Communism vs. Capitalism, which is really better?

[Trildor]

It always irks me somewhat when people claim "human nature" is the one behind communism not working.

I doubt you know human nature, or indeed anyone does, unless you've observed people with no contact with the outside world living in the wilderness or something, like an even more twisted Truman Show.

 

[Nobby]

This question takes me back not so long ago to my high school days and studying Animal Farm.
Remember children (and adults) all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I.E greed is why communism doesn't work but it is why democratic capitalism does.

 

[DeXusLM]

Hmmmm capitalism v communism

I think the mere existance of this thread is in itself an argument.

1984 anyone??


libertarian.

 

[The Code]

While I do agree that both Capitalism and Communism have their strengths and weaknesses, basic flaws inherited by modern society will inevitably tear asunder whatever system is put into place. Also, there is the detail of said systems being controlled by a central government. Knowing this, I favor Anarcho-Communism. All people are equal in status, and the highest power one has to answer to is oneself. Granted, there would be varying levels of chaos and mayhem without a constant peacekeeping entity, but it's one of many risks inherent to the system. With capitalism, there are still criminals. The problem is that said criminals have to be very skilled to avoid getting caught.

Anyway, there are certain advantages to anarcho-communism. If you want a home, build it. If you want clothes, make them. If you want something someone else has, try trading for it. (And yes, I'm well aware that I just implied a bartering system in an anarcho-communist ideal. It could work.)

The point is that no system is perfect because Humanity itself is too much of a variable or any system to work perfectly. After all, true perfection is nonexistent.

 

[tahrey]

Quick thought:
When discussing these things, it's easy to try and decide which is the better ideaology by referring to which real-world examples have done well or haven't. The problem is, all our real world ones so far have been flawed in various ways.

Communism, in practice, tends to be incredibly corrupt, and mostly used as a tool to keep a populace dirt poor and unable to effectively fight back against a dictatorial police state, rather than it's otherwise worthy and utopian "from all according to their ability, to all according to their needs" core values. Everyone would have a good life, but be required to contribute also. In reality the civilians work hard for a small share of an even smaller pot, and the ruling class have it very plush, and the military get an unfairly large slice of the pie - either for expansion and bullying, or just keeping people down.

Capitalism, somewhat the reverse. Implementing the purest interpretation of the idea would have monopolies, syndicates and cabals all over the place, charging as high and paying as low as they could get away with, leading to a similar highly polarised oligarchy. Somewhat like Victorian Britain, perhaps. But this model is "tainted" by regulation and other altruistic/philantropic, human drives, which temper it and have instead resulted in fierce competition instead of (generally outlawed!) collusion, often a commie-style guaranteed minimum income (outsourced "third world" workers excepted ... though they're often getting more than they could by subsistence farming), and a great deal of choice, leisure time, technological and social progress and safety-netting.

It's all a big mess...
In summary, THEORETICAL communism "isn't that bad" - in fact, it's arguably a much better model than capitalism. But in PRACTICE, the human factors that have - so far - been in evidence in the competing governmental styles seem to run in reverse to what the models suggest. Maybe it's possible to get a properly altruistic, empowering communist society... just depends who sets it up and runs it. But we haven't had it so far.

(And it's that sort of thing that makes me highly suspicious of governments doing otherwise abhorrent things "for the best", "for your protection", and waving that awful phrase "if you've nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried"... OK ... and once all this stuff is in place, then they change the idea of what needs to be hidden to include previously innocent people including yourself, then what? It's not like there isn't historical precedent for that kind of crap)

 

[Nobby]

Hmmmm capitalism v communism

I think the mere existance of this thread is in itself an argument.

1984 anyone??


libertarian.

haha i got to orwell before you

 

[RobCoxxy]

Both suffer from one serious flaw. Humans.

I'd say this. If we weren't all such a greedy bunch of self-preserving shits, communism would work perfectly.

 

[Battenbergcake]

Because of stigma to do with Communism during the cold war some less educated Americans associate socialism with communism. Given Communism is the extreme left but being a left minded person politically doens't make you a communist by default.

