Communism vs. Capitalism, which is really better?
- Thread starter Dorkamongus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I rather enjoyed that series, and it's on it's 3rd title, that's prosperity if I ever heard of it.Trolldor said:
Also if the cycle is continued it expands. ("Bad" ending of Bioshock 1)
LOL I suppose making machines who will preserve our Media and art, then proceed to eradicate us would be for the best in the grand scheme of things.
Serious note: If we were in a Communist society would we be on this site asking this question? The answer is no, and by no I mean yes.
What type of communism? What type of capitalism? For whom? For what definition of better?
The devil, as always, is in the details. We've only seen certain specific forms of each, and that has included some rather large disasters for both.
The devil, as always, is in the details. We've only seen certain specific forms of each, and that has included some rather large disasters for both.
I was merely comparing the ideologies that i have been taught in my senior schoolings. If i do recall, communism on paper is a society where everyone does their part, and everyone is treated equally because of that? Wouldn't that mean everyone is paid the same? and that they receive the same technology? If not im thinking i might pay my modern history teacher a visit :SVelvo said:
Well "Capitalism" is better, depending on what you mean by that. True free market based societies (i.e.: MARKET entrepreneurships) are overwhelmingly the happiest, most successful, liberated places that have ever existed. That is the system truly based on survival-of-the-fittest. That is how the US was founded and how Americans lived until FDR.
However, what is practiced in the UK, China, and increasingly in the US is more like political entrepreneurship. What most anti-Capitalists are talking about when they attack "capitalism" is actually political entrepreneurship. That is when large companies gain market power (legitimately or illegitimately) and then use political and regulatory influence to hold onto that market power. Libertarians (like Glenn Beck of Penn Jillette) believe in the value of MARKET ENTREPRENEURSHIP and despise political entrepreneurship exhibited from companies like BP, Haliburton, etc... that anti-capitalists call "capitalism".
Also, there are ZERO immigrants or elderly people who have regular nightmares and psychological damage from their memories of massacres and murder committed by dedicated, card-carrying, capitalists. Communism only even works in theory when you totally ignore 10,000 years of evidence pointing to the inherent darkness of human nature. The impracticality and downright danger posed by communism is the most clear lesson the past 70 years have taught us and, frankly, I don't think much of anyone who is already ignoring that lesson.
However, what is practiced in the UK, China, and increasingly in the US is more like political entrepreneurship. What most anti-Capitalists are talking about when they attack "capitalism" is actually political entrepreneurship. That is when large companies gain market power (legitimately or illegitimately) and then use political and regulatory influence to hold onto that market power. Libertarians (like Glenn Beck of Penn Jillette) believe in the value of MARKET ENTREPRENEURSHIP and despise political entrepreneurship exhibited from companies like BP, Haliburton, etc... that anti-capitalists call "capitalism".
Also, there are ZERO immigrants or elderly people who have regular nightmares and psychological damage from their memories of massacres and murder committed by dedicated, card-carrying, capitalists. Communism only even works in theory when you totally ignore 10,000 years of evidence pointing to the inherent darkness of human nature. The impracticality and downright danger posed by communism is the most clear lesson the past 70 years have taught us and, frankly, I don't think much of anyone who is already ignoring that lesson.
Communism can't work with humans as we are, and since we've essentially defeated natural selection making us drastically different than we are now, it will never work. If you wanted a more thorough discussion, you should have mentioned Capitalism vs. Socialism, since that's a hot debate topic. The communism debate kind of fell apart after millions of people were murdered and the wall came down.
Capitalism and Socialism both have a goal. They are both self motivated on the micro scale, but on the macro scale Capitalism has the goal of everyone fighting for their own just rewards creating an invisible regulator while Socialism seeks to equalize people through increased government intervention and regulation. I'm pretty sure everyone in the west prefers the higher ratio of capitalism we all enjoy (nobody wants the government running the markets, at least no one that knows what that leads to), but we also enjoy having government safety nets. I tend to be fiscally conservative, but even I know that government safety nets prevented this recession from being a full on depression. But uh... wait, what was the ultimate point of this paragraph?
