.

!i!

Since I didn't bring up the a priori-ness, that rules me out for pretentious (something I honestly don't think I've ever been accused of - and trust me, I've been called much, much worse by lesser people so I'm not claiming sainthood). Pretentious, to me, is when people think this particular argument will be anything more than Koltar's assessment, or it's opposite, dressed up in big words like tautology and a priori, no matter how accurate they are.

And see what I mean, pseudo? My proof = opinion. I mean, it's like I could have predicted specific responses. Would you still like to hold me in contempt? It's perfectly within your rights, but I prefer to think of it as pragmatic.

I'm not retreating, I'm trying to clear the decks and help everyone see that this "debate" is doomed.  Now I'm sorry if that means I'm raining on everyone's intraweb-drama-political-debate.  But really? Communism in theory is beautiful? I think we've missed the exit of rational discourse miles ago.

I do honestly apologize for bringing up your angsty-emo-losopher-ness. No need for me to get nasty.

Quote from: J ArcaneI tihnk you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say so you can take an imagined moral high ground.

It wasn't so much your mouth; you mentioned the people protesting for communism, but it could have been anyone who invoked the same image. (Edited to be more clear: that was a general response to this thread; not to your post, or your point of view, specifically)

As for whatever imagined moral high-ground there is, I think communism speaks for itself. But I will note that a lot of people who support it will tell you they do so for moral reasons; I find that astonishing.

-E.

Quote from: -E.It wasn't so much your mouth; you mentioned the people protesting for communism, but it could have been anyone who invoked the same image. (Edited to be more clear: that was a general response to this thread; not to your post, or your point of view, specifically)

As for whatever imagined moral high-ground there is, I think communism speaks for itself. But I will note that a lot of people who support it will tell you they do so for moral reasons; I find that astonishing.

-E.

I was describing a real world phenomenon.  If you have a problem with it's existence, then I suggest you catch the next flight to Moscow and take it up with the protesters.  

I'm sure some foreigner coming over and telling them what kind of government they are allowed to want should go over real well.

Quote from: J ArcaneI was describing a real world phenomenon.  If you have a problem with it's existence, then I suggest you catch the next flight to Moscow and take it up with the protesters.  

I'm sure some foreigner coming over and telling them what kind of government they are allowed to want should go over real well.

I'm sure it's a real-world phenomenon -- after all, the same thing is going on right here, no?

And I'm not surprised -- as miserable as their lives may have been under communism, they're *not* the millions dead, now are they? They have the luxury of rose-colored glasses.

But where did you get the feeling I had a problem with it's existence?

Having an opinion of their taste in government isn't quite the same thing as telling them what kind of government they are allowed to want; if that concept is confusing, let me illustrate: In communist totalitarian states, the people who live in slavery aren't allowed to have opinions.

It's the communist party rulers who tell folks what what kind of government they are allowed to have.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaIf you want to get to the heart of the matter, what you're really discussing here is totalitarianism, regardless of economic theory.  And I wouldn't ever describe fascism as either "honest" or "clear-eyed".

!i!

No one is going to write a critique of Fascism saying, "it's a beautiful theory but in practice..." Fascism is ugly, oppressive, violent. There's no mistaking what it's about: a boot on your throat.

Communism ends up in the same boot, but it starts out talking about freedom, equality, etc.

I don't think it's a coincidence that communism always works out to be totalitarianism.

Centrally planned markets, I don't think, can possibly work. When the economy eventually fails (and I think that's inevitable -- even with the smartest guys in the country running it, I think it'll fail... And it's never the smartest guys) you need guns and oppression to keep things going.

When people start starving, they'll leave if you don't turn your nation into a prison camp.

It's the same pattern in Russia and China and North Korea and Cuba and everywhere else communism has been tried.

These are weird aberrations -- I don't see any reason to believe they're anything but historical inevitability.

-E.

There are elements of socialism to many of the major modern European democracies at present.  FDR's New Deal was basically socialist.  "Planned economy" does a very nice job describing the way things were run back home during WWII.

Yet I don't see Sweden's government collapsing or falling into totalitarianism.  I also seem to recall the US being on the winning side in WWII, and it seemed to have survived the 40s quite well.  

Meanwhile the supposedly democratic modern United States seems to be doing quite a good job of slipping slowly into some pretty fucked up places.  Prison camps, torture, people being disappeared to foreign countries, abuse of state secret priveledges, executive powers declaring themselves unaccountable . . .

Nothing in the real world is ever as black and white as the platitudes of "good" and "bad".

Quote from: J ArcaneThere are elements of socialism to many of the major modern European democracies at present.  FDR's New Deal was basically socialist.  "Planned economy" does a very nice job describing the way things were run back home during WWII.

Yet I don't see Sweden's government collapsing or falling into totalitarianism.  I also seem to recall the US being on the winning side in WWII, and it seemed to have survived the 40s quite well.  

Interestingly, many economists in the US agree that we today are still paying the price for the WWII economy you just vaguely praised.   Presuming that these economists are a majority (not that I'm in a position to know even anecdotally... I don't hang out at all the cool economist functions...) that would suggest that using the New Deal socialist economy as a defence for planned economic systems is specious, misguided at best.

The only anecdote I have is my former Economics professor, who had started his economics education in India (which uses socialist economic policies, or at least did) was extremely dismissive of the entire concept of a 'working planned economy'.  To paraphrase his thoughts on the subject:

A true laissez faire economy works. It can work very well indeed. But it has no heart.

A true planned economy doesn't, and can't, exist.

Quote from: J ArcaneThere are elements of socialism to many of the major modern European democracies at present.  FDR's New Deal was basically socialist.  "Planned economy" does a very nice job describing the way things were run back home during WWII.

