Communism vs. Capitalism, which is really better?

[Ericb]

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....

Yes, wouldn't Humanity be a lot nicer if these kind of people were the rule instead of the exception?

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.

This clarification is sorely needed in this type of discussions.

North Americans have been culturally poisoned by the McCarthyism to the point of the mere word "Communism" rings Stalin's voice singing URSS anthem in their ears.

 

[Sun Flash]

Communism is good for small communities with little to give or receive from the rest of the world.
Capitalism works better in situations like now, with huge nation states as it offers more freedom and is more constructive to the person as a singular, in terms of personal goals and general "advancement"

Personally, I like a mix, Capitalist economy, but more socialist/communist welfare and government.

I don't know if that makes sense but meh. *shrug*

 

[Vryyk]

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....

The problem with vesting all power in one person is that they will, a good leader or not, eventually die. And somewhere along the line, one of those men will drive a country to hell.

Rome fell into a slow decline after it became an empire, but the impact of this was lessened because the Senate (a body of the people) still had quite substantial power. Spreading out power keeps leaders at each others throats, which keeps corruption down quite substantially and obviates the inherent risks of making one bloodline fully sovereign.

 

[UberNoodle]

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.

What do you think of the Venus Project. Sure it's way out there, but the premise is interesting - the removal of scarcity as a means for defining value. It is estimated that all the people of the world today could have enough resources to live with only a globally distributed 1.5 global hectares per person to supply it. In reality, the average American uses around 15 global hectares per person. Actually, most of that is wasted. The core idea of those quacks at VP is not so crazy - build a society that doesn't run on debt and scarcity and which instead runs on each individuals input to the growth of that society. On top of that, the society uses resources responsibly and renewably, in an attempt to remove the pressure of scarcity. I'm no advocate for their actual plan, however, when you say that "no other system works", really what your saying is that nobody is prepared to learn and adjust to another system. Inuit language wouldn't work for me as a system for communication, because it's entirely alien to my instinct, what I know. If I learnt it, perhaps that could change. But I'm taking the dicussion to the hypothetical. It would take the utter destruction of Capitalism and all memory of it, to allow any other system to supplant it.

 

[Spaceparanoid42]

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.

Communism is also an economic system and not a political structure.

I'd say neither are the way to go. Both systems are heavily flawed. Capitalism puts the needs and rights of big business before the needs and rights of people, and communism takes human motivation and aspiration out of the equation. Both are extremes on the opposite side of the spectrum when it comes to running an economy. Extremism on either side doesn't work.

I vote for something in between, something that takes the best bits of both and strikes a balance between them. Most European countries seem to have this sort of thing, or at least be close. I would say my vote would be for Democratic Socialism, like what Great Britain has.

 

[Ph33nix]

capitalism is far superior because people only do things that will benefit themselves and even if it has a few downs they are better than communism continuous downs were everyone's quality of living goes down as time goes on. Also the reason we Americans hate communism so much is because they pointed nukes at us and threatened to use them every two or three years for 50 odd years and it was down right terrifying for people who lived during the cold war.

 

[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.

Communism is also an economic system and not a political structure.

I'd say neither are the way to go. Both systems are heavily flawed. Capitalism puts the needs and rights of big business before the needs and rights of people, and communism takes human motivation and aspiration out of the equation. Both are extremes on the opposite side of the spectrum when it comes to running an economy. Extremism on either side doesn't work.

I vote for something in between, something that takes the best bits of both and strikes a balance between them. Most European countries seem to have this sort of thing, or at least be close. I would say my vote would be for Democratic Socialism, like what Great Britain has.

No, communism encompasses an economic system, but it is also a political one.

That's why we stick it on a political spectrum, and not capitalism.

 

[Jonci]

In a village, communism would work. In a country, capitalism is necessary. Both can fail to greed, but Capitalism gives a system that can moniter and change much faster.

 

[kiljoy712]

In theory, communism is paradise. In practice, human nature fucks it over. Capitalism is the closest we can get, with everyone being equal in the sense that we all have equal opportunity that just depends on how hard we work and all that fun.

 

[MikeOfThunder]

Since I never grew up in the Cold War, I've never really got why our (USA) country is so paranoid about Communism.

During the Cold War you had McCarthyism and the Red Scare in the United States, but you also had the Anti-Cosmopolitan searches in the Soviet Union. Both superpowers had their fears over the enemies ideology infiltrating their society.

I believe that Capital Socialism (Not Communism, but national medical care, education etc.) is the best of all worlds. Granted, much like everything you can find it's flaws however it gives everyone a basic set of rights and the ability to achieve great feats if one is lucky and prepared to work.

After all, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea... All these places had communism and they all had rampent poverty, the wealth remained unshared.

 

[Cypher10110]

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.

The problem with communism is it's execution, as far as I know in most places in the world culminated in totalitarianism regimes and/or civil strife. It was no better or worse, there were simply different problems to deal with. The key in any society or civilisation is to make life BETTER.

So "old idea 1" vs "old idea 2" is a bit of a close-minded argument.

If you would like to understand a more modern world view that is based exclusively on scientific principles I'd suggest watching the film:
"ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&feature=feedf

It's available free to watch on YouTube, and basically shows how the global economy has it's priorities all wrong, and what SHOULD be making the world a BETTER place is actually CAUSING the problems politicians claim they try to solve.

In engineering/mathematics there is something called the systems approach, it's a top-down holistic approach to problems. In the film it uses a systems method to explain an "ideal" situation. The next step would be to ask: "How can we get from *here* to *there* ?"

