Poll: Capitalism or Communism?

[Custard_Angel]

Capitalism has a much better track record.

 

[Risingblade]

After playing Tropico 4 I've come to the conclusion that both suck unless they are together.

 

[Dorian6]

That's an interesting question, as both systems have serious flaws.

I think history has shown that a Marx's socialist utopia is ultimately unattainable because it inevitably turns into an oligarchy more oppressive to the proletariat than the bourgeoisie it vilifies. And personally, I don't like the idea of standing in line in the snow for beet rations.

Capitalism is an equally interesting beast. While it's based on the idea that anyone with a mind to can start a business and get rich, he can usually only do that on the backs of people who work just as hard, but for a fraction of the pay. How does one keep a company from exploiting its workers? You must turn to the government, but at what point does government interference become so great that Communism and Capitalism become indistinguishable?

 

[Dorian6]

That's an interesting question, as both systems have serious flaws.

I think history has shown that a Marx's socialist utopia is ultimately unattainable because it inevitably turns into an oligarchy more oppressive to the proletariat than the bourgeoisie it vilifies. And personally, I don't like the idea of standing in line in the snow for beet rations.

Capitalism is an equally interesting beast. While it's based on the idea that anyone with a mind to can start a business and get rich, he can usually only do that on the backs of people who work just as hard, but for a fraction of the pay. How does one keep a company from exploiting its workers? You must turn to the government, but at what point does government interference become so great that Communism and Capitalism become indistinguishable?

 

[Socialized Medicine]

I never understood the US tax system.
If someone is earning several millions per year, than he obviously has to much money. Tax the hell out of him. I'm not saying take all of it. I'm saying take more than you would from someone who earns less than he needs to survive.

If someone's payment is less than the he needs, don't tax him.

Clearly you don't understand tax code, but that's ok because no one does. The reason you don't rape the "wealthy" with income taxes is because chances are they are the are interacting with the economy with alienable capital (as opposed to inalienable capital such as labor), which means that they have a greater ability to "pass on the tax" and usually have to do so in order to stay in business.
Let's say I have a %10 profit margin selling a good or service with a very inelastic demand curve (food, gasoline, whatever), and it's a competitive market so if I try to charge too much my competitors will take my customers. But if you raise my and my competitors taxes it would be no problem to just pass it on because it was our competing that kept the price down. In essence if you raise my income tax by %5 I'll raise my rate by %5 and make just as much profit, even though my income is rising.

However if my income rises on paper my asset values rise as well, in a free market this would eat into savings which would cause interest rates to rise, but since most governments artificially suppress interest rates I can borrow money on the cheap which means I have an artificial advantage in obtaining resources for investment and consumption over the people who are actually paying the taxes (i.e. the working class).

In other words income taxes (especially progressive ones) artificially increase the incomes of the already wealthy, and the suppressed interest rates allow them to take advantage of this (i.e. borrowing money to speculate in the housing market wink wink). Just think about who would pay for a tax on food (the grocer, the farmer, or you) and remember that rich dudes like Warren Buffet who are calling for even higher taxes on the rich aren't your buddy, they are playing you for a sap.

 

[Acting like a FOOL]

Capitalism is the basic economic system of private property,production and exchange. nothing more. nothing less. anything beyond those two things is NOT capitalism so don't blame capitalism for everything that goes wrong because it is practiced in negative.

(Statist)Communism is a system of constant collectivization, centralization of powers and totalitarian economic planning that ignores, demand and focuses on directives of a leader or a group of directors.

capitalism is a system based on property. Communism is system based on obedience and coercion.
but if these are within statist societies then that ultimately becomes the mode, just more so in communism than any other system(even fascism).


for capitalism economic mobility is open, but varies depending on quality of available education,state intervention, state debts(which are foisted on the populace) and corruption.
in capitalism a move up can be achieved any kind of way. from sheer luck, to hard work, to stroke of genius. in communism, the only way to rise up is through ranks in either the military or within the THE party(it's called THE party because there will be only one).


corporate growth corresponds with state growth since they are government licensed and subsidized. can corporations grow large in capitalism...only alongside state growth.
corporatism is largest under communism even though corporations don't form voluntarily. they are formed threw industrial collectives and run by state mandated directors not to satisfy wants and/or needs but to satisfy COMMANDS.

