Poll: Capitalism or Communism?

[wilsontheterrible]

Cuba would be a shining example of communism (and the only one) if other countries could give it resources without fear of America cutting them off -.-

I like the ideas of socialism, communism I'm kinda 'eeeeeehhh' about, just because I don't live my life to get ahead or get rich.
Capitolism I really don't like, the shift and change in power is so frequent, so jarring...but at least I'm allowed a little more freedom.
Democracy is about as realistic as socialism. Mainly because, it'll never work. There's too many people. Too many people alive to cater for, too many people not giving a shit and too many people are assholes.

So, I voted 'communism' only to even out the scale a bit

Oh yes, Cuba is a shining example. Next time I'm able to visit the mass graves around La Cabaña where Che Guavara executed my great uncle and his sons for refusing to give up their storefront and work on a plantation I'll keep in mind how fantastic the revolution was. Or how about the practice of forcing abortions upon those they feel undesireable? Or the fact that hotel guests are not allowed outside of the resort towns, lest they see the deplorable conditions in which the cuban people live. What kind of shining example of humanity prevents its citizens from leaving at the point of a gun and holds their children hostage if they get permission? What kind of grand society refuses to allow its citizens to have computers, or cell phones, or any kind of internet access?

No, socialism and communism are the ultimate corruptions of human dignity when they suppose that human beings lack the strength and intelligence to take care of themselves. Government should exist for the SOLE purpose of protecting the rights and property of its citizens and providing a just court of law, thats it.

Your biggest complaint about capitalism is that the power shifts? I count that as its biggest boon. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the big players are constantly building empires and being torn down by competitors they never have the time to oppress anybody.

I would much rather live under the most dispicable business leader in the world than live under a 'benevolent' government. A businessmans greed may be sated, his lust for power may be kept in check by the ambitions of his peers, and when he dies all his terrible deeds may be forgotten. But a government that firmly believes that it has the best interests of the people at heart will hound those people from cradle to grave, it will make the people fight wars and oppress their fellow citizens, it will justify its actions by assuming the will of the people.

Capitalism gives people the chance to suceed or fail by their own merits, they may get help from charity or their close relations, and they may do as they please so long as they don't violate the rights of others. Communism strips the people of those rights and takes it upon itself to not only protect the rights of its citizens but to protect the citizens from themselves.

 

[Agow95]

I vote Communism as a theory, but unfortunately we haven't been able to work it in practise.

 

[Mad Sun]

Pure Capitalism never worked, either. We have not lived in a purely capitalist society since the days of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison (specifically, the 19th/early 20th century). Do you know why? When the Industrial Revolution took hold, workers were needed more than ever. They would get up at, maybe, 4 in the morning, work for twelve to fourteen hours, go home, and go to sleep. 6 days a week. The working age was very low, starting at 6, and all members of the family were expected to contribute, as wages were also very low. Children and adults alike were injured by the hazardous machines whose jobs they had been doing decades earlier. Breathing in cotton dust from the mills, or fumes from the mine could cause lung cancer, or other health problems. They would live in small, often one room houses with a couple other families. Open sewage systems led to contaminated water, which, in turn, led to more disease. And the 1% prospered.

Conditions were so poor that Communism was created BECAUSE of it. And do you actually think that it was the good nature of the upper class that caused things to change? There was even a movement to keep them in their place (called Social Darwinism. Wikipedia is that way. --^).

And again, as I said on page 3. We live under a Socialist economy, but it's only third-rate because a few (most) people in government (exclusively Congress) still believe that we're Capitalists, and won't take our Socialism to the next level.

Recommended reading: Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." Perhaps the best-known example of corporate greed in existence today. For extra effect, imagine yourself living and working in this time period, and the subject matter are the same products that you use daily. Happy Hunting.

 

[akkronym]

Communism doesn't account for human nature; it assumes that we'd rather be nice to each other than have more stuff for ourselves (incredibly straw man analysis but essentially true).
Capitalism does, but it has no direct solution for corruption. If someone abuses the system to get power, there's nothing that can take it away because "They earned it."