Anyway, I prefer a higher ratio of capitalism like we have in America, it just has a lot of flaws due to certain areas being locked down by the government in the worst possible ways while others are currently too wide open to allow sustainability.
Capitalism and Socialism both have a goal. They are both self motivated on the micro scale, but on the macro scale Capitalism has the goal of everyone fighting for their own just rewards creating an invisible regulator while Socialism seeks to equalize people through increased government intervention and regulation. I'm pretty sure everyone in the west prefers the higher ratio of capitalism we all enjoy (nobody wants the government running the markets, at least no one that knows what that leads to), but we also enjoy having government safety nets. I tend to be fiscally conservative, but even I know that government safety nets prevented this recession from being a full on depression. But uh... wait, what was the ultimate point of this paragraph?
Anyway, I prefer a higher ratio of capitalism like we have in America, it just has a lot of flaws due to certain areas being locked down by the government in the worst possible ways while others are currently too wide open to allow sustainability.
You're not really wrong, fella. It's just that communism in major nations (namely China) has changed to suit the times. Just the same as capitalism in major nations changed to meet the times a hundred years ago. Now there are corporations, it's just that they are predominately owned by the state. Since the state is owned by the people, the people own the corporations. Still communism, just flavored with capitalism. Much like capitalism today is flavored with plenty of socialist policies. The best of both worlds is the key to economic prosperity for major powers these days.innocentEX said:
Pure Communism ( Socialist/Marxist ) assumes humanity is at its heart "good", each wiling to do their part for the greater good and thus fails
Pure Capitalism assumes humanity is at its hear "evil", drivne only by their own personal greed and thus equally fails
I'd rather walk the line the western world currently is ( though many seem to think our economy is pure capitalism which in Australia anyway is simply not true ) as we can hopefully avoid the problems a completely free market would cause ( such as the GFC ) and have enough control over the economy to encourage green industries and enforce employee friendly businesses policies while avoiding the stagnation and ruin purely Communist economic policies bring ( such as early Soviet Russia ).
I'm generalizing obviously but frankly the world isn't black and white and neither is the economy
Pure Capitalism assumes humanity is at its hear "evil", drivne only by their own personal greed and thus equally fails
I'd rather walk the line the western world currently is ( though many seem to think our economy is pure capitalism which in Australia anyway is simply not true ) as we can hopefully avoid the problems a completely free market would cause ( such as the GFC ) and have enough control over the economy to encourage green industries and enforce employee friendly businesses policies while avoiding the stagnation and ruin purely Communist economic policies bring ( such as early Soviet Russia ).
I'm generalizing obviously but frankly the world isn't black and white and neither is the economy
This is a little skewed. Communism isn't an economic policy, and Capitalism isn't an ideology. One's a "religion"/philosophy that promotes equality and a united free state. Capitalism revolves itself around Zaibatsu-esque conglomerations and corporations and the ability to creates funds/capita from the lowest amount of resources and then redistribute; wealth moves through incentive. Rinse and repeat. In all honesty, we can only prove that capitalism works better, due to the fact that there has never been a true Communist state. Russia, or the Soviet Union, was a totality centered around a dictator. China is Communism's antithesis; if anything, China is a quasi-Fascist regime that replaces a centralized religion or state church with Capitalist ideals and markets. And both of those only worked to support the upper echelons of society (read: bourgeoisie)
Capitalism really does give more an incentive. It allows for one to prosper above all the others and thus completely outshine in both monetary and material possessions. As such, Capitalism can fully "persuade" people to work. However, there will still be those in the bottom that cannot reach higher, and there will be those who have wealth and secure it for themselves. But it is in this that Capitalism is allowed to create such a dichotomy between classes. Due to the ability for free market and monopolized trade, one can segregate themselves.
It is really quite sad that Humans are the real reason that Communism could never fully bloom into its intended self. And as a side note, Socialism (what a few are describing) is different that Communism, by fathoms. It's more akin to an economic plan, rather than an uprising ideal of the underdog, as it is so fashionably thought of.