over all capitalism may contain GREED, but it is only satiated through production and trade. if those aren't the means of wealth then it isn't capitalism because it doesn't become more complex than that. if this is within a statist society the economy is mostly shaped around it's relationship with the government. if there's corruption, it's Cronyism, if it's corporate government it's fascism.

but when there's complete and total fusion of government and economy it's (statist)COMMUNISM.

now that given, yes there's greed in Capitalism, but that always trumps the greed of communism which compounded with the THEFT,MURDER, and IMPRISONMENT of the totalitarianism that (statist)communism requires to form.

so yeah I'm for capitalism. because it's more beneficial for humans to ACTUALLY SHARE and TRADE rather than have a small group of people with total power gathering up all resources under the pretense of sharing.

so yeah. GREED trumps MURDER,THEFT, and IMPRISONMENT.

 

[thefaceless]

Neither is perfect, but at least capitalism is honest with the shortcomings of mankind. The nature of humans is selfishness, and capitalism is built off of this. If humans were naturally honest and good, communism would work without a hitch, which simply isn't the case. Communism requires a leadership system involving people who can handle total power and use it benevolently. However, power corrupts and total power corrupts totally (a fact that can be observed in both systems) so the foundation of communism is already broken. Neither system works perfectly, but no system can ever create such a utopia. The very idea of one is impossible simply in the meaning of the word utopia. Capitalism is ultimately the lesser of two evils due to the fact that it grants people freedom, and as Benjamin Franklin said, "He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither."

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

I never understood the US tax system.
If someone is earning several millions per year, than he obviously has to much money. Tax the hell out of him. I'm not saying take all of it. I'm saying take more than you would from someone who earns less than he needs to survive.

If someone's payment is less than the he needs, don't tax him.

Clearly you don't understand tax code, but that's ok because no one does. The reason you don't rape the "wealthy" with income taxes is because chances are they are the are interacting with the economy with alienable capital (as opposed to inalienable capital such as labor), which means that they have a greater ability to "pass on the tax" and usually have to do so in order to stay in business.
Let's say I have a %10 profit margin selling a good or service with a very inelastic demand curve (food, gasoline, whatever), and it's a competitive market so if I try to charge too much my competitors will take my customers. But if you raise my and my competitors taxes it would be no problem to just pass it on because it was our competing that kept the price down. In essence if you raise my income tax by %5 I'll raise my rate by %5 and make just as much profit, even though my income is rising.

However if my income rises on paper my asset values rise as well, in a free market this would eat into savings which would cause interest rates to rise, but since most governments artificially suppress interest rates I can borrow money on the cheap which means I have an artificial advantage in obtaining resources for investment and consumption over the people who are actually paying the taxes (i.e. the working class).

In other words income taxes (especially progressive ones) artificially increase the incomes of the already wealthy, and the suppressed interest rates allow them to take advantage of this (i.e. borrowing money to speculate in the housing market wink wink). Just think about who would pay for a tax on food (the grocer, the farmer, or you) and remember that rich dudes like Warren Buffet who are calling for even higher taxes on the rich aren't your buddy, they are playing you for a sap.

I disagree, to a degree. I could rant on and on about it, but the truth of the matter is RL has me so demoralized (Thank you government of Canada for fucking me over) that I don't have the strength to do so. The matter is very complicated and the fact is the system is well and truly broken. It needs a overhaul but sadly the people in charge of doing so have been picked from the same financial institutions that insanely profit from the system as is.

It is one of the biggest reasons I am for government looking into revenue gathering in other ways then just taxes.

In the end the bottom line comes down to this:
The government has a bill to pay and if we don't get the money from the upper classes then it will be the poor and working classes that get stuck with the whole bill. At least the upper classes don't have to decide if they need to worry about rent this month or food on the table....

 

[tthor]

Little of both. Straight communism doesn't work, see Russia, but just the same straight capitalism doesn't work either. There needs to be some government interference, lest the corps run amok and fuck us all over, but at the same time they need some freedom from incessant governmental meddling to make a quality product and a product that will actually find a home in the world.

this. both pure capitalism and pure communism will fuck us over, we need to have a balance between them both

 

[geekRAGE]

im gonna be the best damn intercontinental champ there ever was!