I personally prefer Capitalism to Communism for the simple fact that in Communism, you can't really go higher; ever. In Capitalism, even if someone has a monopoly, all it takes a revolutionary idea (yeah I know, just go down to the supermarket and pick one up right?) and you're big dog on campus. Best example I can think of right now is how big Kodak used to be and how expensive film was before digital cameras.

Then again, as a general point, I'm indifferent to human suffering which at times has labeled me a terrible person, so I don't really care about the poverty line capitalism creates and communism remedies; I'm more interested in whether or not you have the ability to be successful and follow your own goals.

 

[Shinigami214]

I don't really care about the poverty line capitalism creates and communism remedies; I'm more interested in whether or not you have the ability to be successful and follow your own goals.

Actually if there is a system that most spectacularly perpetuates inequality stemming from a highly uneven distribution of wealth/resources, its capitalism.

Compare two people:

One is born to a wealthy family who own a corporation. He/She gets to go to Harvard, joins the family business at a high-ranking directors-ship or CEO post, and generally enjoy a comfortable life that wants of nothing more (barring something unforeseeable like the corporation collapsing and bankruptcy, which we can't really take into account).

The other person is born to a working class family who lives in a downtrodden area rife with gang violence. Even IF he/she is able to stay out of gangs, away from drugs, and finish high school (public school naturally, since they won't afford anything better), the life he/she will lead will be characterised by struggle, sacrifice, and limited achievement.

Completely aside from the human-suffering aspect, which you admitted you don't care about, can one honestly say both of them have enjoyed the freedom and ability to successful follow their own goals?

 

[Shinigami214]

Capitalism gives people the chance to suceed or fail by their own merits.

Spectacularly misinformed or misguided.

 

[viranimus]

Neither. Both are virulent corruptable systems that will never work. Basically the difference boils down to when do you want your melt down. Sooner or later.

 

[Kapol]

The problem with Communism isn't the idea behind it, it's the fact that it could never realistically work because those in charge would take advantage of it. Power corrupts and all that. Capitalism, while better to a degree, leads to all sorts of problems. Namely the idea that big companies hold most of the power and can influence the entire country based on their own desire (*cough*SOPA*cough*).

I think that Communism is the better IDEA, but you need a mix of both to realistically get anything done that gives the people choices while not strangling them.

 

[LordFisheh]

I think communism is too controlled. I'd feel like I was playing a game the whole time; I can do a few things within the confines of the system, but really, I couldn't go beyond the boundaries of the level. I'd be able to develop, get a job and do well at it, and all that. But I couldn't create something private and independent and take it as far as my skill would allow - at least, not without.

 

[Grimbold]

Has there ever been a communist democracy? It would be interesting to see how that would turn out. All the socialist countries just followed stupid Lenin and Stalin. Also my avatar does not represent my viewpoint in this issue.

 

[SadakoMoose]

One of the main reasons that the US outlasted the Soviet Union during the Cold War, was it's Military Industrial Complex.
Make no mistake, war is an economic detriment. The loss of manpower, the strain on productivity, the waste of resources, and the slowing down of the global economy are all major pains for an economy. However, when the US would go into the 3rd world proxy war, it's contractors (think Colt, Lockheed Martin, etc) would go into the Black. While that was not enough to make those wars a profitable activity for the US as a whole, it was a far less substantial loss than like with the USSR. Since everything was state owned, the only way they could make any money off of war was if the 3rd world country that was siding with them at that time actually ever got around to paying them back. Even then, the since all the resources to build arms and equip soldiers were state owned, there was no economic stimulation as a result.
At the end of the day, they chose Guns over Butter way too much, and when they tried to reintroduce some free enterprise with the Glasnost, it was too little too late.

So, in the End, having too much war isn't good for Capitalists or Communists.
It just hurts Communists more.

But yeah, Mixed Economies with Social Democracies kick ass.

