Communism vs. Capitalism, which is really better?

[Kurokami]

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.

Communism restricts your freedom to allow better living standards for the whole, love being a teacher? Too bad, you're a janitor, cause we need one. But on the bright side, you get paid as much as the next guy. It's flawed because people are flawed and aren't all the same. Capitalism on the other hand basically says that money is good and you should do what you can to get it, it's great. Personally I think that those who preach about equality as some sort of god-given truth don't realize what they're actually talking about. (An equal starting line would be nice, but that's not what they argue)

Anyway I've just been ranting off, point is that communism doesn't account for the individual in many cases and with lives nowadays being so work-oriented, it's fair to want the freedom to chose what you strive for, even if it is being a deadbeat artist that pulls your fancy.

 

[Austin Howe]

As someone who has taken a college level economics course (in High School), it's Capitalism. Mostly from the standpoint that planned economies run far too much in the long run to react to anything in the necessary time.

However, you woefully uninformed on this topic if you are only using "Capitalism" and "Communism".

For example, What you are calling "Communism" is really not Communism. Each country that has attempted Communism has either A) gotten "stuck" (by choice of dicatators) in between the Capitalist and Communist eras, in that little place called the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", (USSR) whereas in real communism, the state is eventually supposed to break down into something more along the lines of anarcho-mutualism or libertarian socialism. or B) eventually slid back into Capitalism whilst retaining the dickheads on top (China).

There are other models to consider, like Keynesian models, or the further left-leaning mixed market economies, which often incorporate Keynesian ideas, Monetarist ideas, and a sprinkling of social justice programs, as well as automatic stabilizer such as unemployment insurance.

Or, you can consider even anarcho-capitalist models, wherein the functions of the state (In the libertarian sense: policing, diplomacy, and military) are carried out by private coorporations, and wherein money is also privately printed and such.

I'm a mixed-market man, in that while I believe the basic form of Capitalism is superior to that of a state-planned economy, or anarchic mutualistic models, I believe that the sheer wealth, innovation, and technological achievement generated by these systems must be reallocated or used for assistance of those most in need to a degree, as often capitalism operates on a sort of lottery where one's future is most often determined by their birthright, not necessarilly their effort.

In a sense, I'm a Capitalist inspired by the fury and sense of justice of Socialism. I often describe myself as a "Roosevelt Democrat" or "Truman Democrat" as opposed to a "New (Clinton) Democrat", since I believe those two shared what is probably the furthest left vision of capitalism in America so far (including their unfulfilled visions, such as Roosevelt's "Economic Bill of Rights" and pursual of Universal Health Care), and the one that sits just about right in my mind, before the state uses it's power to redistribute wealth to unjustifiable degrees.

Economics is not black and white, in fact, it's best quality is as an evolving science, one where new models are constantly formulated based on new information, each new model usually better than the last (Feudal>Pure Capitalist>Keynesian>Mixed-Market), and each new model sits in a serious shade of grey between the rightist and leftist extremes you described. (Though usually a bit to the left of centre.

 

[Austin Howe]

ITT: 33 Identical posts.
Since this is A video game forum:

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?"

"No!" Says the man in Washington, "It Belongs to the poor."
"No!" Says the man in The Vatican, "It belongs to God."
"No!" Says the man in Moscow, "It belongs to everyone!"

"I rejected those answers.

Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...Rapture!

A city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be limited by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small!

And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well..." - Andrew Ryan

Ayn Rand is disgusting.

 

[Boommin]

In a sense, I'm a Capitalist inspired by the fury and sense of justice of Socialism. I often describe myself as a "Roosevelt Democrat"

You consider yourself a Roosevelt democrat? Why on earth would you want to label yourself a new dealist. They extended the great depression with their horrible ideas.

 

[Cryo84R]

Consider that communist regimes(To name two; Stalin and Mao) are responsible for the massacre of over 100 million people in the 20th century and I believe you will have your answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_genocide

 

[spartan231490]

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 disagree. In communism, the only value is existence. because you draw breath, you deserve the same as every other human who draws breath. You don't have to do anything, not even participate in life. Capitalism, however, embraces achievement by rewarding success(in theory) and therefore celebrates the struggle of life, not simply the monotony of existence.
I was going to quote some choice lines from "Faith of The Fallen" which is a book which examines communism, and the true ideals behind it(among other ideologies) in great detail. But I don't feel like searching for the quote I was looking for. Just read the "Sword of Truth" series by Terry Goodkind. It's amazing and has a great many very important ideas that I guarantee will challenge the way you look at the world, which is always a good thing. However, I will quote one thing, the most important line in the entire book: "Your life is yours alone, rise up and live it." Ultimately, communism is the decision to relegate responsibility and importance to the community, not the individuals who comprise it. I can never agree with that, a society can have no meaning beyond the individuals it is built upon. Every person should be responsible for their own life. they should not be handed success, without even having the possibility of facing the consequences of their decisions. Only when a person is allowed to suffer the consequences of his mistakes, can he fully enjoy the benefits of his successes. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Capitalism is better for one simple reason: It has a goal.
In Communism everyone goes around being equal, and as a result they don't work towards anything.
In Capitalism the goal is to own the universe.