 

[blipblop]

Compare Sweden with the USA.

umh why??
sweden is run by a capiatlist goverment? if you refer to the "socialistic heaven" it ended about 5 years ago

 

[Plazmatic]

Since I never grew up in the Cold War, I've never really got why our (USA) country is so paranoid about Communism. I mean, if you look at it, Communism is, theoretically, better. It's built around true equality for all humans. Every man, woman, and child is given what they need and some of what they want and any contrubution they make is for the "greater good". There's no need for money, since all needs are met. Granted, the whole idea of Communism falls down when put into practice, but the entirety of the blame seems to fall on the shoulders of the leaders, not the government itself.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is better in practice, but flawed theoretically. It is based essentially around greed. Money is the central pillar, the Bible, and God all wrapped into one package. If people need or want something, they get money (somehow) and buy it. In order to get money, they get jobs. To get the better jobs, They need education. To get that education, they need money. So, to get that money, they need to compete with other people for the lower level jobs. From what I can tell, Capitalism is essentially "survival of the smartest, fittest, most appealing, and most well connected."

So, which do you think is better, and why? Please put down your reason for saying so, and feel free to tear apart this OP for your counter arguements if you wish. I'm mainly just curious as to what other people think.

I'm pretty sure you don't know what either communism, free market capitalism (actually you describe it here a little bit), state capitalism or state communism is.

Communism involves every one working for the common good, every one getting equal resources etc, however, if they don't work (it doesn't matter what they work in though), they die, also there is no religion in communism. This results in laziness, lack of adaptability and innovation

free market capitalism is capitalism that is, well, free. There are no restrictions on business. there is no government regulation, but this is not the world we live in today, and is heavily susceptible by almost the same problems communism and can result in extreme monopolies. innovation does occur, however if and when a monopoly occurs, it stops for that sector alot of times.

State capitalism is what we have right now, because we have government regulations in order to protect the people and avoid monopolies, and other modifications to the original system. This results in innovation, forever, and provides incentive for technology, while this can also cause laziness due to lower class funding, it will still create innovation.

State communism is what every supposedly communist nation had, or has. Its government regulated communism, and now, it includes some capitalism in order to compete with the wider world (example red china). This can result in laziness, lack of adaptability and innovation, but in modern red china, it doesn't do to the fact that it is augmented, and government controlled.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Uh, there's one massive flaw in these discussions:

Communism is a political system (eg. a form of government)

Capitalism is an economic theory (eg. A way to distribute wealth)

Granted, Communism draws it's inspiration from economic and social theories written by Carl Marx, but fundamentally it is like comparing apples and oranges.

Want proof?

China. - China, in a practical sense, is a capitalist communist country.

If they were really opposites, that would be impossible by definition.


The trouble with economic theory, is that we simply don't have any real alternatives to Capitalism.

Communist countries tend to go with a 'control economy', but that rarely works.

It's based on the idea of a central authority deciding what should be produced, but there doesn't seem to be anyone capable of working that out effectively.

Capitalism meanwhile, for all it's faults, is largely self-regulating. Barring certain issues of fairness and short-term stability, a capitalist economy is capable of sorting itself out without any central planning.

That' the main reason why it's successful at all.

 

[John the Gamer]

Hive-mind societies are better. (unification works too)

But I'd go for capitalism in this case. just not OUR type. It needs to change. Economic crisis are not fun.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I hate how people say (about anything really) that "it works in theory". No. Something that doesn't work in practice also does not work in theory. If it does, the the theory is wrong and should be discarded. And since you are claiming is does not work, without implementing the idea, you prove that it in fact, does not work in theory either.

Yeah, what they really mean is "It sounds good in theory".

That is, not that it would actually work, but that intuitively (without considering the implications) it seems like a good idea.

 

[Ledan]

In Theory: Communism

In Practice: Capitalism

Communism is unattainable due to the simple fact that if you give a human power at some point they WILL abuse it. There's no getting around it.
*Snip*

Wait!
What about Nelson Mandela? He didn't abuse his power when he got it.
Did George Washington? He could have become absolute monarch of America....