 

[wilsontheterrible]

Capitalism gives people the chance to suceed or fail by their own merits.

Spectacularly misinformed or misguided.

What exactly gives you the right to judge my assertions on the nature of economic systems? My mothers family fled Cuba in the 1980's, I was born in Detroit and lived in the ghettos around Hamtramck for most of my life, surrounded by Polish and eastern europeans that fled the USSR. I worked in a slaughterhouse from the age of 14 to 18 until I got a job as a janitor while I put myself through accounting school with a minor in international finanical reporting standards. I've gotten scholarships from the CATO insitute for an essay on the effects of standards convergence between US GAAP standards and international IFRS standards.

In what way am I misinformed? Did the Cuban revolution NOT result in the violent execution and imprisonment of Cuban citizens? Did the USSR NOT butcher millions of its own citizens through savage acts like the Holodomor in the interests of crushing the cultural diversity out of its people? Does China NOT have a viscious record of brutally oppressing any form of dissent? Which communist regime doesn't have a history virtually bathed in the blood of its own citizens for that matter?

There is an often misunderstood line from the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." People like to focus on the 'equal' bit, implying that all people are made and stay equal. I refute that. All people are 'created' equal and seperate themselves based on their own merits and ambitions. I am not the same as anybody else, our goals, our drives, and our commitment are all completely different.

So where exactly am I wrong in this?

 

[Shinigami214]

Capitalism gives people the chance to suceed or fail by their own merits.

Spectacularly misinformed or misguided.

What exactly gives you the right to judge my assertions on the nature of economic systems? My mothers family fled Cuba in the 1980's, I was born in Detroit and lived in the ghettos around Hamtramck for most of my life, surrounded by Polish and eastern europeans that fled the USSR. I worked in a slaughterhouse from the age of 14 to 18 until I got a job as a janitor while I put myself through accounting school with a minor in international finanical reporting standards. I've gotten scholarships from the CATO insitute for an essay on the effects of standards convergence between US GAAP standards and international IFRS standards.

In what way am I misinformed? Did the Cuban revolution NOT result in the violent execution and imprisonment of Cuban citizens? Did the USSR NOT butcher millions of its own citizens through savage acts like the Holodomor in the interests of crushing the cultural diversity out of its people? Does China NOT have a viscious record of brutally oppressing any form of dissent? Which communist regime doesn't have a history virtually bathed in the blood of its own citizens for that matter?

There is an often misunderstood line from the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." People like to focus on the 'equal' bit, implying that all people are made and stay equal. I refute that. All people are 'created' equal and seperate themselves based on their own merits and ambitions. I am not the same as anybody else, our goals, our drives, and our commitment are all completely different.

So where exactly am I wrong in this?

Three points:

1. I do not wish to sound insensitive, but while I sympathise deeply with your family and personal background at the hands of a cruel regime, it does not really affect how politically informed one is. Saying that you are informed on political theory because of the experiences you and your family went through (as regrettable and as painful as they might be) would be like affirming that every woman who gives birth is qualified to perform caesarean operations.

2. Your correctly cite the cruelties propagated by authoritarian and totalitarian states, yet you mistakenly assume that they are 'communist' states. They are not. The world has not yet seen a truly communist state.

3. I agree with you that, in an ideal society all people are created relatively equal in terms of rights and freedoms and then separate themselves based on their own merits and ambitions. Sadly, Capitalism does not do this, but embodies a system which primarily separates people based on the wealth they have access to, and not their own merits and ambitions. Sure, merit and ambition play a part, but the biggest and most influential factor is wealth.

If you need an example, consider two identical individuals, one born in a gang-ridden and drug-filled slum, and another born into luxury and wealth in Beverly Hills, and tell me who's going to achieve the most in their life.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Seeing as there are many thriving capitalist societies and the "communist" ones only do well when they allow free enterprise, I'll go with capitalism.

 

[alrekr]

China, USA, UK. - Capitalist

USSR, North Vietnam, North Korea - Communist

Which ones are still afloat, and which is generally better for the people.