Ha, I bet I sound like quite the lil' Engels.
Capitalism really does give more an incentive. It allows for one to prosper above all the others and thus completely outshine in both monetary and material possessions. As such, Capitalism can fully "persuade" people to work. However, there will still be those in the bottom that cannot reach higher, and there will be those who have wealth and secure it for themselves. But it is in this that Capitalism is allowed to create such a dichotomy between classes. Due to the ability for free market and monopolized trade, one can segregate themselves.
It is really quite sad that Humans are the real reason that Communism could never fully bloom into its intended self. And as a side note, Socialism (what a few are describing) is different that Communism, by fathoms. It's more akin to an economic plan, rather than an uprising ideal of the underdog, as it is so fashionably thought of.
Ha, I bet I sound like quite the lil' Engels.
I couldn't agree more when talking in practical terms, I think a utopian world should have a mix of the two. Glad to see this didn't erupt into a flame of misunderstanding like so many of my other postsVelvo said:
Look, pure communism and pure capitalism don't exist. To think they do or ever could is somewhat misguided. Whatever economic policy you start with, you're going to have to tweak. Yes, China has been tweaked towards capitalist policy to a great degree. Nations with capitalist philosophies have tweaked their own economies with socialist policy to a great degree.Rabid Toilet said:
In that manner, capitalist and communist (it's really better to say socialist) economies can be similar in all but name and a few key points left over from their points of origin. Modern communism is different than theoretical communism, just like modern capitalism is different from theoretical capitalism.
China is still communist, because the state owns corporations and the people in turn own the state. Western capitalist states are still capitalist because they don't own corporations, they just regulate them as though they do.
Capitalism in itself isn't based around god - american capitalism is. Now capitalism in its true form, i.e. everything's a trade, there is no free lunch, you can't get something for nothing; that's the way I'd like to build our world. I work my everyday life around everything being a trade; where I give, I get something of equal value back, or it's a waste of my time, or the other person's. I'm not talking money here either necessarily, but say you have a friend you hang out with. This person shows you appreciation, and is generally fun company. This is a way of payment for me being a cool person back. We have a trade-off. Now if this friend started dicking about being an asshole, I'd invest more than I were getting back if I were to keep hanging out with him/her. Thus, unfair trade and no deal.
Communism takes the people with capacity and potential and makes them work for the people who don't. With everything being government, things are heavily taxed. Say you're a surgeon - you've gone to school for god knows how many years, you're intelligent and you work hard. In my book you deserve the money you make for yourself - you've earned it. But with communism, this money isn't yours in full, it's everyone's. The result of your hard work, the hours you've toiled away, is given to people you've never even heard of, who for all you know may just be kicking back and enjoying the ride.
I don't believe communism is as nice a system as everyone keeps saying it is 'in theory'. And yes, before you feel the urge to tell me - I know I'm a greedy, coldhearted bastard, I've been told before. And no, I'm not ashamed.
Communism takes the people with capacity and potential and makes them work for the people who don't. With everything being government, things are heavily taxed. Say you're a surgeon - you've gone to school for god knows how many years, you're intelligent and you work hard. In my book you deserve the money you make for yourself - you've earned it. But with communism, this money isn't yours in full, it's everyone's. The result of your hard work, the hours you've toiled away, is given to people you've never even heard of, who for all you know may just be kicking back and enjoying the ride.
I don't believe communism is as nice a system as everyone keeps saying it is 'in theory'. And yes, before you feel the urge to tell me - I know I'm a greedy, coldhearted bastard, I've been told before. And no, I'm not ashamed.
Short answer:Dorkamongus said:
Two Words
[HEADING=1]SNOWBALL![/HEADING]
Long Answer:
If there's one thing I've learned it's that when the distribution of wealth is on either side of the extreme, you're going to end up with civil unrest and a lack of justice. Personally I really prefer the mixed economic system called "You can make as much money as you'd like but you can't screw with other people's right to do the same". True it's prone to apathy, but it can do wonders when it's put to good practice and well protected.
Edit: Am I seriously the only one who's quoted Orwell?
