Poll: Capitalism or Communism?
- Thread starter Jak23
- Start date
Actually Cuba is looking to tone down the socialist portions of the government because they can't continue to provide the level of healthcare they are right now. There are many sources out there and none of them sum up everything, but this is a pretty good one.Me55enger said:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-03-27/news/29432617_1_trade-embargo-and-travel-cuban-government-raul-castro-s-cuba
Because the people of North Korea are starving. Father was stationed in South Korea for 2 years and...
http://news.yahoo.com/beyond-propaganda-north-koreans-quietly-starving-020029191.html
China is booming fast and the workers are still getting paid next to nothing. However, it is all in the statistics. If you look at economic growth China is doing awesome. They are winning hands down. If you look at current economic levels you will see that China does not have the economic infrastructure to sustain this level of production long term. Just remember there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
http://www.eurojournals.com/IRJFE_69_02.pdf
It helped that my stats professor actually wrote this paper so she was able to explain it in great detail. The section you want to look at in on page 4 in adobe and page 22 in the paper. The bar graph (left) shows that China meets the requirements to have what we would consider a 1st world economy, but then it shows (center) that the infrastructure will not allow for that level of sustained economy. Those are things like roads, telecommunications, electricity, ect. Then it shows (right) that China will be primarily a manufacturing state if anything because new things are not being developed there.
Do you mean the U.S.S.R.?
Or Russia?
Wait, so Britain is socialist? And a healthcare system that doesn't force people into bankruptcy is failed? I'm not sure what you're getting at behind all this vitriol.UltraHammer said:
This is based on Marx's idea that any employment of people by owners of capital (factories, money for investment etc) is exploitive, because by definition the workers are paid less than the value of their work as some is siphoned off as profit by the capitalist class. His wording here is kinda weird, I'll admit.
The problem is is that capitalism as we have it today (or corporatism as people like to call it) makes the rich disproportionately richer than the poor. I love this graph:
Communism.Jak23 said:
Why?
better equallity and treatment
and if you notice when they go corrupt people DO stuff about it
when capatalism goes corrupt people are too busy freaking out about a fake rumor that facebook is charging $10/month instead of noticing the MASSIVE problem where 1% of the people living in the country own over 90% of the money
then when they finally do wise up
they protest and makes jokes about it
I want things to get done people, and as anti-violence as I tend to be, stuff like this NEEDS to stop and be fixed, and sitting on your butts asking them to "please stop screwing us over" won't do $#!%
we have them out-numbered 100 to 1 if we could stop being such idiots we could have started and ended a revolution by now
...or get stopped by the supporters of the G.reat O.bese P.arasite that're too stupid to notice how hard we've been boned...
any before anyone turns this around and yells at me "well what have you done!"
the answer
nothing
why?
they know I'm up to stuff and the cops will stop me for ANNNNNYYYYYTHINNNNNNNGGGG
example - being detained for carrying an umbrella because from really far away a legally blind war vet thought it was an assault rifle because it was black and had a strap
...no I'm not kidding
america is THAT f*cked up
EDIT: I only picked communism because socialism isn't an option, in large societies an extreme direction (left OR right) is never really a good idea.
Half and Half
If you work hard you should be rewarded, but if you can't work you should still have some.
One bad thing about communism is that everyone gets the same stuff. everyone gets the same TV and there is no competition, so there will not be invented new stuff. Also, if you work hard you still get the same as everyone else, so there is no point (except honer) to be working hard. So everyone will be a poor because there is no reason to make a difference
On the other hand capitalism will make them who invents new stuff and works hard very rich, but those who can't or don't very poor. With communism everything is shared so no one will work hard, because of that everyone will be a bit poor.
If it is half and half it is pretty much capitalism but if you don't work hard to get a big slice of the cake, you still get cake and there will be a reason to make new types of cakes because you will be rewarded with more cake
Sorry for bad English, i'm from Denmark
If you work hard you should be rewarded, but if you can't work you should still have some.
One bad thing about communism is that everyone gets the same stuff. everyone gets the same TV and there is no competition, so there will not be invented new stuff. Also, if you work hard you still get the same as everyone else, so there is no point (except honer) to be working hard. So everyone will be a poor because there is no reason to make a difference
On the other hand capitalism will make them who invents new stuff and works hard very rich, but those who can't or don't very poor. With communism everything is shared so no one will work hard, because of that everyone will be a bit poor.
