Capitalism moral is an oximoron
this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
27 points (82.9% liked)
Memes
55833 readers
865 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Capitalism is dominant and longer used than Communism. The total amount of deaths is naturally higher. It doesn't tell anything about the actual amount of deaths communism could have, if it is active in the same capacity and amount of time, this plot would be more interesting.
And just to make things clear, I am not taking a position for any of the two. I just think this argument is not representative.
We can draw numbers from countries that lived both. How about... Russia? Yeah, the numbers don't look good.
Furthermore, we can draw conclussions from the simple fact that Capitalism is ruled by Capital. It doesn't care about anything else but to amass capital, in order to do this, it will kill, rape, torture, coup, create different kinds of military operations, etc. Or simply do stupid shit, like... using cars instead of trains (jaywalking was invented by capital!).
Socialism in the other hand is ruled by material conditions and a drive to develop the productive forces in order to satisfy the needs of the proletariat.
We do not need actual numbers because the philosophies of both already tell us what they outcomes will, more or less, look like. One doesn't care about lives, or productivity, simply treating currency as a literal replacement of God, it is a Frankenstein's monster that replaced religion by Capital. Amen.
So, drawing conclusions like that from russia is a bit bold. If a country changes their systen of wealth, it never had used before, of course it first makes a strong dip. It just compares poorly to others, who are partaking in this system for longer already.
Philosophically your argument is not valid I think.
Capitalism abstracts wealth into a universal currency for trading purposes, which total wealth in currency per individual makes up ones capital. Yes, human rights don't play a role in this system. It just can be a form of wealth, if the interest is there. It allows for a chaos concerning equality between individuals. This builds a class system between poor and rich and this is unfair.
Communism on the other hand puts individuals directly into its philosophy by trying to distribute the total wealth to everyone equally. A simple solution to getting more in this philosophy is by reducing individuals. By that every individual gains more wealth by reducing the total amount of individuals. But which individuals do we take? And by that you again build some sort of hierarchy. Which individuals are disposable for higher wealth per individual? This would be some sort of a dynamic of a two class system, too. So the argumant on human rights being philosophically more present in communism is fraud I'd say.
I myself prefer a federal anarchocommunism, which grows out of a solidaric system by raising the bottom minimum further and further, landing in a system such as a federal anarchocommunism.
Russia was capitalist in the past. You can do the same in reverse, check statistics of countries that were capitalist and achieved socialism, and you'll see the same graph reversed.
Communism on the other hand puts individuals directly into its philosophy by trying to distribute the total wealth to everyone equally. A simple solution to getting more in this philosophy is by reducing individuals. By that every individual gains more wealth by reducing the total amount of individuals. But which individuals do we take? And by that you again build some sort of hierarchy. Which individuals are disposable for higher wealth per individual? This would be some sort of a dynamic of a two class system, too. So the argumant on human rights being philosophically more present in communism is fraud I’d say.
You're getting Marxism wrong. Marxism doesn't try to distribute the total wealth to everyone, in its first stage it only transfers ownership of the productive forces from the bourgeoisie to the people/working class (proletariat).
This section is an extended commentary by Lenin on the following quote from Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme: “In the higher phase of Communist society, when the enslaving subordination of individuals in the division of labour has disappeared, and with it also the antagonism between mental and physical labour; when labour has become not only a means of living, but itself the first necessity of life; when, along with the all-round development of individuals, the productive forces too have grown, and all the springs of social wealth are flowing more freely— it is only at that stage that it will be possible to pass completely beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois rights, and for society to inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.”
Lenin says that in light of this quote we can understand why Engels mocked those who conjoined the notions of “freedom” and “state.” Lenin frankly remarks that: “While the state exists there is no freedom.” There can only be relative degrees of repression.
Lenin wants to be clear on the scientific difference between Socialism and Communism. Socialism is the first and lower phase of Communism-- but it is not full Communism. Socialism has succeeded in turning the means of production, formerly owned and controlled by capitalists, into socially owned public property. This is technically "Communism" but it is not completely evolved mature Communism, hence this lower phase is best dubbed Socialism and the term "Communism" reserved for the more advanced and higher phase into which Socialism will hopefully evolve.
Marx, basing himself on materialist dialectics, sees Communism evolving out of capitalism via Socialism. The Socialist stage still has many capitalist "taints" associated with it and retains, in Marx's words, "the narrow horizon of bourgeois rights." Bourgeois rights still predominate in the creation and distribution of wealth-- goods and services are dished out, in the main, to each according to his/her work.
As for the rest, I don't really know what is the source to your claim about "reducing individuals" and what not. I'd like to know if you have read any Marxist who argues about that. What happens is the opposite, you achieve a faster, and higher development of the productive forces. These, once have stopped being chained to the whims of Capital, cease to be restrained by the capitalist inefficiency and achieve levels of wealth not seen before. Examples of this are poverty alleviations carried out in multiple socialist countries. There is no "lack of wealth", as your comment implies, where "sharing" amongst everyone would be collective poverty. This wealth is captured by a few.
The Third World is not poor. You don't go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich! Only the people are poor. But there's billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken. There's been billions for 400 years! The capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries. These countries are not underdeveloped, they're overexploited!
Alright thank you for your input, you are right. No, I have never looked deeply into the inner workings of communism. I am just arguing on surface arguments I have catched up and logically appended them. Will read up on that and come back :P
It's okay, thank you for your good faith approach. I apologize if I sounded rude. Many times misinterpretations of something are what lead to wrong conclusions. I hope I have been of some help, though!
It's fine. I am a early carreer scientist and especially when writing a paper you often recognise what is actual hearsay and what is an actual fact. When writing I often recognise that I kinda fall into the pitfall of "woops, this thought of fact is actually hearsay... the more you know", because I didn't find a proper sourceanywhere making it essentially a myth. (Which is btw why I LOVE proper scientific sourcing)
The hearsay argument I followed here especially as a german is the argument of "In communism everyone is equal but there are people that are more equal.", which in the end would make a two class society again, where wealth is one sided. This is what is often said about DDR here, which also tried to follow socialist traits.
You're entirely confusing communism, it's about equal ownership of the means of production and distribution, not equal parceling out of products from a static total. More people means, in many cases, more potential for industrial output, and so trying to shrink society would not be beneficial in any way. Administration would still exist, but production and distribution would be planned in a fashion to meet the needs of as many people as possible.
You can't have opinions like that. You have to choose sides. /S
That's why they're called opinions! Not facts!
Well, the post tries to deliver a fact, which is not representational. I see the opinion that philosophically communism might be defending human rights better but the post tries to back it by facts, which are inherently not representative.