Communism vs. Capitalism, which is really better?

[TheNewDemoman]

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

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.

You are right those that have money usually keep it.
The good thing about capitalism though is that the poor people if they have enough drive can at least move themselves up a peg to middle class, and then maybe their children can move them to riches. Usually, it should be a church or charity's job to help with this but (different topic)


Communism puts everyone on the same level, regardless of their gifts. I am a gifted speaker, but in a communist society the government would give me a job in a factory.

However, I think one day we will be able to create a communist society that will hold

 

[Faine']

Communism. I think. Whilst it certainly hasn't worked out in the past, that seems to be due to leaders that have completely screwed it all up. You could argue that this would only happen time and time again, but I like to be optimistic.

Ideally, I'd rather have something like this, though: http://www.thevenusproject.com/

 

[Exterminas]

Geeez, what a question.

Please define "Communism" and "Capitalism" both are abstract philosophies of state priorities, not concrete systems.

Then "better"
Please define better.

Better in regards to what maxime? Which suits human nature? (please define human nature) Better for who? Better when? Now or in the past? Better for future generations? Better in regards to mankind as a whole? Better for peace within mankind? Or better for technological progress?

There is no absolute "better". As always with systems there isn't a perfect answer. It all comes down to who you are, where you life and what you want.

 

[jomala]

Capitalism because it mirrors nature. Competition.

Civilization is about rising above nature.

Well, no, civilization is merely about living together whilst eating jam and avoiding bashing each others faces in with shovels as best as possible. Systems which mirror patterns found in nature are generally far, far more effective and efficient.

I don't agree with this. Wheels work pretty well. Companies and armies with more than one level of heirarchy have proven pretty effective. And I could probably name a dozen more things for which your response would be "what about ants" despite the fact that I can't think of a closer analogy for communism.

And I reckon a gang of chimps with provided with shovels and jam wouldn't all get to eat the jam.

Humans have risen above nature, and can rise a lot further. (It's not necessarily making us happier of course, but I believe that it can.)

 

[Lyx]

Both are flawed on their own. Communism is unflexible and ignores that there are things that shouldn't be egalitarian (humans are not all equal) - but for conditions where not much flexibility is needed, and egalitarism is desirable, it does things that capitalism will never ever be able to do. Most importantly: Communism allows something that capitalism is incapable of modelling: Situations where less workforce is needed than products.

Capitalism on the other hand ignores that humans are not bank accounts, is prone to go out of balance because it has no reliable caps that stop it from going nuts. On the upside, nothing can deal better with high dynamicity and encourage improvement.

Capitalism (with caps) does what communism cannot do, and communism does what capitalism cannot do. But people are so stuck in a dualistic worldview, that they do not realize how complementary both are.

The only thing that is mostly useless in an optimum economy (mostly, because there are fringe cases, where it is needed), is socialism. That is because socialism is a patch, not a fix. It is there to patch leaks of an economy and society. Of course, there will always be holes - things that cannot work completely selfsustained with a balanced budget - which is why some degree of socialism will always be necessary - but make no mistake, it never solves any problems - it just says "well, bummer, looks like we'll all have to shoulder the burden that this thing leaks".

 

[ChaoticKraus]

Really, in a society of individuals with a monetary system capitalism is the only thing that makes sense.

I think you lack imagination. Either that or you've spent a lot of time analysing the alternatives but haven't shown your workings!

I'm not sure i understand what you mean. I have studied the socio-economic aspects of communism quite well since i was very left-leaning in my early teens. If we are to be practical, which you should be when it comes to running your state, i haven't seen one instance where communism or any other economic system has worked better than capitalism.

 

[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.

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.

Ah, well that's good then. A lot of people do get them mixed up, and often they're posed as being each other's opposite.

I guess the best explation would be that if you had a political spectrum labelled -10 to 10 (-10 being Communism) then Capitalism can be in place in some form from, say, -8 to 10, if that makes sense.

