Poll: Capitalism or Communism?

[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.

 

[The Heavy Metal Nerd]

Communism in theory.
Capitalism in practice.

 

[gertmenkel]

Capitalism. Communism only works in theory.

 

[Socialized Medicine]

Being a capitalist pig I love these conversations, primarily because I get to make the argument (usually to people far wealthier in inherited wealth and current income) that MONEY ISN'T EVERYTHING.
The notion that even if it were possible to use violence and coercion to make everybody "equal" in terms of material wealth (capital, income, however you define it); for all the effort people would still not be equal. People would still have a greater "wealth" of things that others value (charisma, beauty, intelligence ,prestige of a family name, living in warm weather, living in cool weather, DICK SIZE, YOU NAME IT BUDDY).

Do really think that if I had the same "wealth" as Brad Pitt Angelina Jolie would say "Hmmmm, there's Socialized Medicine, a 5 foot 4 inch pudgy pimple laden social retard, and there's Brad Pitt a hunky philanthropist, well they have the same amount of wealth which makes them equal so I guess I'll have to value them equally as mating partners."?
NO. Angelina Jolie would say "IMA GONNA MATE WITH SOCIALIZED MEDICINE BECAUSE HE'S CLEARLY A SUPERIOR MALE SPECIMEN!" (curveball bitches).

Anyway; I'm in control of a human being, with a human brain, a limitless imagination, opposeable thumbs, my species varies within generations unlike any others; in short I'm in control of the most valuable form of capital in the known universe. Who the fuck are any of you to tell me I should feel bad because another dude for whatever reason has a greater share of the national income than me? That's like me feeling bad because my buddy and I got slices of pizza of equal size, but he has 3 more hot pepper flakes than I do (so irrelevant). In fact, a 16th century king by definition had a far greater share of the national income than I, yet he had to shit in a bucket and boink gross smelly unwashed chicks and die at a miserably young age (by comparison). No thanks, I'd rather be poor little me.

I could write all day about the wonders of free exchange and the folly of coercion but I have to go exploit the gasoline salesman (who for a small fraction of my income allows me to travel to sell my labor at the highest price I can), to then be exploited by my employer (who buys my labor, but bears all the losses if the enterprise fails to make a profit while I suffer no such liability).

Peace, love, and capitalism

 

[Khanht Cope]

Being a capitalist pig I love these conversations, primarily because I get to make the argument (usually to people far wealthier in inherited wealth and current income) that MONEY ISN'T EVERYTHING.
The notion that even if it were possible to use violence and coercion to make everybody "equal" in terms of material wealth (capital, income, however you define it); for all the effort people would still not be equal. People would still have a greater "wealth" of things that others value (charisma, beauty, intelligence ,prestige of a family name, living in warm weather, living in cool weather, DICK SIZE, YOU NAME IT BUDDY).

Do really think that if I had the same "wealth" as Brad Pitt Angelina Jolie would say "Hmmmm, there's Socialized Medicine, a 5 foot 4 inch pudgy pimple laden social retard, and there's Brad Pitt a hunky philanthropist, well they have the same amount of wealth which makes them equal so I guess I'll have to value them equally as mating partners."?
NO. Angelina Jolie would say "IMA GONNA MATE WITH SOCIALIZED MEDICINE BECAUSE HE'S CLEARLY A SUPERIOR MALE SPECIMEN!" (curveball bitches).

Anyway; I'm in control of a human being, with a human brain, a limitless imagination, opposeable thumbs, my species varies within generations unlike any others; in short I'm in control of the most valuable form of capital in the known universe. Who the fuck are any of you to tell me I should feel bad because another dude for whatever reason has a greater share of the national income than me? That's like me feeling bad because my buddy and I got slices of pizza of equal size, but he has 3 more hot pepper flakes than I do (so irrelevant). In fact, a 16th century king by definition had a far greater share of the national income than I, yet he had to shit in a bucket and boink gross smelly unwashed chicks and die at a miserably young age (by comparison). No thanks, I'd rather be poor little me.

I could write all day about the wonders of free exchange and the folly of coercion but I have to go exploit the gasoline salesman (who for a small fraction of my income allows me to travel to sell my labor at the highest price I can), to then be exploited by my employer (who buys my labor, but bears all the losses if the enterprise fails to make a profit while I suffer no such liability).

Peace, love, and capitalism

Please read my post.

In a domain where True Communism is actually possible and has been attained successfully; it is preferrable. It is closest to absolute freedom.

It then becomes Capitalism that requires force, coercion and vast, unnecessary, artificial repression of freedoms in order to function.

As for your ideas on Communism vs equality:

Capitalism tells you Rebecca Black is a star with greater money, influence and opportunities than many.

Communism tells you she is an equal like anyone else, who simply got viral recognition with her work.

 

[Simskiller]

Robot Communist overlords. They can't fuck it up with human nature.

 

[brainslurper]

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.

But doesn't communism have more to do with distribution of wealth than government intervention? Your idea just sounds like america with all the republicans removed.

 

[brainslurper]

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.

Thanks. You really helped this discussion. A lot.

 

[chstens]

Neither works, you need to finda a middleground. Soviet Russia didn't work (not that it was actual communism, but for the sake of argument), and modern USA is going down the drain, but "Socialist Europe", while having some problems, is certainly doing a lot better.

 

[Khanht Cope]

Your idea just sounds like america with all the republicans removed.

Obviously that would be a horrible idea. lol

 

[Socialized Medicine]

Capitalism tells you Rebecca Black is a star with greater money and influence than many.

Communism tells you she is an equal like anyone else, who simply got viral recognition with her work.

I'm an individual, I don't know who Rebecca Black is and I can make my own decisions and evaluations, but thanks anyway.
Mrs. Black's income has nothing to do with her worth to society. You socialists need to realize there is more to life than money (I know it's hard for a bunch of trust fund babies who need government intervention to conscript resources for their silly enterprises that they otherwise could not convince people to voluntarily fund, but you should try it).

 

[WanderingFool]

Communism is a more extreme form of Socialism, if I remember correctly. Also, while Communism may not be "good", if you say Capitalism is the best form of government, you need to shut the fuck up and die in a hole...