Communism vs. Capitalism, which is really better?

[hexFrank202]

Hmm... you seem to be getting offended a lot. At worst, I've been sarcastic and smartassy, but you've gone straight-out and used "dickhead" "fool" and "stupidity". I'm tempted to go on a long speech about how hard your posts are to read because you never use proper capitalization. But we're here for political debate (or at least I am.)

4: There are many different applications for the word "equality." One (the good one) is that everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, regardless of their race, sex or orientation. And that they all have the same basic human rights. They all have the right to be as rich and successful as they can be. The good version of equality is that everyone is given the same level of potential opportunity for greatness.

that is completely unrelated to my argument

9: Uh, yes it is. You said that capitalism has inequality, and I explained how "financial equality" and "legal and human rights" equality are totally different things.

9.1: Also, I call it "the good one" because, well, don't you think not being racist, sexist or homophobic is good? What, do you think it's baaaad, huh? Are you racist?!? :O

9.2: And I call it "the confused one" because people are getting it confused with the good one.

9.3: Fully aware of my dickheadedness, thank you very much.

and why exactly is that worse exactly? If everyone got the same amount of money regardless of what they did people might do what they wanted to do instead of what they have to do to make money. with everyone happier we'd see progress for good reasons instead of progress for selfish reasons.

10: Here we go! We're making some progress here! You're actually starting to explain more about how communism--in theory--is supposed to work. So tell me, if people went around doing whatever they wanted to do, in what way would that progress the world? It would definitely help the independent arts, that's for sure. I honestly just want to see you back this one up on your own.

in Communism wouldn't you make the same amount of money cleaning my windows as you would cleaning Rich McRichman's windows?

11: :| Um, yeah. Because McRichman wouldn't be rich anymore, and so his house wouldn't have very many windows. Therefore, we would make less money. Thank you for pointing that out, basically having no choice but to agree with me on this point, yet somehow talking like you don't.

Do you really think that the super rich guy has his giant house so he can employ gardeners and plumbers and electricians. No, of course not. He has a big house so people will look at him and say "look at him he has a big house."

12: So now you're saying it's bad to employ people if you're doing it for your own, personal gain? Because that's what hiring people is for!

12.1: Seriously, I don't understand this point at all. He hires all these people, and gives them all jobs, but oooh, because he did it for SELFISH reasons, that makes it bad! So it's the motive that makes it bad? If he was hiring people to garden and clean an orphanage, would that make it okay?

12.2: No, really. If he hired all those same people to take care of an orphanage full of children, would that make it okay for them to hire them?

Capitalism is fueled by selfishness it is a bad thing. It helps people inadvertently but ultimately it rewards the worst parts of human nature

13: Liiiiiike, working harder and being innovative?

13.1: Let me get back to the whole "doing what people want to do" thing. Most jobs in the world are things that have to be done, and most people don't want to do it. Construction workers, for example. I think most of them would rather sit at home and watch television than work, I know I would.

13.2: So let's say that almost no one becomes a construction worker, because no one wants to do it. Well crap, now we don't have anything getting built.

13.3: I'm not sure what you're going to say, but as far as I can see, the only way around this is to make people become construction workers. Fair enough, I guess? So now you get hundreds of people who have to build a building. Okay, but it's still not like they have any incentive to work. They're all getting paid the same, and all have to work the same hours, so no matter how bad of a job they do, it won't matter. They'll work real slow and take the longest breaks they possibly could. They'd have no reason to be creative and come up with faster techniques for doing anything. And this is just one example. Pretty much every job is crappily done when you have no incentive to work.

Communism says "fuck you" to human nature "you get what you get, deal with it." it isn't better but it's more fair to more people.

14: Alright, now I'm going to get a little personal. YOU sir, have a bent understanding of "fair". You get what you get, deal with it? That's exactly what capitalism is. It's now my favorite time of the day; metaphor time.

14.1: Say that one student studied really hard on a test, and got an A.
Another student didn't work hardly at all on a test, and got a D.
Well, that's not very equal. By your rules, we should round both of those scores into a B-.
Just replace "grades" with "money" and it's the exact same thing.

14.2: One person works really hard, makes a lot of money.
Another person doesn't work at all, makes almost no money.
Give them both the same amount of money. Fair? To you, for whatever reason, that sounds completely fair.