Look at China, for example.

 

[Valkyrie101]

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.

Yes, theoretically, it's all very nice. That is, unless you have a scrap of ambition. What if you ever want to make some money, buy a bigger house, a nicer car? You can't. It doesn't matter how hard you work, you're stuck, forever, with no hope of ever getting anything better than what you have right now.

Granted, the whole idea of Communism falls down when put into practice

There's also this.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Capitalism works for a time until the rich become so powerful that everyone beneath them revolts. ("Trickle down" wealth turned out to be a lie)
Communism works until everyone is content and they don't want to work anymore. (Workers being motivated by nationalism/public interest died out when people started thinking more for themselves and less about this vague amalgamation of state. That wild party had to wind down at some point).

Both systems ultimately fail and then "reset" periodically; as any system of government with competing wills can attest, there is no strictly "better" system.

Also, I recall a study done on incentives that demonstrated how the absolute best work in a field isn't motivated by financial goals; but an interest to directly improve the field. It showed an overwhelmingly strong correlation that by making money the primary goal, the quality of the work eventually tapered off and decreased, while personal motivation caused it to break that ceiling.
If that is true, then the best medium would imply that we should use a Capitalist approach for everything that is mundane so we can motivate the workforce to keep civilization moving, but a "Communist" approach for those who want to improve the field and spread the findings back down to the workforce.

The problem today, is that by monetizing absolutely everything, we scare off those potential minds because they know that they will be forced to do nothing but deadlines or that their work will be exploited rather than shared.

Likewise, if we try to "save" the workforce with government bailouts, they won't have as much of an incentive to keep working (I know way too many people who live on Unemployment benefits alone).

But even under the best system, human nature will ultimately cause it to fail as well, so everything I just said is rather meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Chechosaurus]

I'm a socialist so you'd think that I would align myself with the Red Glory (especially given my avatar) but to be honest, I think that we need capitalism in order to thrive and develop as a species and global community. I believe that capitalism itself is not the evil, but the way in which we use capitalism. The major problem with the capitalist system is how rich people are able to become. I would suggest that we allow an element of capitalism for personal gain but don't let it get to the stage that people at the top are so rich, it would be physically impossible for them to spend the amounts of money that they have access to.

For example, the being the owner of a small business is effectively capitalism and goes against communist ideology. However, we need these people to run their small businesses in order to function, especially in regards to outlets such as corner shops. It would be completely unreasonable for the government to take control of every independently run cloths store and off-licence or pub and restaurant. Whoever takes the initiative to open up such an establishment should reap the benefits but they will never become a multi-billionaire.

However, institutions such as public transport should be taken into government control. The railway system here in Britain is a complete mess. In order to travel long distance you are required to change trains (that's fine) but you will find yourself moving from an Arriva train to a Virgin one for no particular reason. There should be one standardised railway company, run and regulated by the government.

Same can be said for power plants, petrol stations and various forms of industry. If they were taken into government control, they could be optimised and run cheaper. With no shareholders to pander to, it doesn't make as much difference if a steel works isn't making as much money as the CEOs want. Any profit that is made can be distributed amongst the staff in the form of bonuses and the rest can go into the government coffers to pay for better education and health care.

There is a lot to be said for putting the government as the primary money earner in any country. Rather than constantly trying to make more money by outsourcing to other countries or making cuts just to bring in a few extra thousand a year, many institutions would be run purely out of necessity - Any major profit is just a bonus that could be used to cut income tax and VAT.

There is, of course, a major downside and that is human greed. The primary issues with the Soviet Union was collectivisation and centralisation. The government held literally all of the money and power and the leaders often abused this. Would you really trust any governmental body with that much control over major industry, banks and transport? I would like to think that someday in the future we might be able to but I highly doubt it.

