Poll: Capitalism or Communism?

[Vindictus]

This is a dumb thread and a dumb question.

Very few people actually understand what Communism is, evidenced by their mention of "China" or some such. Not to mention that there's no such thing as a 'Communist' or 'Capitalist' market or country, every country practices some amalgamation of both free markets and controlled markets. This is also ignoring the varying other marketing ideologies.

Read up on these things before asking inane questions.

 

[Rottweiler]

Here is the basic idea:

Communism: since everyone gets the same benefit- no matter how much or how little they produce or work- there is no motivation except 'why, of course everyone will work as hard as they can!' Communism is practically *designed* to be abused, and it has been every single time it's been introduced.

Capitalism: The harder or smarter you work, the more you benefit. Period. If you cannot or (and this is important) choose *not* to work, you don't benefit. The system is harder for the lazy or entitled to abuse. The downside, however, is that the successful capitalists gain power and use it to perpetuate themselves, and destroy perceived threats.

Unfortunately, 'Communism' has been proven not to work. 'Capitalism' has proven *to* work. That's the science.

The reason I used the Quotes, though, is to make a point- no political system is ever Pure anything. There is no pure Capitalism, there is no pure Communism.

 

[Filiecs]

Capitalism with stronger restraints the richer you get.
Hell, the whole economic crises in America was caused by the government not letting capitalism, run its course.

Communism: Fast and good results at first, catastrophe later.
Capitalism: Balances itself out in the long run and lasts a long time. Slower results.

 

[Vindictus]

This is a dumb thread and a dumb question.

Very few people actually understand what Communism is, evidenced by their mention of "China" or some such. Not to mention that there's no such thing as a 'Communist' or 'Capitalist' market or country, every country practices some amalgamation of both free markets and controlled markets. This is ignoring the varying other marketing ideologies.

Read up on these things before asking inane questions.

I took a bet with my girlfriend about how long you'll last without getting banned.

I cheated though and looked at your forum health meter.

I've got five bucks on you man, you gotta get there before New Years! You can be far more insulting and condescending! I know you have it in you.

Go for it!!

I don't quite understand why you think I should receive an infraction when you're behaving just as bad, if not worse. You're posting off topic, and being unreasonably sarcastic. Honestly, I couldn't care less if some mods deem the act of calling dumb things dumb a bannable offence.

However, I do foresee you winning your bet when some random tells me just how Communist North Korea really is.

 

[Toxxet]

Communism fails. That's just the way it works. Truthfully, I don't understand how anyone can think it would work. It's based on the principle that your work is not worth anything, and on the principle that you can get something for nothing. Two obvious inaccuracies. Further, the only logical result of communism is a radical decrease in productivity, and an ever increasing chance of shortages.

Capitalism may have it's flaws, but it's no where near as bad as communism.

i dont think you quite understand it, Marx thaught that the workers were not being paid for all the houers of work they put into the thing they were making, they would get paid for 4 houers of work when in fact they had put in 8 houers of work, so your work is woth something but more than your boss pays you. And the idea that you would get something for nothing is not in marxisme either, it says in one of the text where marx is defending communisme that the property of the richest 1/10th of the population would be tazed heavily to the advantage of the other 9/10ths of the population, because they had nothing compared to the richest 1/10th. so getting the money to equalize the riches of the people would come from the rich to the poor, so that everyone had equal property for the good of most of the population.
his theory was formed in Europa during the industrialization, were things were very very bad for the poor and very very good for the rich.
by the way i am sorry if i misspelled anything. happy hollydays^^

 

[Soods]

Communism COULD work in the future, but at this moment, humans are still way too selfish. Capitalism, in my opinion, is terrible both in theory and practice.

 

[Toxxet]

i mut say that Isometry has my admiration for having studied Marx's thoughts before commenting on them

 

[capper42]

Communism is a much better ideal, but sadly even the best examples of a communist society working (Cuba) have major downsides. It just cannot exist alongside individual liberty, as true communism relies too much on total consensus of the people.

Capitalism appears better and on the surface appears to give greater freedom to the people, however the reality is that the power is held by a very rich minority of the population. The system is beginning to display its instability, but I don't think we'll see a true fall to our capitalist society for a while.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Communism works. In theory.

Capitalism works. In theory.

Both are shitty in reality, but Communism sounds better on paper.

In a nutshell.

Democratic socialism is like a middle ground. Just ask the Scandinavians. They live in real democratic socialist countries and they're the richest and most developed (culturally) countries in the world. They actually have internet as human right in Sweden! How awesome is that?