I go strongly for capitalism, and for so many reasons.
1: What's the worst thing about capitalism? Monopolies. If one person has absolute control of something, they WILL become corrupt. Maybe immediately, maybe in a hundred years, but it will happen.
1.1: You agree with me on this, right?
1.2: Well guess what? Derp! I've gotcha now! When you get right down to it, the whole idea of communism is basically one, big monopoly. The whole idea is to not let some big company take over the world, just have it taken over right from the get-go! Great idea, huh?
1.3: So the whole point is to carefully moderate capitalism, and cutting down monopolies.
Next point...
2: And most important: YES, it absolutely is survival of the fittest, smartest and luckiest. But as everyone else has said, the more people have a motivation to work, the more work that will get done. Competition breeds creativity. Creativity makes for a better world.
2.1: About healthcare specifically: is it absolutely horrible to be denied medical care that could save your life? Of course, but does that mean we should sacrifice the competition and capitalism in healthcare to be more fair to everybody? Well, not really. Think about this...
2.2: What if we implemented social healthcare 200 years ago or so? We'd sacrifice innovation, sure, but at least we'll be giving care to everybody. The only problem is that we'd be, you know, still using 19th century medical science to treat everybody! America's first president died from a goddamn cold because the doctors thought they needed to suck out all his blood to make him better. The medical abilities we have today would blow the minds of people from back then.
2.3: So what I'm getting at is that if we stay firm with unfair medical treatment, who knows? In another 200 years, we could have aids pills. Take a pill, and your aids is gone. Whoop-de-doo!
2.4: Oh and by the way, I don't know if it varies from country to country, but in America, if you are, like, having a heart-attack, a hospital WILL treat you with everything they have. They won't ask for any money until later. It might ruin your financial stability for the rest of your life, but you'll still HAVE a life. So the whole "capitalistic healthcare is unfair" is mostly bullcrap anyway. So there.
Continuing...
3: Not only does socialism and capitalism bring out the worst in the government, it brings out the worst in people, too. It doesn't matter what the government does; people will ALWAYS be greedy. Let me explain...
3.1: Just in the little amount of socialism that America has right now, several members of my extended family are leeching off of it. One of my older family members had major surgery several years ago and still walks with a cane. He has lots of education in high-paying industries; he could easily make plenty of money without ever doing physical labor. But in order to get his disability money, he can't have a full-time job. So he actually just doesn't work. Just so he can take money from the government.
3.2: On my dad's side of the family, claiming disability is practically part of their retirement plan. They all live in old, crappy houses. They're slobs, in horrible health, they're pretty depressing people. They're nice (to me at least), but they don't look happy.
3.3: What I'm getting at HERE is that, for the most part, socialism and communism pays you based on what you need. If you are less-fortunate, they give you more money or aid. Under those rules; it's just human nature to make yourself sick and miserable. You convince yourself that you're sick. Which is a self-curse: you actually become sick in some way when you live like that. I know people who live like this first hand. So if there's ANYTHING that I'm absolutely SURE of about communism and socialism, it's this.
Final: There are other reasons in my head, but I think three is enough for now.
1: What's the worst thing about capitalism? Monopolies. If one person has absolute control of something, they WILL become corrupt. Maybe immediately, maybe in a hundred years, but it will happen.
1.1: You agree with me on this, right?
1.2: Well guess what? Derp! I've gotcha now! When you get right down to it, the whole idea of communism is basically one, big monopoly. The whole idea is to not let some big company take over the world, just have it taken over right from the get-go! Great idea, huh?
1.3: So the whole point is to carefully moderate capitalism, and cutting down monopolies.
Next point...
2: And most important: YES, it absolutely is survival of the fittest, smartest and luckiest. But as everyone else has said, the more people have a motivation to work, the more work that will get done. Competition breeds creativity. Creativity makes for a better world.
2.1: About healthcare specifically: is it absolutely horrible to be denied medical care that could save your life? Of course, but does that mean we should sacrifice the competition and capitalism in healthcare to be more fair to everybody? Well, not really. Think about this...
