Communism vs. Capitalism, which is really better?
- Thread starter Dorkamongus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Capitalism promotes competition between buisnesses, its why every year we have faster computers, better gadgets, and faster vehicles.
In communism, you don't profit from making a better computer, so society just stops all technological progress.
In communism, you don't profit from making a better computer, so society just stops all technological progress.
The problems I have with Communism are fivefold:
The switch TO Communism COSTS LIVES--in USSR, the total was in the MILLIONS.
The central planning model of Communism ensures that bureaucrats run everything, and because bureaucrats who only work for other bureaucrats tend to work only to follow their orders, the economy will eternally be a mess (see also, glass panes so thin they shatter when shipped anywhere)
The idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" means no one gets to keep what they make; some will be taken away when they choose to work.
People can choose NOT to work, if they feel they gain nothing from it (see also, USSR dependence on grain imports in the 70s and 80s vs. export now).
Total control of economy OR politics by a "Communist Party" ensures the kind of dictatorship that I find appalling and unnecessary (see also, censorship, Siberia, China's struggles with Google).
Capitalism has only one flaw:
Those who are poor tend to stay poor.
Communism's historic problem:
Those who are poor tend to stay poor.
The switch TO Communism COSTS LIVES--in USSR, the total was in the MILLIONS.
The central planning model of Communism ensures that bureaucrats run everything, and because bureaucrats who only work for other bureaucrats tend to work only to follow their orders, the economy will eternally be a mess (see also, glass panes so thin they shatter when shipped anywhere)
The idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" means no one gets to keep what they make; some will be taken away when they choose to work.
People can choose NOT to work, if they feel they gain nothing from it (see also, USSR dependence on grain imports in the 70s and 80s vs. export now).
Total control of economy OR politics by a "Communist Party" ensures the kind of dictatorship that I find appalling and unnecessary (see also, censorship, Siberia, China's struggles with Google).
Capitalism has only one flaw:
Those who are poor tend to stay poor.
Communism's historic problem:
Those who are poor tend to stay poor.
Aaaaaactually, capitalism doesn't set economic goals, while socialism/communism asks what they want the economy to accomplish.Souplex said:
Source: economics class
I'd propose an amalgamation of the two systems. I believe everyone, from the richest to the poorest is entitled to a standard of living that constantly changes according to the ability of the country. This should account for things that any country ought to be able to provide for everyone - food, education, healthcare - but it should also encompass items that, despite having 'luxury' status aren't too tough to provide. Ability to receive internet access being an example. I think that any capitalism ought to be regulated and watched at all times, and that 'corporate interests' should be regarded at all times as secondary to human interests. I think that it is also in the best interests of everyone to ensure that a 'living wage' does not mean that you can live off it if you have another two jobs and still will only be able to meet rent, but will actually ensure the recipient can access a reasonable standard of living, with the aim always to be improving what the 'minimum' standard of living is. I think that income taxes should be enforced widely, because there's simply nobody alive that needs four yachts, and that wasted money could be better used elsewhere. There's having an opulent standard of living and then there's just being silly, honestly.
I'll admit I dislike capitalism, but I'm not naive enough to believe that with human society the way it is, communism will work. Maybe in the future, not right now.
I'll admit I dislike capitalism, but I'm not naive enough to believe that with human society the way it is, communism will work. Maybe in the future, not right now.
I was just using the Bible and God as a metaphor for what people seem to worship.Boomshaka said:
That said, I'm fully aware that most of my OP is ignorant and silly. Which is why I made it. It's truly interesting to read what other people think, and I'm learning quite a bit.
Socialism, in other words, as practised in Sweden and Canada, for example (to cite to of the countries that tend to head the "Standard of Living" league tables) and in fact most of Europe at one time or other in the last 50 years. It's even not far off the US system, just a long way from its use in practice, so far as I can see.Serenegoose said:
Oh right! I have read that series, and I get what your saying.spartan231490 said:
I just didn't really think about that book in that way... but it's interesting, thanks for bringing it up.
Neither is better than the other it's all about management and how good the goverement is. It's best if they are mixed together.
Your right, I don't really know... which is one of the big reasons why I started this thread.Plazmatic said:
I guess I just got tired of people throwing out around me "Ooooh! Communism is horrible! Capitalism is the only thing that will save your soul!" When it's fairly obvious that they know even less than I do.
Plus, this is a faster way to learn about government systems than just taking a college class for it
.
Civilization is about rising above nature.ninjastovall0 said:
Ever tempted to believe that we're too civilized? Most people are at some point, but they haven't thought it through. I don't believe there's ever been an anarchic paradise.
That said, here's a new analogy for you: communism is like high-school, socialism is like university, naked capitalism is like work. I had fun in each, but I'd have to say that uni probably shades the others. I suspect that others have stronger opinions. Do they match your political outlook?
I was not aware of that, and that was one of the major reasons why I made this topic: to learn just what they are, and what people think about them.Woodsey said:
Communism is fine on paper. Problem is people don't work as hard knowing that the guy that does absolitely nothing gets payed the same amount.
Capitalism in my opinion is better, because you are only limited by the amount you are willing to work, the government does not "cap" your paycheck
Capitalism in my opinion is better, because you are only limited by the amount you are willing to work, the government does not "cap" your paycheck
I think it's fairly clear by this point that communism have never worked in practice.
Also, China is not communistic. It was an absolute miserable country until they introduced capitalism and now, a couple of decades later, they are on top of the world.
Really, in a society of individuals with a monetary system capitalism is the only thing that makes sense.
Also, China is not communistic. It was an absolute miserable country until they introduced capitalism and now, a couple of decades later, they are on top of the world.
Really, in a society of individuals with a monetary system capitalism is the only thing that makes sense.
Communism means that people don't work towards anything and have no real incentive to do anything, also, humans are too easily corruptible.Also, it's ridiculous to think that a poet who does very little actual 'work' gets paid the same as a doctor.
Capitalism knows what humans are like, and plays on their natural greed to keep the market regulated.
Capitalism knows what humans are like, and plays on their natural greed to keep the market regulated.
But we do not all have the same capital. I appreciate that it provides the incentive for everyone to work, and to gain money as efficiently as possible, which has lots of positive benefits. However, in parallel, some are wielding vast influence, moving the goalposts and earning stacks of money from just having capital that most of us can never attain. Money breeds and multiplies - and generally those who have it get lots more, and those who don't struggle to increase their capital at all. That might be fine, if those with capital have earned it by proving they know better how to invest it than others, but they rarely have.TheNewDemoman said: