Why pick black or white when neither work? Whats wrong with a shade of gray. Capitalism with a degree of socialism or vise versa. Tends to work the best. Look at most of europe and Canada. We have relitivly strong economies and little poverty.
Poll: Capitalism or Communism?
- Thread starter Jak23
- Start date
Communism!
And to those that says communism doesnt work and gives former CCCP (soviet union) as example. They have NEVER been communist countries. It was the US government that labeled Soviet as a communist country, sure soviet never said anything about that. And one more note about that, Soviet were Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism and Trotskyism. China is Maosim.
Also, lets not forget what the it means:
Communism comes from the Latin word communis, which means "shared" or "belong to all", and that is what Marx and Engels meant when they wrote the manifesto.
Like someone stated, it looks much better that this Capitalism dictatorship we are currently living under.
And to those that says communism doesnt work and gives former CCCP (soviet union) as example. They have NEVER been communist countries. It was the US government that labeled Soviet as a communist country, sure soviet never said anything about that. And one more note about that, Soviet were Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism and Trotskyism. China is Maosim.
Also, lets not forget what the it means:
Communism comes from the Latin word communis, which means "shared" or "belong to all", and that is what Marx and Engels meant when they wrote the manifesto.
Like someone stated, it looks much better that this Capitalism dictatorship we are currently living under.
The biggest problem with Communism is that it is extremely vulnerable to human corruption and self-interest ('everyone is equal but some are more equal than others') and that as a societal system it theoretically hinders and discourages any kind of progress or advancement (if the farmer gets just as much wealth and status as the surgeon and scientist then why would anyone bother working hard enough to excel?).
It's appealing to those on the bottom rungs of society because it gives them more wealth and rights in the name of making everybody equal (the idea of everybody being equal and sharing resources is obviously going to be popular to people who have very little themselves because they stand to gain rather than lose like the wealthy and successful would).
Capitalism's main problems only really occur when monopolies are introduced and no-one can compete.
Some could try to argue that the system is prone to corruption but seeing as a company in a capitalist society is dependant on the goodwill and dedication of consumers it could be argued that in a lot of cases it's usually in a company's best interests to avoid being too underhanded or exploitative (consumers boycotting you and simply doing business with someone else is a very real risk unless you're dealing with a monopoly).
Although it gets a bad rep I would have to say I'm more in favour of Capitalism because of the two of them it is closer to being a true democracy (we vote with our wallets, if we disagree with a companies practices or dislike the services they provide then they will fail and wealth and success will go to someone we find more agreeable) and tends to leave more of our personal freedoms and rights intact.
No disrespect is meant to anyone who does prefer Communism but it does come across as a weaker and more easily exploited system.
It's appealing to those on the bottom rungs of society because it gives them more wealth and rights in the name of making everybody equal (the idea of everybody being equal and sharing resources is obviously going to be popular to people who have very little themselves because they stand to gain rather than lose like the wealthy and successful would).
Capitalism's main problems only really occur when monopolies are introduced and no-one can compete.
Some could try to argue that the system is prone to corruption but seeing as a company in a capitalist society is dependant on the goodwill and dedication of consumers it could be argued that in a lot of cases it's usually in a company's best interests to avoid being too underhanded or exploitative (consumers boycotting you and simply doing business with someone else is a very real risk unless you're dealing with a monopoly).
Although it gets a bad rep I would have to say I'm more in favour of Capitalism because of the two of them it is closer to being a true democracy (we vote with our wallets, if we disagree with a companies practices or dislike the services they provide then they will fail and wealth and success will go to someone we find more agreeable) and tends to leave more of our personal freedoms and rights intact.
No disrespect is meant to anyone who does prefer Communism but it does come across as a weaker and more easily exploited system.
How can you make this binary? How about some options such as "other", or at least the choice between "socialism", "Marxism/Leninism", "Stalinism", "Maoism", and, my favourite flavour, "Anarchosyndicalism"
Really? Using Yahoo answers on debate concerning high level political and economic theories; the site isn't really know for unbiased objective information is it?Corocan said:
Look I'm tired of saying this over and over again but...
There have never been any true communist countries!
Look for more detail just check my previous posts which go into more detail and provide links to some less biased learning materials and sources (and some less objective ones as well)
A mix of Both is best really. We've never had a society that was 100% either extreme honestly. 100% caitalist would be a living hell for workers, as they are used up and thrown away by rich owners. 100% communist would eradicate progress because there would be no incentive to work or research beyond subsistence, the drive to advance would be nill and eventually things would start to crumble.
Seriosuly the most successful societies today with the best standard of living and the happiest population are a nice middle zone. Free Enterprise is regulated and there are decent standards, taxes are fairly high but everyone can still make a decent living.
Also a lot of people seem to think of the USSR when they think communism, which is actually wrong if we want to discuss Marxist communism. Hell any nominally 'communist' state is a pretty bad example of communism since the end product of that idealogy is a state that has no government.
Seriosuly the most successful societies today with the best standard of living and the happiest population are a nice middle zone. Free Enterprise is regulated and there are decent standards, taxes are fairly high but everyone can still make a decent living.
Also a lot of people seem to think of the USSR when they think communism, which is actually wrong if we want to discuss Marxist communism. Hell any nominally 'communist' state is a pretty bad example of communism since the end product of that idealogy is a state that has no government.
Capitalism. I like owning a good computer, a book collection, music, having a nice house, a small hello kitty collection, etc.
However, NOT laisez faire capitalism.
Remember what that caused? (hint: the Great Depression.)
However, NOT laisez faire capitalism.
Remember what that caused? (hint: the Great Depression.)
capitalism works with human nature. Communism is ideologically opposed to human egocentrism - the only countries where communism took hold were either culturally prepared for it (eg China through confucianism) or have it imposed upon them by a dictatorship that uses it as a tool for control. People want stuff, basic economics. Capitalism gives them that stuff and builds a society out of it. Simples.
Simply put, communism isn't even an option. It's so awkward and artificial that it can never respond to the demands of the consumer. Also, given the virtual lack of incentive to excel in a communist society, whatever does get produced is so poorly made that it was basically a waste of money to produce in the first place.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is essentially the only way a society can manage itself without fear of ultimately collapsing. People actually have motivation to get ahead and can achieve things on their own merits; earning rewards through hard word. Consumers essentially vote with their dollar and ultimately decide what gets produced. Capitalism goes hand in hand with democracy in that both are rooted in individual freedoms and the power each person holds to accomplish goals.
Yet, capitalism has a very dark side to it and, I believe, must be regulated so as to prevent the worst excesses of the system from occurring. Time and time again, it has been shown that money can only extend one's quality of life so far and is not an end in of itself. There's a reason why, reportedly, the happiest countries in the world are the ones with excellent social safety nets. Everyone should have the same equality of opportunity and the dignity of every individual ought to respected. That poverty continues to be a major issue in such wealthy countries is indicative of a "not my problem" mentality, when really we should all help each other out in times of need. Perhaps this sounds especially socialist, but I believe no one deserves to wallow on the streets regardless of how they got there.
So basically, a social democracy is my ideal form of government, though, as with any political system, it has its own share of inadequacies.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is essentially the only way a society can manage itself without fear of ultimately collapsing. People actually have motivation to get ahead and can achieve things on their own merits; earning rewards through hard word. Consumers essentially vote with their dollar and ultimately decide what gets produced. Capitalism goes hand in hand with democracy in that both are rooted in individual freedoms and the power each person holds to accomplish goals.
Yet, capitalism has a very dark side to it and, I believe, must be regulated so as to prevent the worst excesses of the system from occurring. Time and time again, it has been shown that money can only extend one's quality of life so far and is not an end in of itself. There's a reason why, reportedly, the happiest countries in the world are the ones with excellent social safety nets. Everyone should have the same equality of opportunity and the dignity of every individual ought to respected. That poverty continues to be a major issue in such wealthy countries is indicative of a "not my problem" mentality, when really we should all help each other out in times of need. Perhaps this sounds especially socialist, but I believe no one deserves to wallow on the streets regardless of how they got there.
So basically, a social democracy is my ideal form of government, though, as with any political system, it has its own share of inadequacies.
Pretty much. How many financial meltdowns does it take for people to notice that capitalism has some serious issues? Particularly when the government backs off on regulation and consumer protection. Hell, I'm only 26 and have lived through at least 3 fairly major recessions. Something is not right when a system is prone to shitting itself at least once every ten years.trooperpaul said:
Have to agree with the guy who said making a binary choice of such a complex issue is pointless.
No reason to be entirely for or against one or the other. A perfect capitalist system would have monopolies everywhere, and be unfair, and communism usually does the same with the government. So either way, you're not well off. You need a moderate ground, and since those two aren't even polar opposites, it's an odd way to phrase a question.
A combination of capialist and socialist enterprises within society creates the healthiest population (see sweeden )SnakeoilSage said:
Seeing as what's happening in the U.S at the moment. (Corporations having more power than the government, it seems.) I'm going to have to go with Socialism. You know, that thing that's sort of inclined towards Communism, but doesn't have the dictatorship and restricted market?
I'm a Libertarian so I believe in free market capitalism although our current system has undermined free competition by means of collusion between the government and lobbyists who represent the most powerful corporations.
Regarding Communism:
Marx makes some very good critiques of capitalism; but his solution IE Communism is insane.
Marx points out that in a capitalist system the upper class is able to manipulate the lower classes because they control the means of production. Namely the management who runs a company has control over the distribution of the company's profits and is therefore able to award themselves an unfairly large portion of the profit while giving labor a share that they would never agree to if they had the power to negotiate with management on equal terms.
So then Marx concludes that the way to rectify this problem is to hand control of the means of production and the distribution of wealth over to the state assuming that the state will represent the interests of the people.
Why Communism Doesn't Work:
Marx points out that control over the means of production can be used to subjugate the worker.
He proposes to solve this problem by taking control over the means of production away from private enterprise and handing it over to the state.
So now the state has all the power that control over the means of production entails and it also has control over the police, the justice system, the military and the economy as a whole.
In effect Marx removes one form of tyranny over the worker and replaces it with a vastly more powerful form of tyranny over the worker.
Regarding Communism:
Marx makes some very good critiques of capitalism; but his solution IE Communism is insane.
Marx points out that in a capitalist system the upper class is able to manipulate the lower classes because they control the means of production. Namely the management who runs a company has control over the distribution of the company's profits and is therefore able to award themselves an unfairly large portion of the profit while giving labor a share that they would never agree to if they had the power to negotiate with management on equal terms.
So then Marx concludes that the way to rectify this problem is to hand control of the means of production and the distribution of wealth over to the state assuming that the state will represent the interests of the people.
Why Communism Doesn't Work:
Marx points out that control over the means of production can be used to subjugate the worker.
He proposes to solve this problem by taking control over the means of production away from private enterprise and handing it over to the state.
So now the state has all the power that control over the means of production entails and it also has control over the police, the justice system, the military and the economy as a whole.
In effect Marx removes one form of tyranny over the worker and replaces it with a vastly more powerful form of tyranny over the worker.
Sweden has large off shore oil deposits and a relatively small population.LadyTiamat said:
If your nation has a massive surplus of wealth to redistribute like Sweden then Socialism can be effective.
However; when your country doesn't have vast amounts of excess wealth sitting around then it doesn't work so well and you find yourself falling into massive debt since your people are asking for benefits which your government simply can't afford. This is exactly what happened to Greece and is now engulfing the rest of Europe.