If it is half and half it is pretty much capitalism but if you don't work hard to get a big slice of the cake, you still get cake and there will be a reason to make new types of cakes because you will be rewarded with more cake
Sorry for bad English, i'm from Denmark
Adam Smith would roll over in his grave if he could see what capitalism has become, in fact he probably already has. If Karl Marx could see what communism became, he'd do the same thing. Neither system is how its founders had wanted it to be. Communism was meant to be an extreme leftist ideal, where all people shared ownership of the industry and government, and had all they would need to survive. Capitalism was meant to be a way for a person to live for themselves, to work to support their own family, and to compete for profit. When Communism has been practiced however, it quickly turns into a fascist authoritarian government, the very thing that Communists are sworn to oppose, just look at Stalinism for example. Capitalism has become a sort of modern feudalism, where a CEO holds the majority of the wealth while their employees work for meagre, but not necessarily very small shares. Capitalism is the lesser of two evils in the modern world I believe, but the whole idea of a "trickle down" economy has failed. Capitalism is dying, and Communism has been warped by human nature. There really is no good system to be put into place, because no matter what we'll just fuck it up.
Capitalism. I mean regulated Capitalism not the "Free market is always right" Capitalism. I won't work as hard if it does not effect my reward. I know many others who share this philosophy so I know I'm not alone. Communism would be great if we were all hard-working, for the community types, but people generally aren't that type. Besides, we would have to many artist and singers and not enough laborers unless we forced people to do a job, and then we'd have a bunch of unhappy people.
TL;DR: Communism sounds nice but doesn't work in practice.
TL;DR: Communism sounds nice but doesn't work in practice.
But why is this? Is this an inherent part of human nature? Or is it something that humans learn from being raised in a capitalist environment? Out of all the criticisms of communism this is one that just boggles me. Okay, even if we accept that people are inherently greedy (which I don't) and we accept that being massively greedy is bad, then surely we want a society that attempts to counteract this, not one that majorly encourages it.AnyNamePlease said:
And this just makes no sense. Why would there be too many artists and singers? Why would we need a massive workforce of labourers? Under communism we wouldn't have the modern world's incredibly self-destructive obsession with growth as an end in itself.
You obviously haven't done much research into what communism is, no offense. Or economics in general if you think it's a binary scale.Jak23 said:
Libertarian socialist here, so neither. Worker owned means of production with necessary products nationalized.
I say capitalism because of two things:Jak23 said:
1. Capitalism works when you have men and women who are willing to work (see the WWII generation and Tom Brokaw's book The Greatest Generation for material that backs up that statement.)
2. Communism can never work because you NEVER can give people power and expect them to use it responsibly. No one can ever be equal, because everyone's desires and dreams are different. Have/have-not is subjective, because some people feel they're richer than Donald Trump because they have a family and friends and love from all of them without yet they don't have two nickels to rub together. Its a fantasy, that doesn't take into account that greed and jealousy and corruption aren't things that can be removed by revolution. They're BUILT INTO OUR GENES people.
Plus I don't like the idea that no matter how hard I work, I get the same thing as everyone else whereas the guy down the street who half-asses his job gets the same thing I do.
Honestly, which one has worked and which one has utterly failed? Every country that has been Communist has suffered from extreme amounts of corruption, genocide, and generally failed economically, culturally and morally. Why? Lots of reasons that I won't get in to and many people have already named them.
Just study the 20th century and you can see that the Soviet Union collapsed, China had to basically switch to economic Capitalism and most other Communist countries just haven't really done well. Also, do people flee Capitalist countries or do they free Communist countries?
Just study the 20th century and you can see that the Soviet Union collapsed, China had to basically switch to economic Capitalism and most other Communist countries just haven't really done well. Also, do people flee Capitalist countries or do they free Communist countries?
Okay couple of things I wanted to reply with in what is I'm pretty sure is a dead thread.oktalist said:
1. Communism = Marxist-Leninist Socialism which is entirely distinct from Marxist Socialism (which is usually more like Anarcho-Socialism or Utopian-Socialism). In theory none of these systems have a dictator at the top. However Marxist-Leninism, with its assertion that 'revolutionary vanguard' (drawn from the middle class) leads the proletariat into a socialist system, seems to lead to these 'vanguard' just becoming the ruling class.
2. Small scale utopian socialist experiments have occurred, usually as colonies, often in South America. These all failed.