EDIT: ok, that was dicky of me, in retrospect.
My opinion (which still stands):
In Capitalism the goal is for the ONE richest individual to own the universe and enslave everyone beneath him.

There.

 

[Boommin]

Capitalism is better for one simple reason: It has a goal.
In Communism everyone goes around being equal, and as a result they don't work towards anything.
In Capitalism the goal is for the ONE richest individual to own the universe and enslave everyone beneath him.

There, corrected

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

 

[Danpascooch]

Communism. It may be unsustainable, but with a very much-improved education system, I could see a version working.
Capitalism, on the other hand has proven unsustainable in a global economy (as proven by the recent recession). Greed driving profits isn't exactly a good idea when one must be conscious of seven billion other people. At a minimum, some form of socialism (also stigmatized, I'd like to point out that the only difference separating the moderately effective Capitalist US state from a terrible socialist one is free healthcare, which is a good idea to begin with) one needs to be adopted if the government controls more while the people control more of the government (and that education boost happens, too), we might be able to progress a little better.

Communism is much better theoretically. The problem is that this is the real world, and communism has never come even close to working.

 

[Danpascooch]

Capitalism is better for one simple reason: It has a goal.
In Communism everyone goes around being equal, and as a result they don't work towards anything.
In Capitalism the goal is for the ONE richest individual to own the universe and enslave everyone beneath him.

There, corrected

I hope that was a joke, because editing someones post to say something stupid is a really asshole and immature thing to do.

He's right too.

 

[Mikeyfell]

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.

[HEADING=1]wrong[/HEADING]
the worst thing about Capitalism is inequality
the fact that the top 1% can have more than the bottom 50% combined

so you have homeless people fighting tooth and nail over a dollar to go buy a McDonalds cheese burger so they don't starve. While there's some rich guy who just bought a cow so his personal butcher can slaughter it so his personal chef can cook him up some filet mignon, just to decide at the last minute he wants chicken.

the top 1% could give every homeless person in the country 1 million dollars and not even feel the difference in their wallets. but they don't because of human nature.

if some giant global Communist monopoly came and redistributed all the money so everyone had the exact same amount that would only be a good thing

but I agree with all the points you made
both systems are shit but I prefer Communism
because if you aren't in the top 1% the point I just made outweighs all 3 points you made

 

[Blatherscythe]

Communism is for a people much more capable and less greedy than humanity at it's current mindset. It falls flat on it's face because of the three things it tried to remove. Greed, corruption and stupidity. The governments that rise in Communist societies have had an abundance of stupid choices and corrupt officials, all stemming from human greed. That's why at some point in the communist society there would be no need for government it would be a "dictatorship of the workers" as Marx would say.

Capitalism exploits human greed, it creates a drive for people to work and achieve more. Again it works in theory. In reality, capitalism is what drove Marx and Engels (I hope I spelt it right) to make the communist manifisto in the first place. The era that they lived in explains it. During this time workers unions didn't exist, owners decided your pay (low with deductions) and no benifits were included. Jobs were usually hard and risky with all of the industrial machinery. Marx and Engels saw factory owners as exploititive assholes who did fuck all but got the most money. They saw this as unfair to the working man/woman/child and tried to create a social economic structure that put the power and control into those they deemed most deserving of it. The people. Marx himself even predicted the economic crisis we face now, as well as the growing gap between rich and poor.

Both theories are good on paper, but the results are usually less than steller. The reason America and Soviet Russia hated each other so much is because their idealogies were polar opposites.

 

[Austin Howe]

In a sense, I'm a Capitalist inspired by the fury and sense of justice of Socialism. I often describe myself as a "Roosevelt Democrat"

You consider yourself a Roosevelt democrat? Why on earth would you want to label yourself a new dealist. They extended the great depression with their horrible ideas.

Actually, Keynesian economists often note that it was the governments unwillingness to do more that extended the depression, which ended with WWII, which in America became a Keynesian program of appropriate scale to solve the depression, and it did. The implementation of discretionary fiscal policy helped relieve the depresion in teh early 30's, and Roosevelt's want to balance the budget, thus cutting spending, led the US into a double-dip recession, which many economists fear now if the government decides to stop spending (translation: if Republicans take over the government).

In short, it was actually more the lack of further New Deal programs that helped keep the Depression in place for longer than it needed to be, though I can't really blame anyone involved. At the time, economics had yet to progress into widespread acceptance of Keynesianism, and most politicians opinions on the topic were informed by "Classical", minimalist-government models, yet to be challenged by the establishment.