14.3: And look, I know. I KNOW that there are LOTS of people who are poor, despite having worked really hard. I KNOW. Did you ever watch the Pursuit of Happyness? It's about a guy who works really hard, is really good at what he does, but keeps struggling to not be impoverished.

14.4: At the end, all his work finally pays off and he gets a great job. And that's based on a true story; and the person it's based off is now a millionaire.

14.5: The fact is, a LOT of people are gonna be homeless or at the bottom of the barrel in their lives. But opportunity never really is completely gone. Maybe it's different in other countries, but in America, nobody is completely trapped to live on the streets forever, nobody. There's always a way to make it for yourself, and it may be hard, but there's always a way.

14.6: Unless of course you're completely disabled. In which case the government MUST aid you. Or unless you're in prison, in which case you HAVE lost your freedom.

14.7: You're completely right in that communism does say "fuck you" to human nature. But you're wrong to think that's a good thing. It says "fuck you" to work and effort, humans are miserable without that.

Infodump about how the housing market crashed.

15: Sorry, you have fallen victim to a fundamental misunderstanding, and--admittedly--some bad communication on my part.

What I was mainly trying to say was that one of the major things that caused it was because bad loans were made; loans that people couldn't pay. I wasn't trying to say that the mortgage companies were trying to be "fair to everyone", their motives and/or reasons they made those bad decisions were completely different than that. Still, it's what they did. It was badly-run, poorly managed capitalistic business.

In communism, everyone would be given a loan... and since everyone would be making the same amount of money, that would certainly be easy to control. I'll have to admit that "everyone could afford a house" is one thing about communism that works... in theory. And since most of the rest of it doesn't even work in theory, that's much better!

Bill Gates is not the only person in the top 1%

16: And he's also not the only billionaire who's donated a lot of money to charity! Point is; rich people can be very generous, too.

Communism doesn't reward greed

17: It might not necessarily reward greed, but it certainly rewards laziness or cheats of the system. You said that you agree with point #3. So you must agree that people will behave like that in droves under communism. It's ugly, it's very ugly.

17.1: Oh, but that's just in terms of the citizens. For the government? Yeah it rewards greed. It totally, totally rewards greed. They literally get to be in control of all the money.

Sometimes generosity is its own reward.

Explain this sentence to me. :|

in 5.0-5.3 you told me that rich people can give poor people borderline slave labor jobs

18: WHAT?!?!?! I never said that!!

18.1: Okay, maybe this is another case of fundamental misunderstanding on your part. Maybe you THOUGHT that I said "and the rich people whip me whenever I wash their windows." But if you don't think that, then well...

18.2: Then let me get this straight. Being a window cleaner, a house cleaner or a gardener or such, is a 'borderline slave labor' job, in your book. Is that correct? You can ignore this WHOLE post, just answer this ONE question for me, please.

you do realize you posted what you thought my rebuttal would be before I got to read your counter argument

ouch... I sort of called you out there didn't I
let me put it this way for you

me: In capitalism, the top 1% of people can have whatever they want, they don't help people because of human nature. Power corrupts.

you: That's what happens in communism too. It's one, all-powerful entity that can do anything. How could the rich business people become corrupted, but not the government?

me: Of course the government will get corrupted, that's why I said in my first post that both systems were shit. Communism is only better because it doesn't reward individual greed.

19: Actually, this is yet ANOTHER fundamental misunderstanding. Don't worry, that happens a lot with conversations this long, really.

"You: In capitalism, the top 1% of people can have whatever they want, they don't help people because of human nature. Power corrupts."
This represents your basic argument that you've carried with you since before we ever met. You've made it clear to me that you have agreed with this statement before this conversation ever started.

"Me: That's what happens in communism too. It's one, all-powerful entity that can do anything. How could the rich business people become corrupted, but not the government?"
This represents my first post. It wasn't directly aimed at YOU, it was aimed at anyone who believed in the "power corrupts" argument. You just so happened to fit that description.

"You: Because in capitalism, the top 1% of people can have whatever they want and don't help people because of human nature. Power corrupts. This point outweighs your point."
And THIS represents your first reply to me.