 

[tthor]

Communism! Seriously, it may not of worked for the other countries who tried it, but if you get honest leaders and slowly (slowly!) transistion the country, then shit'll be just fine.

Capitalism is morally unjustifiable.

one of the big problems I've noticed with Communism is that people suck at micro-management; so, my thought, is that once the singularity comes around and we have computers vastly smarter/faster than people, we put them in charge in a communist fashion~

 

[Jimmybobjr]

you haven't seen/been in a Communist country.

Very few people have, if any. Technically, Russia was Stalinist, not Socialist, not Communist. China is Capitalist, not Socialist, not Communist, Cuba was just as Fascist as Communist, and not a single European state owned by Russia was Communist. They all call themselves communist to pacify the working population.

If the communism that was on that above poll was TRUE Communism- which hasnt ever existed yet -then i would vote for that.

Unfortunately, True communism is impossible, and would never ever work in a modern world. Ever.

If it would, i would be all for it, though.

Capitalism is a horrible, horrible system, but its all we got.

Marxist-Leninist Socialism (which is what the USSR was) is communism. Because you know, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were the ones who started the USSR experiment.

Socialism and Communism arent really the same thing, And Leninism is not communism. Lenin, although Socialist, never ever actiualy managed to impose Communism - And barely Socialism - Before his death. There are several main examples of how Lenin wasnt communist- He didnt support Industrial Workers, Opposed most Peasant classes, Created several NEW class divides and, through the implementation of "The New Economic Policy" of the early 1920's, actiualy pushed Russia closer to Capitalism, if anything, as the NEP allowed free trading, and resulted in the creation of a "Wealthy Peasant Class".

Stalin was much more sucessful in creating a Socialist class, but this was only though more Division, the stopping of all freedoms (Through the great Purges and Propaganda) and creating a Single Party Dictatorship. If Stalin, or Lenin, ever wanted to make a TRUE Socialist state, they were litteraly doing every single thing wrong imaginable.

I feel i should point out though, that my knowledge of Russian history comes from one year of study in highschool. I should also point out that my knowledge only includes the period of 1885 to 1941.

TL;DR, They werent really Socialist, Socialism isnt Communism, Stalin and Lenin were doin' it wrong.


EDIT: I just realised i actiualy went quite off topic there, and i want to restate my original point;

If the option in the poll for "Communist" really means Pure Marxist theory, then yes i choose that. If "Communist" Means the American bastardized version of the word "Communism" then no.

EDIT 2: i would also like to say that i was using the word "Technically" for a reason, and i was merely stating history as i saw it after a study over a year period. Your version of events is completely true, at the very least to you, its just wrong, To me.

 

[Heaven's Guardian]

Capitalism. Honestly, this shouldn't even be a question. Capitalism is the only system that does exactly what it is supposed to. Some people may not be happy with the results, but when the poor in Capitalist countries are better off than everyone in Communist ones, I think the answer is very clear. One system treats humans as humans; the other treats humans as machines. Guess which one works in a world of humans?

 

[Jennacide]

Communism is a horrible idea that will never work.
Capitalism is a good idea that doesn't work. (because it can't factor out human greed)

 

[infohippie]

I was wondering what the general consensus is, please comment and tell us why.
My vote goes to Capitalism, because imo if you say Communism, you haven't seen/been in a Communist country.

There has never been a communist country. There have been absolutist governments paying lip service to communism but none of those have actually been run according to communist principles. Though I love the idea of communism, I can't see it working for a whole country. Maybe if the world were to split up into city-states, each run as a more-or-less communist organisation but including some of the better parts of other systems then maybe that could work.

 

[Ldude893]

Communism killed my great grandfather.

Capitalism ain't perfect, but at least it keeps society somewhat free.

 

[Guffe]

Neither works fine on their own.
What you need is a breed were both are one.
I live in Finland and we have a system I think works pretty well.

 

[Callate]

False dichotomy. Neither is inherently good. I'd much rather have a carefully regulated capitalism in which the market can reward those who do genuinely good work without allowing it to carry away all control of the government or promote the pursuit of profit at the expense of human beings. And a healthy sprinkling of socialism in the mix, so everyone enjoys the fruits of a healthy economy, not just people who manipulate numbers.