So yeah, I will side with capitalism in this but I personally think that both systems are fundamentally flawed and only with major compromise on both parts, can we ever really evolve into a socialist society. The kind of unified existence where although there is an element of elevated prosperity amongst a few, it is not to such a sickening proportion and those who are not part of this small group live to a standard far surpassing the average in any developed country at this time.

 

[Austin Howe]

Am I the only one here with an even rudimentary understanding of Economics?

 

[zutagonecver]

Surprised by the number of smart comments in a topic like this, I came here expecting mostly ignorant teenagers ranting about how Stalin and Mao murdered in the millions and throwing that as an argument to prove that communism is evil.
But don't forget that we don't live in a truly capitalistic system. The US, which is supposed to be the bastion of capitalism in the world has many government run projects like education, the post office, the transportation system (IE maintaining roads and such), law enforcement and countless others, not to mention, all of the government regulations imposed on the private sector.
A truly capitalistic society would be very anarchistic IMO and would fall apart even faster than a truly communist society. What we have here is a mix between the two systems and instead of arguing which system is better we could find a healthy balance between the two. At least until humans evolve.

 

[spartan231490]

I disagree. I am saying that they very system which guarantees you the same wealth as everyone else, regardless of input to the society, inherently degrades individual value, and leads to a dull, gray, monotonous existence, instead of a dynamic, vibrant life of achievement.

See, I am kind of at a loss here at your statement. Are you saying that unless I can strive to become succesful and rise up to the challenge, my life would be dull? If so, that's a very strange way to measure life quality.

Being succesful (or getting rich) is one measure of life quality, certainly. But it is not the only one. Remember that old slogan "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? For all it is worth, that is exactly what communism wants. In a true communism your life quality isn't measured by how far up the corporate ladder you get or how much money you can pile up. It is measured by how happy you are with your life.

If anything, the communistic system reinforces individual value when compared to the capitalistic system where the majority of people must inevitably be a part of the workforce with little say about how or what to produce. The Capitalistic system surely strenghtens the individual value of the succesful, but for everyone else (the overwhelming majority) it reduces them to little more then disposable assets for those that run the companies the workforce is employed with

I'm not saying that being successful is any valid measure of life quality, I'm saying that the struggle is what makes life worth living. The whole "pursuit of happiness" part is exactly what I'm talking about.

The communist system also makes the majority of people join the workforce with little say what to produce. The same commodities must be produced with the same methods, and therefore the same number of workers must help. The world needs it's factory workers, and it's janitors. tehy still exist in communism, but they get screwed cuz they're payed the same for a much crappier job. Communism still makes the workers interchangeable assets, but instead of a company, it's the government.

At least in capitalism you can strive to go somewhere, and if you do your job better than someone else, you get more money, a tangible proof of your success and a reason for pride. In communism, you don't even have that luxury. Let me put it to you this way. If every person is payed the same, regardless of what they do, that sends the message that all of those people is worth exactly the same thing. This devalues the individual, because he has exactly the same value as any other.

Perhaps communism's greatest downfall is that it eliminates the individual drive to succeed and grow because it eliminates the most tangible reward of your efforts, and sends the message that the one who works hard and is the best at what he does, is no more valuable than the person who sleeps through half his shift, and who doesn't even really do his job. Without this drive to better yourself, the civilization would stagnate, leading to lives becoming nothing more than a dull, monotonous, pointless existence.

In short, it isn't the money that makes a life better, it is the drive, and feeling of success and pride(self-value) that makes life better. Without the drive to be better, we lose what it means to be human, and replace it with our only value being a part of humanity.

 

[Lyx]

The constant whining in this thread about "human greed" annoys me. Guess what? There can only be as much parasitism as there are willing victims and biased regulations. Can anyone here explain to me how "greed" can be successful, if there would be no-one who accepts the abuse? Nope.

Which means: If according to you, the problem of the planetary economy is greed, then the problem also is altruism - the altruism that leftwingers are trying to promote - because, you know: It's always easier to compensate, and point fingers at others, than recognizing that the framework may be biased, and its people too dumb and lazy to reject abuse.