3. Theoretically, Socialism does not have a ruling class, but it does not have individual rights at its core. Individual rights are sacrificed for the good of the society. It is a social theory, rather than an individualist theory, or rather, collectivism vs individualism. By necessity it requires the sacrifice of individual rights for the good of the society. Best example of this is the lack of freedom of religion (religion being the opiate of the masses according to Karl Marx)
4. To social liberals, and pretty much any centrist who believes in capitalism, growth has never been the end, but a means to a better society. Growth, in a regulated system = the improvement of society. Growth means more production, production means more tax, more tax means more government sponsored health, education and scientific research. Growth also means more private sector research.
And finally, its is really, really hard to separate theoretical politics from what happened in the real world. Arguing about the effectiveness of theories in Plato's world of ideas is pointless, the only way to judge these theories is how they have been applied in the real world. And it must be considered a fault of the socialist group of political theories that they have never ever been successful.
The countries I refer to are the ones on this planet. Actually the numbers are more than double what I said; 9 million per year, or 25,000 per day, according to UNICEF 2010 [http://www.unicef.org/rightsite/sowc/pdfs/SOWC_Spec%20Ed_CRC_Main%20Report_EN_090409.pdf]. I can't break it down to a per-country basis, but I'd imagine it's mainly the ones with low per capita GDP. Or to put it another way, the ones getting the most butt-rape from the rich.UltraHammer said:
I agree. And yet, I contend that it is true. Therefore capitalism is terribly backwards.
What are you calling low pay? Because 49 percent of the world live on less than $2.50 a day of USA purchasing power (in 2005 dollars) according to the World Bank 2008 [http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2008/09/02/000158349_20080902095754/Rendered/PDF/wps4620.pdf]. 80 percent on less than $10.
It's pretty comfy in my country. And that's due to capitalism. It's utter shit for more than half of the world's population. And that's due to capitalism. We're incapable of putting sufficient food on everyone's table under capitalism. If there was no poverty, our capitalist economy would collapse. That's what I mean when I say that poverty is a neccessary component of capitalism. It needs poverty in order to function. It's built into its very structure.
Call me sentimental, but I don't like thinking that my car, computer and centrally-heated house are only made possible by the bloodshed of others. And rather than just ignore it, I'd like to do something about it. And now you're going to tell me that the answer is more capitalism...
Um, no.
It's quite self-explanatory. It's part of the definition of communism that it's communally organised, not leadership-based. If any person has any more power than any other person, then it's not communism.
There is no socialism here, or anywhere else. There are social programmes (programs?) but that's just capitalism trying to delay the inevitable.
The NHS is functioning very well thankyou, not even our most laissez faire politicians could hope to claim it was failing. But that's wildly off-topic. Nationalised healthcare is not socialism.
Yes, meaning the owners of the means of production. Everyone else is the working class. There are only two classes of people in the Marxist critique of capitalism. The obsession with the "middle" class is designed to fool us into forgetting that our interests coincide with those of the people below us, not the people above us.
The mechanisms used by person B include inflation, and paying their workers less than the value of their work (which they must do in order to turn a profit).
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance, as investment advisors often remind us.
About 25 percent of the world can't afford electricity. 40 percent have no basic sanitation. (Source: UN 2006 [http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2006/chapters/])
I quite agree that capitalism has done great things, like feudalism and hunter-gathering before it. But the claim that our present system is the best we can ever hope for is as silly today as would've been in the Middle Ages.
Everyone is getting richer, on average, but the rate of that growth is slowing (source: CEPR 2001 [http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/globalization_2001_07_11.pdf]), so that eventually if things carry on as projected, growth ought to plateau, with a large proportion of the world's population still in pitiful conditions.
Your argument appears to be "America is capitalist, and America is successful, therefore capitalism works." Well the whole world is capitalist, and has been for centuries, and all things considered I could not entertain the view that the world is a success. A small part of the world is successful, at the expense of the rest.
To give everyone in the world an adequate diet for a year would cost $13 billion. That's about the same amount that Americans and Europeans combined spend on perfume in a year (source: UN 1998 [http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1998/chapters/]). That's so fucked. Why can't we feed everyone? We have the resources. We choose to make ourselves smell pretty instead.
