Best Political Cartoons

[Cerim Treascair]

Oh yeah, nationally speaking, Communism doesn't work.  Humanity just isn't wired to work that way.  It's one of those 'sounds good on paper' things, but in practice, yeah, no, there's too many assholes out there.

Quick question: do you think capitalism works on a national scale? I'm tempted to argue your point, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Fair question.  Honestly, me personally? I don't think Capitalism quite works either.  The USA is proof enough, with money hoarders, Swiss bank accounts, the Cayman Islands and so many other places to tuck your money away from fair taxation, and there's plenty of historical note for things like robber barons in the 19th century and the Rockefellers back in the 20's...

In all? there's gotta be a better way, but damn if I know what it is.

[SCarpelan]

(click to show/hide)

All of the above interpreted Marx's theory and adapted it to their specific societies and goals so they indeed are communists in that sense. On the other hand, claiming that that's all communism is is just ignorant. None of the systems those people built were the kind of communism Marx originally envisioned. What really fucking annoys me is: "my specific, perfect, entirely infalliable..."

In this case sarcasm is a dishonest way to attack the argument and can be used against any ideology that has any kind of flaws and has several interpretations - in other words, pretty much all of them. "Yeah, crony capitalism sucks but my specific, perfect, entirely infallible brand of capitalism has never been tried!"

You know, there's a reason Marx's vision has never been tried: it's completely unworkable in the real world.  And communism has failed every single time it was tried.



I'd say that pretty much sums up modern communists.

Capitalism has been stuck in the endless rollercoaster of growth spurts and recessions with occasional huge crash. What were you saying about insanity again? To be more serious insanity thing doesn't really apply to either system. People are trying to adjust both the capitalist and marxist theories based on the flaws that have surfaced in the systems so nobody is trying the same thing endlessly.

Notice that I don't count myself as a communist since I don't know the economic theories enough to really comment on them with any kind of depth. I'm pointing out what I think is a logical flaw in the actual argument.

Edit: Oh, forgot to mention Cuba. It's kind of a special case since it's a communist experiment that has been and is being ruined not by the system itself but by the US embargo. It's impossible to say how it would have turned out without suffering from having its international trade capacity crippled.

[Eiki-mun]

Hopefully this argument keeps going, it's a very interesting one. That said, it's my personal opinion that the answer lies in our much-beloved mixed economy. To me, the ideal economic system would look very similar to the United States economy - just with more regulations and less freedom for corporations to do whatever the fuck they want with our government.

[Ironchew]

Hopefully this argument keeps going, it's a very interesting one. That said, it's my personal opinion that the answer lies in our much-beloved mixed economy. To me, the ideal economic system would look very similar to the United States economy - just with more regulations and less freedom for corporations to do whatever the fuck they want with our government.

The United States still has a basic contradiction: we accept democracy for our laws, but we tolerate a dictatorship in the workplace. Socialism at least addresses that contradiction.

[Ultimate Paragon]

(click to show/hide)

All of the above interpreted Marx's theory and adapted it to their specific societies and goals so they indeed are communists in that sense. On the other hand, claiming that that's all communism is is just ignorant. None of the systems those people built were the kind of communism Marx originally envisioned. What really fucking annoys me is: "my specific, perfect, entirely infalliable..."

In this case sarcasm is a dishonest way to attack the argument and can be used against any ideology that has any kind of flaws and has several interpretations - in other words, pretty much all of them. "Yeah, crony capitalism sucks but my specific, perfect, entirely infallible brand of capitalism has never been tried!"

You know, there's a reason Marx's vision has never been tried: it's completely unworkable in the real world.  And communism has failed every single time it was tried.



I'd say that pretty much sums up modern communists.

Capitalism has been stuck in the endless rollercoaster of growth spurts and recessions with occasional huge crash. What were you saying about insanity again? To be more serious insanity thing doesn't really apply to either system. People are trying to adjust both the capitalist and marxist theories based on the flaws that have surfaced in the systems so nobody is trying the same thing endlessly.

Notice that I don't count myself as a communist since I don't know the economic theories enough to really comment on them with any kind of depth. I'm pointing out what I think is a logical flaw in the actual argument.