This collective overtolerance is visible also in other topics. Take for example this site.... how many people are whining about bland, short, user-hostile and repetitive games? How many quickly rush to buy the next one that comes out? It's easy to whine about the bad greedy someones and request "Everyone should just be nicer".... it's a bit more effort to acknowledge that YOU'RE co-responsible for the state, as long as you SUPPORT what you claim to reject.

And you know what? No economic or society model/concept will ever solve this. Economic and society models can encourage certain behaviours, but:

- No model can replace you yourself actually acting in line with what you desire
- No model can prevent people corrupting the model, because every model is modifyable.

Intention, honesty and personal action are not replaceable by any model. Or to phrase it more cheesy: Any model is only as good as its users.

 

[Kair]

They are two different systems applied to different individuals.

Capitalism tries to control the unenlightened in order to provide for a small portion of the unenlightened.

Communism is the cooperation of enlightened Humans.

The question is not which is better. Obviously enlightened Humans will produce a much better society.


I wish people would at least find out what Communism is before they insult the Humanist cause with ignorance.

Let me try to teach the difference between Capitalism and Communism.

Capitalism:

Monkey holds carrot in front of horse to go where he wishes. Horse thinks he is moving forward in life because he thinks he is moving towards the carrot.


Communism:

A community of Humans work together without the need of personal incentives.

 

[Lyx]

Communism:

A community of Humans work together without the need of personal incentives.

Let me rephrase that:

"A community of humans works together to achieve something, without any personal intentions."

How odd.... if they have no intentions, then where is then intention towards they're working coming from?

This is the same fallacy as with how fascists argue. There ain't no such thing as agentless agency.

Egoists <-> Altruists

Action <-> Decision

Whenever you have one of both, you have an equal amount of the other. NEVER EVER you will have only one of both! The only thing you achieve with this fucked up mindset, is a schizophrenetic worldview, in which you ignore 50% of the world, so that you can live in the illusion that only the other 50% of the world exists.

 

[Kair]

Communism:

A community of Humans work together without the need of personal incentives.

Let me rephrase that:

"A community of humans works together to achieve something, without any personal intentions."

How odd.... if they have no intentions, then where is then intention towards they're working coming from?

This is the same fallacy as with how fascists argue. There ain't no such thing as agentless agency.

Egoists <-> Altruists

Action <-> Decision

Whenever you have one of both, you have an equal amount of the other. NEVER EVER you will have only one of both! The only thing you achieve with this fucked up mindset, is a schizophrenetic worldview, in which you ignore 50% of the world, so that you can live in the illusion that only the other 50% of the world exists.

You do what? You rephrase my phrase, completely changing its meaning and then try to disprove my argument by using your own rephrasing?

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Honestly, there's no perfect system.

Communism is awesome on paper, but in practice, it discourages people form seeking out higher and harder jobs, and the people in power will ALWAYS get corrupted and screw everything up.

Capitalism works great on paper too. But...When companies get so big they can become monopolies and do whatever the heck they want, it causes the system to screw up. Not to mention, it encourages people to hoard more money than they can ever even spend. I mean...Do sports players REALLY need to make millions of dollars a year?

Now throw in the inevitable mafia activities and everything goes to pieces.

There is no perfect system. If a system is too free, it will be abused to hell and back. If it's too strict, it will constrain our free will, and if the wrong guy gets into power, we are screwed.

 

[Valkyrie101]

However, institutions such as public transport should be taken into government control. The railway system here in Britain is a complete mess. In order to travel long distance you are required to change trains (that's fine) but you will find yourself moving from an Arriva train to a Virgin one for no particular reason. There should be one standardised railway company, run and regulated by the government.

There was. It was privatised for a reason.

 

[Mr. Google]

Communism promotes laziness and capitalism promotes survival of the fittest. Im with Capitalism no matter how lazy i am...and im from America