Actually, they don't. They have no corporate income tax, a downright regressive income tax (Working and middle class wages are stable over time. The wealthy's are not owing to multiple fluctuating income streams. With the huge income stream and planning needed to administer a welfare state, it falls to the regular working stiffs to pay their own way) less regulation than we have here in the states and the highest national average scores on the individualism index.

Back in the 1850s Sweden was a barely developed peasant state before they embraced capitalism and then they embraced it with a zeal and fervor rarely seen and they developed rapidly. In the seventies and eighties a large tide of social democrat sentiment swept the country and when the economy slowed down in the nineties, they threw them out of office and it shows. Currently, they're privatizing the fuck out of their healthcare system (with 25% of clinics and emergency facilities privately owned because, surprise surprise, the government is not the most efficient service provider.)

Even in their last parliamentary election, the socialists ran on the platform of throwing out the recent market liberalization reforms that were put in place. They got spanked.

And when the Liberalists ran on the platform of throwing out the -notsorecent- socialist universal healthcare adn free schooling that the Socialists put in place. They got spanked. Hence,a mix. Just as he said.

 

[Substitute Troll]

In theory? Communism.
In real life? Communism never works.

 

[Aptus]

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

 

[Gardenia]

if you say Communism, you haven't seen/been in a Communist country.

And neither have you. Just saying.

OT:If I had to choose between the two extreme evils of complete capitalism and complete communism, I would choose communism every time.

 

[MrTub]

Communism works. In theory.

Capitalism works. In theory.

Both are shitty in reality, but Communism sounds better on paper.

In a nutshell.

Democratic socialism is like a middle ground. Just ask the Scandinavians. They live in real democratic socialist countries and they're the richest and most developed (culturally) countries in the world. They actually have internet as human right in Sweden! How awesome is that?

Actually, they don't. They have no corporate income tax, a downright regressive income tax (Working and middle class wages are stable over time. The wealthy's are not owing to multiple fluctuating income streams. With the huge income stream and planning needed to administer a welfare state, it falls to the regular working stiffs to pay their own way) less regulation than we have here in the states and the highest national average scores on the individualism index.

Back in the 1850s Sweden was a barely developed peasant state before they embraced capitalism and then they embraced it with a zeal and fervor rarely seen and they developed rapidly. In the seventies and eighties a large tide of social democrat sentiment swept the country and when the economy slowed down in the nineties, they threw them out of office and it shows. Currently, they're privatizing the fuck out of their healthcare system (with 25% of clinics and emergency facilities privately owned because, surprise surprise, the government is not the most efficient service provider.)

Even in their last parliamentary election, the socialists ran on the platform of throwing out the recent market liberalization reforms that were put in place. They got spanked.

And when the Liberalists ran on the platform of throwing out the -notsorecent- socialist universal healthcare adn free schooling that the Socialists put in place. They got spanked. Hence,a mix. Just as he said.

I can only speak from my experience and everything that the right has privatize have started to be completely shit.

one example is our trains which you are lucky if they do not break down once a day. (My mother often have to wait 1-4hours for them to work again, and people comes in somewhere between 08.00-12.00 for work since the trains will not work)

There are huge scandals about private healtcare for elder people (they buy food for 7 people when they need to feed 10 people)they havent got enought diapers since they cannot spend more then 9kr a day (around 1.3$) while the owner of Camera earns half a billion kr


[Source in Swedish]
DN [http://www.dn.se/sthlm/anstallda-uppmanas-tavla-i-att-spara-pengar]
DN2 [http://www.dn.se/sthlm/jag-forstar-inte-hur-personalen-orkar]


Source in English
"Care home turned cost cutting 'into a game'" [http://www.thelocal.se/38086/20111222/]
"Carema admits flaws in patient's starvation death" [http://www.thelocal.se/37714/20111203/]
"Care home staff weigh diapers to save money" [http://www.thelocal.se/37292/20111111/]
"'Secret' bonus scheme at nursing homes revealed" [http://www.thelocal.se/37192/20111106/]
"Man with dementia left to die in front of TV" [http://www.thelocal.se/37326/20111113/]



And the support for the Social democrats is rising again.

 

[ChaosBorne]

the only thing wrong with communism is the presumption that humans can function on that level of "equality" and we simply cannot, we are greedy, egotistical bastards and we can't ever be content we having the "same" as everyone else, we need more then the rest.

i still voted for communism though, seeing as how all capitalism does is throw more power at people truly unfit to have it.


in the end a combination of both is required, corporation need governmental oversight to keep them from completely bleeding dry their workforce etc.
governmants are not incorruptable however and it can lead to rather unpleasant things as evidenced the world over.
(and not just third world countries either.)



and just for everyone citing examples of bad communism, there aren't actually any communist countries and there never have been, they might call themselves communist etc. but seeing as they don't live up to the spirit of communism they are little more then polished dictatorships.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Communism works. In theory.