So yeah I wasn't trying to predict what you were going to say, I was summing up what our conversation had been so far. You honestly don't have to believe me either, because when I explain it, it does sound a little weird.

15.1: But hey... what IS your response to...
"That's what happens in communism too. It's one, all-powerful entity that can do anything. How could the rich business people become corrupted, but not the government?"
anyway?

15.2: You didn't actually respond to it, you just talked about how immature I was because you thought I was predicting the future. My whole original point to that part of the post was to point out that you never actually presented an argument against it, and whadea know, you STILL haven't.

15.3: Sorry for being even more of a huge dickhead now. I'm even starting to annoy myself, but I couldn't think of any way to communicate 15.1 and 15.2 properly and clearly without being cocky about it.

 

[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.

It was privatised for ideological reasons not because it couldn't work. I understand that it didn't work all that well but that doesn't mean that it can't. What happened when the Tories privatised was they closed the lines that weren't making proft but the problem was that people needed these lines to get to the main line. It would be like think 'Look at the motorway. Not as many people are using these slip roads so maybe we should close them to save money'. In theory it makes sense (for about a minute until you actually think about it) but in practice it's retarded. The privatisation has caused more trouble than its worth and the nationalisation of the railways is, theoretically, the best way to run them. Of course, there isn't a single party that I trust enough to actually do it properly.

Doesn't work like that in reality. Private companies work, because there's the incentive of profit. A totally nationalized industry has no reason to bother being efficient or effective. Why make the trains run on time? No need to, because the customer has no alternative. Of course, theoretically they should want to make it work anyway, because that's the right thing to do, but that doesn't tend to happen in reality. See Soviet Russia.

 

[tsb247]

Capitalism, because you have to work for something, in communism there is no sense of achievement, yes everyone else has what you got, but you didn't have to work any harder than them or suck up to your boss any more.

Sure there's a sense of achievement! Who's to say you couldn't move up or down in your career? Who's to say that you couldn't make more money than other people? Do you think that everyone in China makes the exact same amount of money? Don't make me laugh!

Just because businesses are run by the government doesn't mean that those businesses totally suck! There is a reason Chinese businesses are growing at the rate they are. I mean yes, China kinda sucks from a human rights and environmental standpoint, but economically, they are doing very well.

Your image of cookie cutter Communism is naieve, my good man.

China is hardly a communist state anymore. China has embraced the ideals of capitalism and allowed themselves to grow because of it. Look at their economy for God's sake! The U.S. exports hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs to them and they gladly take them. Not to mention the fact that they also keep the value of their currency tightly controlled; keeping it greatly undervalued.

If nothing else, they are a kind of socialist state with capitalistic tendencies, but Karl Marx would laugh at them if they called themselves true communists. They are FAR too invested in capitalism through the U.S. Without the U.S. giving them jobs, it is unlikely they would be where they are now. There's a reason they buy up all of our bank notes!

 

[Mikeyfell]

snip

it's unrelated because I never mentioned anything that had to do with race or gender or any of those things.

big snip

Instead of responding to each one of those points I'm just going to say a couple things about Communism\Socialism that you might not know

1. If you don't work you won't get payed. That's true for Capitalism too
2. When I say "equality" I mean that all jobs have equal monetary value. In Capitalism football players make millions of dollars while someone who takes care of traumatized children barely makes ends meet month to month instead of them both making the same amount of money.
3. poor job performance can still get you fired. (or arrested depending on how corrupt the government is)
4. The government will get corrupted just like the business man. The difference is that a corrupt CEO could take all their employee's money and run and get off scott-free the government on the other hand has an entire population that they have to keep from revolting. to stop the revolting they'll either mobilize the army to hold down rebellions or hide their corruption, maybe they'll choose the latter because it's cheaper.
5. Since the government needs educated people the government will pay for your education so you can have the job you want.

Infodump about how the housing market crashed.

15: Sorry, you have fallen victim to a fundamental misunderstanding, and--admittedly--some bad communication on my part.