 

[RandV80]

While the "Capitalism vs Communism" thing is a relic of the Cold War, are the two really the polar opposites of each other? Communism is basically an all encompassing political theory that dictates the economic, political, and social values for it's followers. Capitalism on the other hand is just an economic principal.

I'm not sure why "Capitalism vs Communism" become the motto of the Cold War. Technically, the USSR never attained true Communism and got stuck in the "Dictator of the Proletariat" phase. If there was a reason for the West to fear the East, then it should be a matter of democract vs dictatorship. Allthough I guess the reason it came to blows was economic policy, the Capitalist West would want to move into countries and setup shop exploiting the local economy for their own gain. Here both had justifications for their fears. For the West it would be scary to lose our inherant rights and freedoms and have to submit to a dictatorship. For the East our capitalist markets did bully their way into foreign economies and exploit them for our own gain.

But historic discussion aside, in the context of the OP I think this is all just a red herring. The Cold War and the 'fight' against Communism has come and gone, the West won. Why it gets brought up today is pure US political posturing, with the right trying to discredit social policies by the left (legitimate or not) by labeling them as "Communism", bringing up ghosts of the past to motivate their base.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Communism is a very good theory, but our greed prevents us from implementing it, we do not want to be equal, we want to have more then other people and that is simply the bottom line.

Capitalism no the other hand is essentially jungle law, screw or be screwed, everyone out for himself, profit from people or they will profit from you, and this is why our primitive greedy nature goes so well with it.
It does ofcourse undermine any sort of chance for equality, but hey that is the only sad way we want it.

 

[NaramSuen]

My favourite quote relating to the whole communism/capitalism debate is from economist John Kenneth Galbraith:

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."

 

[Biosophilogical]

Many will agree that Communism sounds great in theory, but it hasn't worked in the past. Humans have too many flaws to hold up a system like that.

But that's the thing, in communist theory, a state of communism only occurs as a natural progression of humanity. So communism works in theory because by the time society reaches communism, it's ready for it.

OT: Communism wins hands down. As I mentioned briefly above, communism should be naturally occuring, not forced, so proper communism works because it is the result of the necessary factors[footnote]So all that 'working for the community/from each according to his/her ability ...' stuff is what makes it communism, not the other way around[/footnote].

So capitalism is driven by greed, communism is the result of compassion, motivation and altruism (maybe not altruism, but something very similar at least).

 

[ApeShapeDeity]

Both systems are inherently flawed.

Communism can work well... in small, somewhat isolated communitites where everyone is nswerable to everyone else. i.e. 'Dave, I know you're chairman and all, but I really need my goat, please don't make try to mine coal.' In a large system, corrupt burocrats will fuck up the system and line thier pockets, cos they can. (Try to build something in Veitnam, you'll see what I mean)

Democracy, in ideal is a meritocratic system... but people are stupid, and gullible and greedy and pretty fucked up in general. So,... aw hell. Look around you. If you're not bullshit rich you already know. If you ARE bullshit rich, gimme some money, prick.

Peace, out.

 

[Agayek]

From a purely theoretical standpoint, Communism does the greatest good for the greatest number of people of any economic system. Using a Utilitarian ethical standpoint, that means it's by far the "best" form.

That said, I vehemently disagree with Utilitarian ethics. From my personal stance, unregulated Capitalism is the best form of economics. People will get precisely what they earn, no more and no less. It's the ideal I believe everyone should strive for.

From a practical standpoint, I'd have to go with Capitalism. It's been proven that Communism simply does not work. The lack of reward will ensure that Communism never works. It's naive to think otherwise. Capitalism definitely has its flaws, but it's the best anyone's come up with yet.

 

[Boommin]

In a sense, I'm a Capitalist inspired by the fury and sense of justice of Socialism. I often describe myself as a "Roosevelt Democrat"

You consider yourself a Roosevelt democrat? Why on earth would you want to label yourself a new dealist. They extended the great depression with their horrible ideas.

Actually, Keynesian economists often note that it was the governments unwillingness to do more that extended the depression, which ended with WWII, which in America became a Keynesian program of appropriate scale to solve the depression, and it did. The implementation of discretionary fiscal policy helped relieve the depresion in teh early 30's, and Roosevelt's want to balance the budget, thus cutting spending, led the US into a double-dip recession, which many economists fear now if the government decides to stop spending (translation: if Republicans take over the government).

In short, it was actually more the lack of further New Deal programs that helped keep the Depression in place for longer than it needed to be, though I can't really blame anyone involved. At the time, economics had yet to progress into widespread acceptance of Keynesianism, and most politicians opinions on the topic were informed by "Classical", minimalist-government models, yet to be challenged by the establishment.

I'm sorry but as we all know capitalism has its ups and downs. Its natural. And When WWII came along and suddenly their was a huge demand for supplies and so on it solved the Great depression. The fact that some people even give the horrible programs that the New deal created any credit is shocking.

Edit: Going to bed. So can't respond back to anything else tonight eer morning. Sorry