If we say to convert now, then yes SOME people will be greedy. And here's the thing about Communism, we all need to do our fair share. I'm saying that if I had the choice between working an 8 hour day or a 10 hour day, I'll choose the 8 hour. If it doesn't make a difference I'm not going to kill myself over the work. I know people who work all night on deals, and I'm saying that they would rather do something else rather then kill themselves. I know that they're people who are motivated by money, and I am one of them. But it's because I like being able to buy a video game when I want. I like going to dinners and I like not having to worry about finances. You have to admit that yes, SOME people aren't going to kill themselves for no personal gain. It's just unrealistic to think otherwise.CaptainKarma said:
I would rather be a writer then my job now. And I know people who have their own dreams, like singing and dancing. And if we had a choice, whose going to work in retail. There are jobs that people don't want to do, but they do it anyway. I doubt a plumber enjoys his job, but someone has to do it. It's not just about growth it's about people not liking work. And that's understandable. But they do it because they have motivation to do it. We need workers and labor and even if we cut down we need people to do it. That is a fact that we can't avoid.
oktalist said:
Um... good luck with that.
"Hey everybody, let's all get together and spread our wealth evenly from now on, and no one will be in charge! Yeah! No one will ever interfere with this or try to take power!"
I see. So countries where free markets and individual rights are allowed to thrive inhabit wealth and prosperity, and countries with bullshit governments who do as much of the opposite as they can inhabit poverty and starvation. And your conclusion from this is that capitalism causes poverty and death?oktalist said:
Ohhhhhhh. Now I see what you're thinking. Now I know the root of the problem. Here, watch this video:oktalist said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xUY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZzHU3ZfTtY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgLrZc7cws8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XeW5ilk-9Y
Okay I have to give you that. Fuck the past. This whole idea of whatever 'happened before will happen again' is bogus. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to jump off a bridge; the known record of people dying from that isn't an indicator of what will happen to me.oktalist said:
No it's not. :| This is really hard... the whole world isn't capitalist. I mean every country has some sort of trade and currency, but most don't have a government designed to protect individual rights. So what makes a country capitalist to you?oktalist said:
Also, wait, now you're saying that the world's history is that of capitalism, and the world is generally poor. Therefore capitalism doesn't work. Buuuut I thought you just got finished saying history doesn't matter?
I know that in the response to the above comment, you're going to say something like 'No that's not really what I said', and then you'll basically step back on that statement and change its original meaning. Known at Cracked.com as 'Internet Argument Technique #3'. But of course you're not going to do that NOW, now that I've predicted it to your face.
Mr. Oktalist, you seem very intelligent. You have far more grammar and sentence-structure skills than the internet requires. You can articulate concepts, even if they're flawed. It'd be great to see your head on the good side. My advice? If you have much spare time, listen to Rush Limbaugh some. He's the #1 radio talk-show personality because every day he powerfully expresses a pure and true message.
I'm kinda lost in all the double negatives. If you remove the massive pressure to turn stupid profits then people won't pull 23 hour days securing ludicrous deals. The whole point of communism is that if you reorganise society and industry to cut out all the profit, there's no need for ANYBODY to kill themselves on long hours. Yes, people will have to do jobs they don't like (as they do under communism) but the hours they need to commit should be pretty small, leaving everyone time to pursue things they actually enjoy.AnyNamePlease said:
But where is the drive for this coming from? You can't just reduce it down to "capitalism caused this" or "crap governments cause this", the two feed from each other. Without the use of cheap labour in china/india/wherever the western capitalist lifestyle is unsustainable. You cannot say that the benefits the west gets from this arrangement are because we have "free markets". And, this bit is important, individual rights still exist under communism. Just not under the dreadful statist interpretations of it that most people have experienced so far.UltraHammer said:
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/william-engdahl/2011/06/29/getting-used-to-life-without-food-part-1
This link is worth a read, or at the very least a quick skim: Wall Street, literally causing famines, poverty and death through manipulating grain futures.
This is a pretty dismissive way to treat his argument. Especially as that video argues that we aren't going to run out of resources by looking at the volume of the earth. There's more to resources than rock, that should be obvious.
Okay I have to give you that. Fuck the past. This whole idea of whatever 'happened before will happen again' is bogus. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to jump off a bridge; the known record of people dying from that isn't an indicator of what will happen to me.oktalist said:
Limbaugh is a racist misogynist who compares torture to frat hazing and denies not only global warming but the friggin' hole in the ozone layer. I'm not sure how he is even remotely pure or true.