What I was mainly trying to say was that one of the major things that caused it was because bad loans were made; loans that people couldn't pay. I wasn't trying to say that the mortgage companies were trying to be "fair to everyone", their motives and/or reasons they made those bad decisions were completely different than that. Still, it's what they did. It was badly-run, poorly managed capitalistic business.<<actually they were issuing loans they knew would defect so they could seize houses. but when banks started selling loans to other banks it all just went to hell from there

In communism, everyone would be given a loan<<Loans are a Capitalist invention. in Communism wages and prices are controlled by the government so people don't need loans. and since everyone would be making the same amount of money, that would certainly be easy to control. I'll have to admit that "everyone could afford a house" is one thing about communism that works... in theory. And since most of the rest of it doesn't even work in theory, that's much better!

Bill Gates is not the only person in the top 1%

16: And he's also not the only billionaire who's donated a lot of money to charity! Point is; rich people can be very generous, too.

If hospitals and orphanages (ect.) were all run by the government they would get their funding regardless of how generous the billionaires were.

Sometimes generosity is its own reward.

Explain this sentence to me. :|

okay...I'll bite
have you ever experienced that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you help out your fellow man?
there's a personal emotional reward for generosity instead of a monetary reward for greed

in 5.0-5.3 you told me that rich people can give poor people borderline slave labor jobs

18: WHAT?!?!?! I never said that!!

18.1: Okay, maybe this is another case of fundamental misunderstanding on your part. Maybe you THOUGHT that I said "and the rich people whip me whenever I wash their windows." But if you don't think that, then well...

18.2: Then let me get this straight. Being a window cleaner, a house cleaner or a gardener or such, is a 'borderline slave labor' job, in your book. Is that correct? You can ignore this WHOLE post, just answer this ONE question for me, please.

First off, I'm not above being an asshole on the internet. I'm sorry that I offended you.
Secondly, yea. That's the kind of things that slaves did. Manual labor, cleaning, gardening. When they were too busy or lazy to do it themselves they'd buy someone to do it for them, now days they pay someone to do it for them. It's not the same, and it's not even bad but you can see the connection

you do realize you posted what you thought my rebuttal would be before I got to read your counter argument

ouch... I sort of called you out there didn't I
let me put it this way for you

me: In capitalism, the top 1% of people can have whatever they want, they don't help people because of human nature. Power corrupts.

you: That's what happens in communism too. It's one, all-powerful entity that can do anything. How could the rich business people become corrupted, but not the government?

me: Of course the government will get corrupted, that's why I said in my first post that both systems were shit. Communism is only better because it doesn't reward individual greed.

19: Actually, this is yet ANOTHER fundamental misunderstanding. Don't worry, that happens a lot with conversations this long, really.

"You: In capitalism, the top 1% of people can have whatever they want, they don't help people because of human nature. Power corrupts."
This represents your basic argument that you've carried with you since before we ever met. You've made it clear to me that you have agreed with this statement before this conversation ever started.

"Me: That's what happens in communism too. It's one, all-powerful entity that can do anything. How could the rich business people become corrupted, but not the government?"
This represents my first post. It wasn't directly aimed at YOU, it was aimed at anyone who believed in the "power corrupts" argument. You just so happened to fit that description.

"You: Because in capitalism, the top 1% of people can have whatever they want and don't help people because of human nature. Power corrupts. This point outweighs your point."
And THIS represents your first reply to me.

So yeah I wasn't trying to predict what you were going to say, I was summing up what our conversation had been so far. You honestly don't have to believe me either, because when I explain it, it does sound a little weird.

That makes sense, okay I get it now

15.1: But hey... what IS your response to...
"That's what happens in communism too. It's one, all-powerful entity that can do anything. How could the rich business people become corrupted, but not the government?"
anyway?

The thing is that I never argued against that. My point was this: "Having an even distribution of wealth is the most important thing for an economy and Communism is the only way to get that."

15.2: You didn't actually respond to it, you just talked about how immature I was because you thought I was predicting the future. My whole original point to that part of the post was to point out that you never actually presented an argument against it, and whadea know, you STILL haven't.

15.3: Sorry for being even more of a huge dickhead now. I'm even starting to annoy myself, b wut I couldn't think of anyay to communicate 15.1 and 15.2 properly and clearly without being cocky about it.

Trust me we're both annoyed

 

[MikailCaboose]

Communism sounds better, but Capitalism functions better. And with regards to Communism, there's a quote I've heard a lot (but I can't remember who first said it) that goes "Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others."

 

[BSOD]

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.