Capitalism works. In theory.

Both are shitty in reality, but Communism sounds better on paper.

In a nutshell.

Democratic socialism is like a middle ground. Just ask the Scandinavians. They live in real democratic socialist countries and they're the richest and most developed (culturally) countries in the world. They actually have internet as human right in Sweden! How awesome is that?

Actually, they don't. They have no corporate income tax, a downright regressive income tax (Working and middle class wages are stable over time. The wealthy's are not owing to multiple fluctuating income streams. With the huge income stream and planning needed to administer a welfare state, it falls to the regular working stiffs to pay their own way) less regulation than we have here in the states and the highest national average scores on the individualism index.

Back in the 1850s Sweden was a barely developed peasant state before they embraced capitalism and then they embraced it with a zeal and fervor rarely seen and they developed rapidly. In the seventies and eighties a large tide of social democrat sentiment swept the country and when the economy slowed down in the nineties, they threw them out of office and it shows. Currently, they're privatizing the fuck out of their healthcare system (with 25% of clinics and emergency facilities privately owned because, surprise surprise, the government is not the most efficient service provider.)

Even in their last parliamentary election, the socialists ran on the platform of throwing out the recent market liberalization reforms that were put in place. They got spanked.

And when the Liberalists ran on the platform of throwing out the -notsorecent- socialist universal healthcare adn free schooling that the Socialists put in place. They got spanked. Hence,a mix. Just as he said.

I can only speak from my experience and everything that the right has privatize have started to be completely shit.

one example is our trains which you are lucky if they do not break down once a day. (My mother often have to wait 1-4hours for them to work again, and people comes in somewhere between 08.00-12.00 for work since the trains will not work)

There are huge scandals about private healtcare for elder people (they buy food for 7 people when they need to feed 10 people)they havent got enought diapers since they cannot spend more then 9kr a day (around 1.3$) while the owner of Camera earns half a billion kr


[Source in Swedish]
DN [http://www.dn.se/sthlm/anstallda-uppmanas-tavla-i-att-spara-pengar]
DN2 [http://www.dn.se/sthlm/jag-forstar-inte-hur-personalen-orkar]


Source in English
"Care home turned cost cutting 'into a game'" [http://www.thelocal.se/38086/20111222/]
"Carema admits flaws in patient's starvation death" [http://www.thelocal.se/37714/20111203/]
"Care home staff weigh diapers to save money" [http://www.thelocal.se/37292/20111111/]
"'Secret' bonus scheme at nursing homes revealed" [http://www.thelocal.se/37192/20111106/]
"Man with dementia left to die in front of TV" [http://www.thelocal.se/37326/20111113/]



And the support for the Social democrats is rising again.

I see you use examples from a website correctly named 'local' this is not national news, and far from international. Theese are 'single' cases. Bad apples if you will. Your mother doesnt remember when the trains go on time, because it aint special. She remembers when they come late, and in the end. She 'only' remembers them comming late. Its Phsycology 101 stuff. Human brain dismisses uninterresting repetetive things. Which is sometimes why you forget shit when you go to the store. 'Man with Dementia left to die' (1 case) CArema admitsflaws in patient (1)'s death. Thats two cases of death. Two cases of care home doing some stupid shit. And 'one' nursing home. Sure you might be able to find about ten, maybe twenty. OF those cases in the last ten years, but in Sweeden we have hundreds. Heck, maybe over a thousand of theese things. Its 'not' the majority.

Now im not trying to support privatised businesses, youknow who's fault it is for using them? Not the states, they made better facillities available. Its the families who paid for them thinking 'Less expensive = Worse'

 

[alrekr]

if you say Communism, you haven't seen/been in a Communist country. you haven't seen/been in a Communist country.

Well that's everyone in the world then as there have never been any communist countries!.

At least not in the true Marxist sense (Marx being the founder of the very ideals); seeing as it requires a lack of government and very nice citzens.

Look go read say "graphic guide to Marxism" or some other brief explanation of the political train of thought.

N.Korea, China, Soviet Union were never communist they were only "communist" which was just the name for their dictatorship.

Russia under Lenin was moving in the right direction (then he died and you should know what happened next).

Cuba isn't too bad I mean they have really good healthcare and are again moving in the right direction.

I would also like to point out that surely you can't comment against or for communism without first hand knowledge (According to an extendsion of the logic you used in your post).