Yet I don't see Sweden's government collapsing or falling into totalitarianism.  I also seem to recall the US being on the winning side in WWII, and it seemed to have survived the 40s quite well.  

Meanwhile the supposedly democratic modern United States seems to be doing quite a good job of slipping slowly into some pretty fucked up places.  Prison camps, torture, people being disappeared to foreign countries, abuse of state secret priveledges, executive powers declaring themselves unaccountable . . .

Nothing in the real world is ever as black and white as the platitudes of "good" and "bad".

I think Sweden's would be surprised to hear that they're a communist state.

Wikipedia, too, maybe:

QuoteSweden is an export oriented market economy featuring a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labour force.

Although Wikipedia goes on to say that Sweden is known for a large public sector, strong unions, and high taxes, it states

QuoteSweden's industry is overwhelmingly in private control; unlike some other industrialized Western countries, such as Austria and Italy, publicly owned enterprises were always of minor importance.

If Sweden is a classic example of communism working, Marx may have overstated his case. It's much more attractive than countries the self-identify as communist, though, I'll give you that. If I was a communist I'd claim the US: after all, the US has welfare, taxes, a large public sector, anti-trust regulations, and so-on. It's certainly not a hive of unfettered capitalism.

As for black and white, good and bad, I think there's an a huge gray area in the real world, but there are things that fall into the extremes.

I think the Constitution of the United is 'good' -- what it says, how it says it, what it stands for. Good doesn't necessarily mean perfect, to call it a "gray" area seems to be missing the point.

And then there's Nazi's... yeah, I know some people defend them (and other folks hate them because they get trotted out to represent evil... and if you want to call them a 'gray area' you're forced to defend Nazi's)... But I'm quite comfortable calling them "Bad" without apology.

I like having a government. I'm good with unions. I think welfare is a necessary and honorable thing. I dislike the ruthless inequities of unfettered capitalism and approve of government-sponsored checks against the worst excesses.

And I think communism is bad.
-E.

Quote from: SpikeInterestingly, many economists in the US agree that we today are still paying the price for the WWII economy you just vaguely praised.   Presuming that these economists are a majority (not that I'm in a position to know even anecdotally... I don't hang out at all the cool economist functions...) that would suggest that using the New Deal socialist economy as a defence for planned economic systems is specious, misguided at best.

The only anecdote I have is my former Economics professor, who had started his economics education in India (which uses socialist economic policies, or at least did) was extremely dismissive of the entire concept of a 'working planned economy'.  To paraphrase his thoughts on the subject:

Apparently your former economics professor is in the minority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression).

QuoteA true laissez faire economy works. It can work very well indeed. But it has no heart.

Keynes would disagree.

QuoteA true planned economy doesn't, and can't, exist.

Try finding a genuine laissez faire economy.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkApparently your former economics professor is in the minority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression).



Keynes would disagree.



Try finding a genuine laissez faire economy.

Actually, my professor never weighed in on the brokeness of the US economy, so I can't say he is or is not. The wiki link was a bit in depth on the new deal for me to quickly tell if it actually spoke about the majority of economists in modern America.  

I have found, in my purely amature studies of the American economics, that I side with those who disagree firmly with Keynesian economists.   50 years of regular, even rampant, inflation would tend to prove my point about the damage done to our economy.  But I've had this discussion here before regarding minimum wage.  


Actually, finding a true lassiez faire economy isn't that hard. Simply go anywhere where there is no real governement control.  Small tribal groups, for example, or places where the government is in constant flux.  Black and grey markets tend to fall under this 'type' of sub-economy as well.

The problem is that without outside... say government... influence and even control to one extant or another, you leave those who are not economically viable behind.  The crippled, the ill, the elderly.  In a large enough sample you also have difficulty with basic services like roads and sewage unless someone can make a profit from them.  

The simple fact is, capitalism and 'communism' are simply ends of a sliding scale.  Almost nothing ever reaches either end, and the border between 'capitalist' and 'communist' is pretty vague in the middle region.

QuoteThe simple fact is, capitalism and 'communism' are simply ends of a sliding scale. Almost nothing ever reaches either end, and the border between 'capitalist' and 'communist' is pretty vague in the middle region.

On the contrary, the line is absolutely clear. Are the means of production privately owned? Is labour-power a commodity? Then you have capitalism.

Quote from: droogOn the contrary, the line is absolutely clear. Are the means of production privately owned? Is labour-power a commodity? Then you have capitalism.

You are missing the point droog, and since I lack either a chalkboard or a really good way to paint a picture with words I'll try again.

You have a line

     _________________________

On one side of that line you have pure, market driven capitalism with no state control. Call it Captialism (clever I know)

    *_____________________

On the other you have a pure, state controlled economy where market forces have no play whatsoever.  Call it, for the sake of convienence 'Communism'.

    *______________________*

Now, almost no economic system of any complexity (the modern nation-state) ever gets close to either *.  These closest to the first * we call capitalist nations, those closest to the second * we call 'Socialist' or 'Communist'.  Now, remember we are talking purely economic terms here, not governmental or ideological.  Where exactly does one stop being Capitalist and start being Communist? In the middle somewhere?  Only, since no one is actually looking at the fucking line when they lay out their nations economic system, it's awfully damn fuzzy where that 'exact middle' is.  

Now, my professor was pretty biased against the Controlled Economy, based off his personal expirences with them.  But the outline above makes no moral judgements whatsoever (unless you count the dubious honor of having the first * some sort of advantage...). It's just a way of demonstrating that the casual terms we use are not absolute in actual practice, not by a long shot.