Capitalism really isn't based on greed. It's based on supply and demand. If there is a high demand for a product, but low supply then cost increases, and vice versa. While a merchant can hike up prices simply out of greed, chances are he won't stay in business long due to people buying less expensive versions of the same product from other merchants.

Kapt.Rob stated above that both suffer from one common factor, and that is humans.

Capitalism can't escape from this factor either. Because even though eco-101 teaches that Capitalism is rooted in supply and demand, what happens overtime are that resources (limited) and ideas aren't brought to market fast-enough or in ample supply to meet the needs (demands to eat and have a decent education, health or place to live). You can't rush innovation (some of which leads to employment), sometimes it just happens by accident or luck. And because there are tens of millions of people waiting around for jobs, politicians and creative opportunists, will take advantage of loopholes in the FIAT currency we have today by actually not producing anything but rather increasing manufactured profits based on this monetary system.

What we have today is more millionaires than ever before. But at a rate that can't keep up with the amount of those falling into poverty. So, the gap is ever widening. Eventually the debate ends up a moral question regardless if it's legal or doable: Is it worth the extra millionaires at the expense of more and more people having no hope of improving their lives (or worse death)?

Just like the Communist that abused their power, the so-called capitalist take advantage of this system want to change nothing. And instead use slogans to champion "Capitalism, God, Country, etc..." when it's really just a racket.

It all comes back to human nature. "Power corrupts..." you know the rest.

 

[The Hive Mind]

In the middle is the best -- the benefits of fairness and progressive taxation brought by socialism and the drive to succeed and progress and innovate brought by capitalism.

 

[BSOD]

Capitalism, because you have to work for something, in communism there is no sense of achievement, yes everyone else has what you got, but you didn't have to work any harder than them or suck up to your boss any more.

Sure there's a sense of achievement! Who's to say you couldn't move up or down in your career? Who's to say that you couldn't make more money than other people? Do you think that everyone in China makes the exact same amount of money? Don't make me laugh!

Just because businesses are run by the government doesn't mean that those businesses totally suck! There is a reason Chinese businesses are growing at the rate they are. I mean yes, China kinda sucks from a human rights and environmental standpoint, but economically, they are doing very well.

Your image of cookie cutter Communism is naieve, my good man.

China is hardly a communist state anymore. China has embraced the ideals of capitalism and allowed themselves to grow because of it. Look at their economy for God's sake! The U.S. exports hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs to them and they gladly take them. Not to mention the fact that they also keep the value of their currency tightly controlled; keeping it greatly undervalued.

If nothing else, they are a kind of socialist state with capitalistic tendencies, but Karl Marx would laugh at them if they called themselves true communists. They are FAR too invested in capitalism through the U.S. Without the U.S. giving them jobs, it is unlikely they would be where they are now. There's a reason they buy up all of our bank notes!

Very true. The idealist and ideologues always mock the non-perfect solution. While Marx would criticize China today for not adhering to the pure principles of Communism. A run-of-mill GOP pundit would criticize today's America as being socialist and not adhering to pure principles of "pull oneself up from your bootstraps."

Ah...warm fuzzies from such Utopian ideals!

 

[CaptainKoala]

This is like:
Chicken crap vs. Chocolate cake.

If the whole world was communist we wouldn't be CLOSE to where we are now with our techological and scientific advances. Because with communism, there is no such thing as incentive.
Communism sounds good on paper, but instead of bringing everyone up to the same level like it's supposed to, it beats everyone down to the same level instead.

 

[Kraj]

Honestly I don't think either is better.
Capitalism seems to have a trend of creating an increasingly large gap between the lower and upper class income brackets, and communism seems completely un-fulfilling for the individual. Both seem to fall apart based on human greed.

 

[BSOD]

Both systems are pretty bad in long the run.

Communism is theoretically great, but its also impossible to implement properly, what with societies being made up of human beings, all of whom want and think different things. The only way genuine Communism can genuinely work is if you violently enforce it, which is a price to high to pay for the system. I do, however, personally prefer Communism to Capitalism, which brings me too:

Capitalism is, to put it very simply, based on the idea that everyone is constantly competing with everyone else to be the best, AKA survival of the fittest. This those few who win get comfortable lives at the top. The many who loose get pushed to lives of poverty and hunger at the bottom. The rest are sandwiched in between in the middle class. The majority suffers in a capitalist system, you few gain. Its a system the benefits the few and punishes the many. Plus, in the long term, the unbridled greed destroys the economy, as we have seen in two economic collapses in the U.S.A.