I don't feel I'm a "crack pot" for believing the world needs to change.

I'm and atheist, an engineer, and I've got a creative side, I don't believe in conspiracy theories, I'm a critical thinker, and I spend most of my time "wasting" time. I do what I enjoy doing, I seek fulfilment in what I am able to do, but alot of my life just feels hollow.

For me the film was a wakeup call. I don't care if I don't get a great job and earn money, because fulfilment has nothing to do with money. I care that I can survive and live a physically and psychologically healthy life, with enough time to pursue my writing, my drawing, and maybe someday create something beautiful.

This might seem incredibly out-of-context if you haven't watched the film. Politics of a county and the state of a civilisation as a whole are but 1 small step away from each other, and after watching that film it's difficult for me to think of them as separate any-more.

The idea of a "fixed" world is a utopian ideal for a problem-solver like myself, but I feel it's a dream worth chasing. Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, these things are stepping just stones to the advancement of mankind. It's time to move on.

TLDR; Watched a film, blew my mind; the global economy is broken, the world cannot sustain itself like this, a change needs to come, why not make the change for the better? Communism was thought to be a good idea because in part it was, capitalism was thought to be a good idea because in part it was, it's time for new ideas.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Communism is doomed to failure because of Capitalism. (Capitalism supplies greed)
Capitalism is doomed to failure because of Communism. (Greed requires a working class to be above)

If you would like to understand a more modern world view that is based exclusively on scientific principles I'd suggest watching the film:
"ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&feature=feedf

Equally I would warn against Zeitgeist because it makes some astonishingly ill-informed opinions, under the cover of being "The Truth". It's much loved by conspiracy nuts and most of the information within has been well known for at least my lifetime.

It's an interesting start, but on NO account take it as the "Truth".

 

[Baron Von Evil Satan]

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....

Yes Washington could have become a monarch, but chose not to because he remembered what rule was like under the British. Hell, he didn't even want to be president. However, if Washington did become a monarch then at some point even he would abuse his power. Control over people does that. That is partly why slavery was such a terrible institution.

 

[Shycte]

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.

She isn't the prettiest of woman of all, I'll give you that.

Anyway, Communism as defined my Marx isn't the same as Leninism and Stalinism. Marxism is more like John Lennon Imagine. Capitalism is more fair in my opinion though.

All men are born free, intellegent and with free will. Don't see the point in trying to take that away.

 

[LostintheWick]

We all like the intentions behind the idea of Communism.
But to get the lives we all like to live, we use capitalism. Great system for a while, but if left without any kind of "checks and balances", the power/money will inevitably polarize and produces entities like Monsanto.

The system should balance itself out in theory. Just sucks for the folks who have to live during the transitioning. We aren't there yet but it's coming.

I say we go for a modified Capitalism. Capitalism with the intention and desire to live together and make life better for EVERYONE as equals.

 

[sgtshock]

Capitalism. History has yet to provide a single example of a successful communist country. I'm pretty sure no one tried to escape into communist East Germany from capitalist West Germany during the Cold War.

 

[jomala]

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....

Yes Washington could have become a monarch, but chose not to because he remembered what rule was like under the British. Hell, he didn't even want to be president. However, if Washington did become a monarch then at some point even he would abuse his power. Control over people does that. That is partly why slavery was such a terrible institution.

As I understand it, Mandela was a good "socialist" when in power, and an amazing figure, but he did not introduce anything resembling communism, despite it being part of the ANC doctrine before power. The SA constitution is very similar to Europe/NA. The main issue is the lack of effective opposition.

 

[Flying Dagger]

as a politics undergraduate, who is trying to procrastinate an essay on communism, I can only declare that this thread is neither helping me do so, or worthy of a reply.
The issues that were at play during the soviet era were so much more complex than how people here understand them.

I would explain, but the reason I'm on this site is to AVOID writing that essay.
but here, do yourself a favour and had a little read of [link]this[/link]

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

The best would be a combination of capitalism and socialism so that both the rich and the poor benefit. The big businesses bring money to the government and the government use that money to invest in big business and better the country while the poor work for the big businesses so that the government can have money to spend on bettering the country and providing national healthcare and education. That way the money goes keeps flowing through.

That's the idea anyway, the practise may be different.

The biggest problem with communism is that the people at the top usually end up corrupt. The problem with capitalism is that the poor feel like they have been forgotten and are alienated. Look at Cuba, it has the some of best healthcare of all the Americas. It has a higher life expectancy than a lot of countries but doesn't exactly have everyone living in luxury. The USA has people who can't afford some healthcare treatments but has most living in luxury.

By that logic I would value Communism better than capitalism. However, capitalist policies and practises are needed to provide a country with money so that the people can be taken care of equally with welfare.

 

[jomala]

We all like the intentions behind the idea of Communism.
But to get the lives we all like to live, we use capitalism. Great system for a while, but if left without any kind of "checks and balances", the power/money will inevitably polarize and produces entities like Monsanto.

The system should balance itself out in theory. Just sucks for the folks who have to live during the transitioning. We aren't there yet but it's coming.

I say we go for a modified Capitalism. Capitalism with the intention and desire to live together and make life better for EVERYONE as equals.

I'm surprised that (as far as I know) no one has tried "free market communism" (my term): allowing a free market in goods and services and the accumulation of savings, but not the control of enterprises through capital. I think a lot of the iniquities come not from the different earning potentials of people, or their inheritances, but the power they can wield beyond simple purchasing power.

Can anyone correct me here? Someone who's meant to be writing an essay? Suggestions as to why it would be more difficult than other systems?