 

[Terrorist_school_drop-out]

Look, I live in an ex-comunist state(Romania), country which is now a corrupt and failing democracy, so yey for me. While I myself haven't lived in the former period my parents sure as shit have and so has every 30-something adult and the ghost of that period still lives strong in the general mentality. So let's just make this clear: COMUNISM DOESN'T WORK. It is, simply put, an absolute lie. No, it doesn't work on paper either, at all. For all intents and purposes it's just another totalitarian system, one in which the general populace is lied to and told that they're all equall.
Another thing I want to make clear is that ALL PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUALL. This, to me, is just fucking stupid. How can you supose that a PhD physicist is at the same level of socyetal worth as a street cleaner. Or an army general is at the same level as a mall cop. And before you jump into my ear and say I'm an elitist or something, let me just ask you the phrase "upwards movement" means anything to you?
All in all, without wanting to insult anyone, let me just say that if you belive comunism is a good ideea then you are gullible as fuck and clearly haven't seen what comunism is really about.

 

[UberNoodle]

Being controlled by government and knowing it, versus, being controlled by corporations and not knowing it.

Hmmm ... tough choice.

 

[UberNoodle]

Look, I live in an ex-comunist state(Romania), country which is now a corrupt and failing democracy, so yey for me. While I myself haven't lived in the former period my parents sure as shit have and so has every 30-something adult and the ghost of that period still lives strong in the general mentality. So let's just make this clear: COMUNISM DOESN'T WORK. It is, simply put, an absolute lie. No, it doesn't work on paper either, at all. For all intents and purposes it's just another totalitarian system, one in which the general populace is lied to and told that they're all equall.
Another thing I want to make clear is that ALL PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUALL. This, to me, is just fucking stupid. How can you supose that a PhD physicist is at the same level of socyetal worth as a street cleaner. Or an army general is at the same level as a mall cop. And before you jump into my ear and say I'm an elitist or something, let me just ask you the phrase "upwards movement" means anything to you?
All in all, without wanting to insult anyone, let me just say that if you belive comunism is a good ideea then you are gullible as fuck and clearly haven't seen what comunism is really about.

Maybe you are missing the premise that the matter of 'equality' is based on. It isn't that those people are equal in skill, worth or social value. It is that they should be equal in the sense of them all being 'communal'. Sure, communism is definately broken, and inequality runs rampant within it. However, the premise that drove its development was not nonsensical idea you are upset about. A PHD physicist would use his or her value to support society, aka the 'commune', as would a plumber, a bricklayer, a shopkeeper or a general. It's 'fucking stupid' because, perhaps, you are misinterpreting it. Though, I say again, when contorted into a political system, it doesn't work.

{EDIT - Capitalism has the fate of converting the Democracy that supports it to a harmful and exploitative Corporatocrasy. On either end of the scale, we have the exploitation, of a kind, of the citizens by corrupt institutions. On one side, the people are kept in check by fear and isolationalism. On the other, by fear also, but much differently, rabid consumerism, disconnection and greed.}

 

[Woodsey]

Can't really be arsed to get involved in this, but I'll just point out that Capitalism is an economic system, not a political structure.

And God has nothing to do with Capitalism, that's just an American thing.

 

[AwesomePeanutz]

Cuba seems to be doing quite well with the whole Communist thing. Yeah they're hardly the richest country in the world BUT and this a massive but, they have the best healthcare in the entire world which is free and more importantly a lot of the people there seem genuinely happy.

Cuba can only sustain themselves because they get aid from the outside world. Sure, it has the best healthcare in the world, Communist/Socialist states tend to...

But economically, Cuba is pretty much unable to sustain itself in the first place. Therefore, if it did not get supplies and aid from outside sources, it wouldn't be able to supply any sort of aid to their people.

 

[Vryyk]

-snip-

I'd say Capitalism is better just based off of it's track record. I really like the idea of Communism, it would be nice to see everyone getting along and being happy. Unfortunately, greed is essentially bound to human nature, and greed is a huge goddamn monkey wrench in the works for Communism.

Capitalism requires greed to function on the other hand, so it works quite well in practice. Luckily, there are still many decent, generous people who get rich, so a lot of that money still gets shared around. Celebrities and businessmen, whatever their motivations, are the number one benefactors of charity.