2.2: What if we implemented social healthcare 200 years ago or so? We'd sacrifice innovation, sure, but at least we'll be giving care to everybody. The only problem is that we'd be, you know, still using 19th century medical science to treat everybody! America's first president died from a goddamn cold because the doctors thought they needed to suck out all his blood to make him better. The medical abilities we have today would blow the minds of people from back then.
2.3: So what I'm getting at is that if we stay firm with unfair medical treatment, who knows? In another 200 years, we could have aids pills. Take a pill, and your aids is gone. Whoop-de-doo!
2.4: Oh and by the way, I don't know if it varies from country to country, but in America, if you are, like, having a heart-attack, a hospital WILL treat you with everything they have. They won't ask for any money until later. It might ruin your financial stability for the rest of your life, but you'll still HAVE a life. So the whole "capitalistic healthcare is unfair" is mostly bullcrap anyway. So there.
Continuing...
3: Not only does socialism and capitalism bring out the worst in the government, it brings out the worst in people, too. It doesn't matter what the government does; people will ALWAYS be greedy. Let me explain...
3.1: Just in the little amount of socialism that America has right now, several members of my extended family are leeching off of it. One of my older family members had major surgery several years ago and still walks with a cane. He has lots of education in high-paying industries; he could easily make plenty of money without ever doing physical labor. But in order to get his disability money, he can't have a full-time job. So he actually just doesn't work. Just so he can take money from the government.
3.2: On my dad's side of the family, claiming disability is practically part of their retirement plan. They all live in old, crappy houses. They're slobs, in horrible health, they're pretty depressing people. They're nice (to me at least), but they don't look happy.
3.3: What I'm getting at HERE is that, for the most part, socialism and communism pays you based on what you need. If you are less-fortunate, they give you more money or aid. Under those rules; it's just human nature to make yourself sick and miserable. You convince yourself that you're sick. Which is a self-curse: you actually become sick in some way when you live like that. I know people who live like this first hand. So if there's ANYTHING that I'm absolutely SURE of about communism and socialism, it's this.
Final: There are other reasons in my head, but I think three is enough for now.
Communism is better but it doesn't work because of human natureDorkamongus said:
Communism = Equality
Capitalism = Slavery (to money)
in Communism if you do your job you get what you need, but if you do your job well you still get the same as the guy who half asses it, so what's to stop you from half ass'n it?
that's when the government steps in and says "if you don't do a good job you go to prison"
then it just spirals into distopia
in Capitalism the harder you work the more money you get. seems fair right? but then Greed takes over and the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.
it starts a distopia but nobody does anything about it because only the rich people have the power to fix it and their all rich and greedy.
and since the rich people control the government they dump all the taxes on the middle class so the poor don't just stay poor but they get poorer, but now I'm just taking about America
Communist needs democracy to work
and Capitalism needs autocracy to work
but human nature won't let either of those things happen
Neither, hybrids are where it's at. A pure capitalist society will eventually burn out, while a communist society is hard to get going. Why not take the best of both worlds?
Ok, that's just insanity. I think you'll find that most countries besides America have national healthcare schemes and seem to do just fine. I can see what you mean by the 200 years ago thing, but in this day and age where healthcare is pretty damn good, giving reasonable healthcare to all your citizens is not going to cause many problems.UltraHammer said:
Capitalism is perfect. I don't understand why you claim the Bible and God are wrapped up into it. Sounds like Conservative propaganda. The Bible encourages altruism which is much more similar to communism.Dorkamongus said:
I also don't understand why you think capitalism worships greed while communism doesn't. Milton Friedman can help you out with that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
Its strange that people think communism sounds good "on paper". It doesn't! People are not equal. I cannot play basket ball the same as an NBA player can. Sorry some people are born better then others. This whole new age belief that everyone is the same is really scary. Individualism is the heart of everything without it we would be an army of mindless robots.
Btw the US was scared for good reason. What great war or genocide wasn't caused because a collective banded together? None. Although I don't understand why we think we are the world police.
PS. I am scatterbrained forgive me