Also Capitalism sounds bad on paper but it works.

Wrong!

Firstly those countries were not communist in the true sense; look it up on wikipedia under Marx the guy who invented the term.

Next point:

Democratic Republic of the Congo = capitalist
Libya = capitalist
Somalia= capitalist

Cuba= very close to socialist (and I mean as Marx defines it; which by your mistaken view would be communism)


I think that you will find Cuba a better place to live than those other countries I listed; in fact even better place to live than China for the majority of people rather than rich elite.

At least you correctly labelled China as capitalist country.

 

[SpaceBat]

Both of them are incredibly shitty, but if I have to pick one of those two, I am forced to go with capitalism.

 

[LordFisheh]

Hmm, another thing occurred to me. We're all looking at the systems in isolation; that does not happen in the real world.

For example, someone posted that the poor of capitalist countries are better off than those of communist ones. True, but where do capitalist countries get cheap labour and resources? Shitholes in the third world, that's where. Essentially, the problem gets shunted elsewhere, so while the capitalist poor live as part of the '1%' (and if they think otherwise, they're largely kidding themselves), they're supported by virtual slavery abroad at worst and unfair trade restrictions at best. Often, only the wealthy can afford the moral luxury of fair trade and such.

Likewise, perhaps the USSR might have been very different, if it hadn't been competing in a ridiculous arms race with political rivals. Not to mention the web of 'liberated' territories that it looted and then had to keep under control. Some people would argue that communism can work, but not in a capitalist world (hence we must kill the capitalist pig-dogs etc etc).

Honestly, the cliched mix of both would be best imo. Decent benefits for everyone, while people wanting to get ahead would be free to work under the ebil free market as far as their ambition and merit could take them.

 

[Khanht Cope]

I feel this discussion is being soiled by differences in how folks are choosing to perceive communism. Most are associating it with the state, and a notion of communist equality with the idea of 'rationing'.

That's not the same communism I have in mind. I think of society on the internet when I think of the utopian idea of communism as stateless, classess and equal. On the internet, I see communist equality in the form of equal status, opportunity and absolute freedom to produce and consume as much of the things one wishes to without limits.

It's not equality assured by an autocratic authority opposing restrictions, rations and orders on what people can and can't do; taking away from any who access more than others.

Currently, people argue market vs government. Real communism transcends both.

Consider modern public education. It's supplied by the state for the purpose of equal opportunities; but the state influence on what is taught and how it is taught is diluted for public good against the abuse of power and position by the state.

Because of market philosopher's scepticism of state efficiency in regard to low cost public services, especially in America; the state strives to stimulate a wide variety of competition in fields and market mentality amoungst those competing for public service, so that the high standards receive the funds.

But this involves putting resources into bureaucracy in order to record and monitor standards and league tables. This also has the effect of market values and the need to meet defined 'standards' influencing priorities in decision making.

Lately, the problem of poor quality services and affordability has come up. So descision makers have been pushing hard for much further privatisation to drive standards up and costs down.

The message I've heard from teachers is that they have no autonomy or ability to contribute to descision making. In other words; state and market determinations about education are likely subordinate to other priorities. If education in the south of the country is sinking; why would the better schools share ideas, innovations, co-operate with and help out their competition? it's not their business, let them sink.

The answer of quality education probably lies within the education communities. The people who teach, who understand learning and care about subjects and student developement.

That's the direction of real communism. But the matter of resources is a major one. IRL communism isn't possible at present IMO; and it certainly isn't about the state. Communism's only connection to the state is that states have implemented policies in the name of pursuing a transition toward a communist society. State communism has proven itself to be a barbaric and repressive dead end.

What communism requires is sufficient production technology for assured abundance.

Renewable energy for example. In the event of abundant renewable energy production; would you rather companies sell you the sun and oceans energy, or that it belong to both everyone and no one?

 

[Yeager942]

I've heard enough horror stories from my dad (He lived in Communist Armenia back in the day.) to learn that that system cannot work.