Edit: Oh, forgot to mention Cuba. It's kind of a special case since it's a communist experiment that has been and is being ruined not by the system itself but by the US embargo. It's impossible to say how it would have turned out without suffering from having its international trade capacity crippled.

Ironically, the Cuba of today has very high literacy rates and decent healthcare (when it's not being impacted by US embargoes), and they're also a very environment-friendly nation. I mean, it's still a shitty place to live if you're a political dissident, but you've got to admit that they're doing something right.

On the other hand, Cuba's mental health system is garbage.  Its suicide rate is the second-highest in the Americas (the first being Uruguay).

And it became environmentally friendly more or less by accident.  That's a good thing, but I'd hardly call it an achievement.

I do have to give them credit for the vast improvement in literacy, though.

[Eiki-mun]

The United States still has a basic contradiction: we accept democracy for our laws, but we tolerate a dictatorship in the workplace. Socialism at least addresses that contradiction.

Oh don't get me wrong, socialism's not a bad system. It has its own set of problems, however, and I feel that strongly regulated capitalism better suits the nature of humanity, i.e. to be greedy fucks whenever possible.

[Ultimate Paragon]

The United States still has a basic contradiction: we accept democracy for our laws, but we tolerate a dictatorship in the workplace. Socialism at least addresses that contradiction.

Oh don't get me wrong, socialism's not a bad system. It has its own set of problems, however, and I feel that strongly regulated capitalism better suits the nature of humanity, i.e. to be greedy fucks whenever possible.

Indeed.

[Ironchew]

The United States still has a basic contradiction: we accept democracy for our laws, but we tolerate a dictatorship in the workplace. Socialism at least addresses that contradiction.

Oh don't get me wrong, socialism's not a bad system. It has its own set of problems, however, and I feel that strongly regulated capitalism better suits the nature of humanity, i.e. to be greedy fucks whenever possible.

There is nothing in capitalism that addresses the plight of the working class displaced by labor automation. Basic income, the closest thing we have to a solution for that, is a socialist institution and, while it can interface with a market economy in the way the United States implements it as monthly Social Security income, it would make more sense to call it socialist rather than capitalist.

[Eiki-mun]

Basic income is the solution for me as well, though I still see it interfacing well with a strongly regulated form of capitalism, among other things. Call it socialist capitalism, if you will.

[dpareja]

Large images:

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

[I am lizard]

Basic income is the solution for me as well, though I still see it interfacing well with a strongly regulated form of capitalism, among other things. Call it socialist capitalism, if you will.

So Canada?

[Eiki-mun]

Pretty much.

[Skybison]

For my part, I think the problem with communism isn't so much the economics, (although my limited understand is that mixed approach ala  the Nordics works better then full communism or capitalism), but the idea of changing society through a violent revolution.  Mass violence, civil war, instability etc radicalize people and play into the hands of ruthless, power hunger people who see anyone who disagrees with them as an enemy to be destroyed.  Then when the revolution succeeds you've got a country run by the people best at murdering their opponents and a population that has been through hell and wants safety and someone else to blame. 

That's not to say that violent revolution is never justified, but like any other kind of war it should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

[Random Gal]

For my part, I think the problem with communism isn't so much the economics, (although my limited understand is that mixed approach ala  the Nordics works better then full communism or capitalism), but the idea of changing society through a violent revolution.  Mass violence, civil war, instability etc radicalize people and play into the hands of ruthless, power hunger people who see anyone who disagrees with them as an enemy to be destroyed.  Then when the revolution succeeds you've got a country run by the people best at murdering their opponents and a population that has been through hell and wants safety and someone else to blame. 

That's not to say that violent revolution is never justified, but like any other kind of war it should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

That seems to be the outcome of most violent revolutions; chaos for a few years after the old guard is deposed, then some power-hungry douchebag takes advantage of the situation to create a dictatorship. It happened with Stalin after the Russian Revolution and with Napoleon after the French Revolution. America was one of the very few exceptions, and then only because George Washington refused the "become dictator" option.

[RavynousHunter]

Wasn't Washington basically offered the title of King, but turned it down?  Say what you want about him being a rich, white dude of the day, but at least he stuck to his principles.