Really I'd say Socio-Capitalism is probably the best system, functioning via high tax rates and government controlled markets to ensure that, as far as possible, there is equality.

I agree. And it's ironic that China would not be enjoying their version of Commu-Capitalism if it wasn't for our demand and individualism to buy cheaper overseas goods. But rather we'd have less sales if the US was relegated to US based products only, but at the same time employing more workers here; albeit at higher pay and cost due to our being more "spoiled" at this point in our 300 year history.

China will reach that point a few decades if that.

Individualism is great on a personal level. But dangerous on an institutional level (Corporation, CEO, Board-members, stockholders). It's centralized power. Like a bull in a china shop (excuse the pun).

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

The simple fact is that neither are better, they are both ridiculous industrial nightmares, both absolutley rape the natural world for profit, in communism that profit is hypothetically made public while in capitalism it is made private. But it doesn't change the fact that they are both destroying their landbases to increase wealth and power for no other purpose than to create wealth and power. Just because capitalism out-competed communism doesn't mean that capitalism is better in any way other than HYPER exploiting its landbases for economic advantage and military superiority. So essentially capitalism is a more powerful and dynamic system but it doesn't change the fact that it is still absolutely terrible for a myriad of other reasons. The complete breakdown of natural human social interaction, the totalitatian nature of its ownership concepts, the destruction of naturally functioning and healthy ecologies, the oppressive view of everything as being a resource or "capital".
That it serves as an economic "powerhouse" doesn't mean a fucking thing, as economics is an entirely arbitrary civilized human construct. In the end both destroy the natural world for power, which in the end will leave the earth a toxic radioactive wasteland that will take hundreds of thousands more years for life to re-emerge.

It's like a contest to see who can be better at being stupid.

 

[hexFrank202]

Alright, no more numbers. I'm making this post quiiiiick.

"it's unrelated because I never mentioned anything that had to do with race or gender or any of those things."
Oh! Well good then. That means we agree on this.

"1. If you don't work you won't get payed. That's true for Capitalism too
2. When I say "equality" I mean that all jobs have equal monetary value. In Capitalism football players make millions of dollars while someone who takes care of traumatized children barely makes ends meet month to month instead of them both making the same amount of money.
3. poor job performance can still get you fired. (or arrested depending on how corrupt the government is)
4. The government will get corrupted just like the business man. The difference is that a corrupt CEO could take all their employee's money and run and get off scott-free the government on the other hand has an entire population that they have to keep from revolting. to stop the revolting they'll either mobilize the army to hold down rebellions or hide their corruption, maybe they'll choose the latter because it's cheaper.
5. Since the government needs educated people the government will pay for your education so you can have the job you want."
If all of this stuff is properly and effectively implemented, then communism could theoretically not be too bad. Thank you for actually explaining some legitimate stuff! It seems everyone else just talks about how much they hate Glenn Beck for fifty posts. However, there are still some loose ends. And I'll use... letters!

A: This still knocks down anybody with a cool, new idea for something. Or some great idea, because no matter what they do, they'll never make much more money.
B: You're STILL leaning too heavily against the idea of everybody doing what they want to do. A LOT of people wouldn't want to do big things like managing a company or even be a doctor (for a few people anyway) with no promise of higher pay.
C: Wait! Wait! Wait! You said you agreed with my original three points? One of which was that in capitalism, society develops faster, WAY faster, and that in the near future, we could all be living well. The quality of life in the western world has gone way up in the last few hundred years. You agreed with me that if we just stuck with capitalism, it wouldn't matter who was rich and who was poor; everybody would be living well!

Infodump about how the housing market crashed.

15: Sorry, you have fallen victim to a fundamental misunderstanding, and--admittedly--some bad communication on my part.

"actually they were issuing loans they knew would defect so they could seize houses. but when banks started selling loans to other banks it all just went to hell from there"
So... it was a badly-run capitalistic business?

"Loans are a Capitalist invention. in Communism wages and prices are controlled by the government so people don't need loans."
Okay, you completely and totally have me on that one.