 

[Tooshay]

But back on topic. I simply cannot believe so many people voted for communism. In a communist system you have no free will, and if the authors of soviet literature are to believed no free though. I could understand people voting for socialism, because at its heart it does have a few liberal ideals.

What is think is happening is that people who support communism are supporting MARXIST communism- Complete freedom of speech, race, gender, religon, and freedom from poverty and control.

Communism, at its base, BASE, element, is complete freedom from EVERYTHING. (Obviously, not achiveable, but we can -in theory- get quite close)

People who voted against it, have no real idea what communism is, and think immediatly of the purges and terror Stalin used under the name "Communism"...

I didnt explain that well, heres another way;

If people knew what "Communism" meant, they would vote for it. People dont know what "Communism" means, and vote against it.

In honesty, we need a better name for the two policys. Communism doesnt mean Communism...

Marxism and Stalinism would be better terms, i think.

And i think that there is a reason people are voting for "Communism" - I mean, look at the Wall St Protests; This could EASILY be seen as the start of a Communist revolution. I mean, in 100 years, if communism had come to power, would it be too far-fetched to say that the Wall St protests were the first in a series of protests and uprisings?

Edit: And good on ya for studying politics, it makes my head spin.

Im 17 and i STILL dont know HOW the Australian govenment works.

(Presuming, for once, Julia shuts up and something actiualy happens)

Complete and entire freedom is not communism, that is libertarianism. Libertarianism means you have absolute, unassailable personal liberty.

Under a socialist/communist state (grouping them for convenience), in its simplest form, means that the means of production are controlled by the proletariat, not the bourgeois. Thats the economic bit of it. Even under Marxist socialism you do not have freedom of religion.

But, this is a conversation which isnt easily resolved, and its christmas eve, so I will finish here. But if you are really keen to learn what communism means in the real world, read the book The Captive Mind by Czeslaw Miloscz. It is a fantastic and powerful read, which spells out just how bad communism is for personal liberty.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Communism works. In theory.

Capitalism works. In theory.

Both are shitty in reality, but Communism sounds better on paper.

i can agree with the first two. not sure about the last one, that's more of an opinion.

Communism: A system in which everyone is equal.

Capitalism: A system in which luck, skill, and/or knowledge will make you fabulously wealthy, famous, and influential. Lack of these things (Especially luck) means that you are a nameless peon who works for people with one or more of these things.

 

[Khanht Cope]

True Communism = Stateless, Classless society.

As a real world economic system, it is currently far too difficult to attain. However, the internet itself is for the most part (considering the late impedances of drives for further capitalist and governmental influences) a stateless, classless society; that can prove communism to potentially be entirely realistic and utterly preferrable to capitalism.

I can currently use publicly distributed means of production, free of charge (or create my own if I so desire) such as a blogspot for writing, or software for digital creation; create whatever I desire to create (the internet proves people don't need a profit motive for this cause) and distribute it infinite-fold to as many people who know of it and desire it, completely free of trade obligation. Yet will not consider myself or my work abused in any way. The internet has also proven to be largely able to govern itself by consent of its communities and their values without massing a centralised authority.

Sure, many people consume waaaaaay more than they produce; but is stagnation a problem? absolutely not. With every minute of your lifespan, you could never hope to come anywhere near to consuming the tiniest fraction of the total content on the internet.

Torrent piracy doesn't collapse... because there aren't enough leeches. The sheer irony.

The internet under a capitalist system would suck. Every opinion, every forum exchange, every blog entry, digital media or produce would require a trade obligation.

Youtube for example, would become your employer. They would sell you their site as a platform; requiring you to prove excellence in your labour potential for the contract necessary for you to have the right to make anything. You'd get a wage for your work and they would take it and sell it on. With that wage, you would probably buy a right to view or obtain other videos, mods, blogs or whatever. You wouldn't have the freedom to express yourself by taking parts of other peoples work and making a meme or improved work out of it; because they'd be on your ass for copyright infringement.

If you make and save enough money; you could eventually buy your own means of production under the permission of the authority and finally enjoy the freedom of becoming your own boss and earning what you deserve; but you'd have to keep up with the competition to stay afloat.

Consequentially, there would be a far greater degree of quality control; but there would be a hierarchy of power, ownership and freedom itself. Capitalists would own most of the internet, and be able to enjoy most of its freedoms. You'd be their worker; confined to consuming only what you can afford to consume, and producing only what your are allowed to produce. Keeping up with Yhatzee and Moviebob would probably be out of a peon's price range too.

The only reason sites and services like google have to run on ads and most software comes at a price; the only reason piracy is even a bad thing...

Is because the outside world is so... sooooooooooooooo much shittier than the internet.