"If hospitals and orphanages (ect.) were all run by the government they would get their funding regardless of how generous the billionaires were."
I should probably point out that the government funds hospitals and orphanages already. Sorry to not point that out earlier. Oh wait, yes I did. In my original post, about how no matter how much money you have, hospitals are legally required to help you as much as they can.



"""Sometimes generosity is its own reward."""
""Explain this sentence to me. :|""
"okay...I'll bite
have you ever experienced that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you help out your fellow man?
there's a personal emotional reward for generosity instead of a monetary reward for greed"
Yeah yeah I know THAT! But what's confusing is the context in which you said it...


""It is human nature to be greedy, and like I said, communism isn't going to get rid of that. But, sometimes, it's also human nature to be generous. Communism doesn't let you be generous. Everyone (in theory) is given the same amount of money and good fortune, so there's no room for it.""

"Communism won't change greed or generosity
Communism doesn't reward greed, Capitalism does reward greed
Generosity is often it's own reward"

What does that have to do with this sub-sub-sub topic?


"First off, I'm not above being an asshole on the internet. I'm sorry that I offended you."
I'm not offended, I'm baffled at what you said!

"Secondly, yea. That's the kind of things that slaves did. Manual labor, cleaning, gardening. When they were too busy or lazy to do it themselves they'd buy someone to do it for them, now days they pay someone to do it for them. It's not the same, and it's not even bad but you can see the connection"
Alright, now I think you're just trying to unsay what you said. It's not bad? Of course, and you know that, obviously. That's why you said it. But... why did you make the connection? It's not borderline slave labor. It's just labor. The fact that you said that really, really makes me think. I think we've really uncovered why you think the way you do. Where your concept of "fairness" comes from.

"That makes sense, okay I get it now"
Good!

"The thing is that I never argued against that."
Except you did. Riiiiight here:
http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr99/TheDavoo/RightHere1.jpg

I presented an argument that challenged a common and old argument in favor of communism. Then you presented the exact same, old argument. Not one that actually challenged my argument. You just repeated what had been said before, but then SAID it outweighed my argument.

Of course, earlier in your post, you DID finally respond to it properly. By saying that the government has too many people watching it to do anything behind their backs. Unless they hide the corruption? Yes, that's EXACTLY what they do. If we give them this much power, there's no telling what they could do. Even if a communistic country was set up super, duper perfectly, it's still so easily corrupted that it wouldn't matter for long. In a perfect system of capitalism, no one is too powerful. The government's job is to be the referee in the world of big business; to break up anything that gets too big (like they did with the phone company, and that turned out wonderfully!) and to keep people from cheating.

"Having an even distribution of wealth is the most important thing for an economy and Communism is the only way to get that."
Right now, even distribution of wealth is at an all time high, to my understanding. Because of this new thing called 'the middle class'. Yeah as it turns out, it's actually a new thing! And that's actually interesting news, I'm not being sarcastic. It first came around in America... because of capitalism. I know, I KNOW that people aren't always getting paid properly for the jobs that they do. But it's getting better all the time. Jobs are paid accordingly to how important or how hard the job is. That system isn't perfect, but it's getting better all the time.

Football players make millions of dollars because millions of people want to watch what they do! And it's a really, really hard job. You have to be in perfect physical condition, and have to be better than hundreds of other teams, every single year. But they only get the money for as long as they earn it.

The smaller jobs used to be slavery, just like you said. But do you know what made them NOT slavery? Don't you know what made the working class actually get paid for what it does? It was capitalism. I know most people are always on the verge of going bankrupt, always just barely making ends meet. My family is like that too.

But you know what? In 200 years, they'll be just barely able to pay off their super-awesome houses, their 500-mile-per-hour cars that use water vapor as fuel, and their DVR with 35,000 channels. And if they don't make enough money? Well, they'll have to live in a house made out of terrible, terrible wood, where they only have ONE water-vapor car, and only 350 channels. They'll be considered as the bad side of capitalism; about how badly the system can hurt people. When really, they're just fine. They're just not AS fine as everybody else.

You might think I'm exaggerating here, which yeah, it might not be THAT much better in 200 years, but just think about 200 years in the past. Anyone in the working class would love to live with all the luxuries we have today, even if they'd be super poor. Why, a few hundred years before that, even the wealthiest of Kings didn't have toilet paper!

Capitalism is a system that's doing great things, and it's getting better all the time. Do you really want to pull the plug on the whole thing, and bring in a whole new system that 'sounds' nice, but hasn't really been proven very successful yet? Because I won't let you.

Oh yeah! ANOTHER thing. Communism and/or socialism has been tried before, and it's never worked out so well. I've heard so many bad reports about how completely awful hospitals in the UK are. I'm sure they're not all bad, and maybe they were all made up and false. But I haven't seen any evidence otherwise, so what else can I believe? If countries that are practicing socialism or communism are doing okay, show me some proof.

Even with the economy as bad as it is, America is a pretty great place to live. In fact, I've hardly noticed an actual physical difference in my personal life. All the grocery stores are fully-stocked, all the hospitals a well-managed and squeaky clean, my family's business is doing better than ever, awesome movies and video games keep coming out, the list goes on and on.

Hell, even America tried socialism! It was some of the first government we had; where every pilgrim was assigned a bit of land that they had to take care of. It didn't work out so well; no one had the motivation to work 100%, so they changed it to where you could buy as much land as you wanted, so long as you had the money. That turned out to be a huge success. Literally, they were starving to death because of how hard it was to live there. And because they implemented a free market, they made it. And so then they had a big dinner to celebrate. No, really. Thanksgiving is primarily a celebration of capitalism, really. So all I can say is, you're not invited to any of my thanksgiving parties.

OKAY, SO. That didn't turn out so short. Oh well.

 

[Tyrant T100]

Capitalism is the better system, simply because it works.

Because of Human nature Communism will never work successfully, Communism essentially goes against the human programming of be better than everyone else. Best case scenario a Communist state fails without much unrest, Worst case scenario the USSR/North Korea is spawned that is essentially a totalitarian state that claims everyone is equal.

 

[Toriver]

Capitalism, because it's actually possible to implement. True Communism is a utopian pipe dream, and impossible to implement without severe infringements upon people's rights. Not to mention that, as someone pointed out in a user group I'm in, greed is (one) downfall of humanity, and that goes for communism as well as capitalism. Somebody has to decide how resources are to be divided among the people in communism, and in order to do that, more power must be placed in a single leader in any realistic attempt at communism than in most capitalistic societies. In other words, although in Marx's ideal communism is the ultimate in democracy, IRL communism ends up being much less democratic than capitalism on average.

Not to mention that in a communist society if you can't develop the resources needed to take care of all your people you're ALL screwed, as compared to capitalism, where only those who can't afford the resources are screwed.

I've got much more on the drawbacks of communism, and how while it may not be as good as capitalism, it's still not "bad". It's in a thread from a few months back that was similar to this. It's a very long post, but I will repost it here if anyone is interested.

EDIT: "Names changed to protect the innocent".

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Capitalism. With Communism, I wouldn't be able to have the things I have and do things I do with it in play.

Capitalism rewards people that actually get off their asses to do things themselves.

 

[Tyrant T100]

Actually thinking about it again, the idealist Communist state is one where everybody is exactly equal and everyone gets paid the same, well to a true Communist money is to be abolished. So if you had a system like this, just how long would it last before people want to get something nicer than their neighbours, or want more respect, hell what happens if you commit a crime, you'd be lower in society so technically a true Communist state couldn't even punish criminals, now that's a scary thought.

 

[SNIPERFOX ft. Harry P.Ness]

If i were president, i'd make a mixture of communism and capitalism.

communist economy, education system, job system, free speech,and all the good things of borh systems.

it will work in theory, but there always will be greedy basterds who try to currupt systems.

 

[bkdlsf89990]

"Communist State" is an oxymoron. The very definition of Communism is that of a stateless, classless society. Communism has never existed, nor has any country even claimed to be one. Countries like the USSR and China claim to be Socialist, which is ideologically a stepping-stone to communism, in which the state must seize total control "for the people" until it, the state, withers away.

Oddly enough, no nation has gotten past the "seizes total control" part...

 

[Tyrant T100]

The only really good think I think that came out of the Soviet Union was their weapon technology. There's something very cool about unbreakable guns and skull faced gasmasks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI6QCw99QpQ