Poll: Capitalism or Communism?

Socialized Medicine

New member
Dec 24, 2011
4
0
0
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

New member
Jul 22, 2011
239
0
0
Socialized Medicine said:
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.
 

brainslurper

New member
Aug 18, 2009
940
0
0
TestECull said:
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

New member
Aug 18, 2009
940
0
0
Vindictus said:
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

New member
Apr 14, 2009
993
0
0
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.
 

Socialized Medicine

New member
Dec 24, 2011
4
0
0
Khanht Cope said:
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

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
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...
 
Dec 15, 2007
25
0
0
Really? I think they're both incredibly idealistic. As are most pure political philosophies.

The thing about it is: if you hand over all the power to one source, that source will become corrupt. In America, we've handed over a lot of power to the private industry, hence, the private industry buys out our government and Washington is now full of workshy layabouts.

You're right that it needs to be a balance, but here is how I feel the balance should be addressed: treat people like people (with socialism) and businesses like businesses (with capitalism). The problem, at least in America, is that we give our big businesses the nanny-state treatment, most recently with SOPA/PROTECT-IP (if you can't protect your product adequately then maybe the industry should take its course and replace you). On the other hand, as you can see most clearly in our educational and healthcare system, you suddenly get into this rhetoric of "survival of the fittest!" when in reality it's extremely tied to class and should logically be designed to be fair.

Note: By fair, I mean, for example, that the schools which are currently worst should be funded to the level of the ones which are currently best, stop whining about equalization meaning that good services will get shat upon.
 

Khanht Cope

New member
Jul 22, 2011
239
0
0
Socialized Medicine said:
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.
Your bracketed remarks are most obnoxious and could conceivably be report-worthy for their unwarranted hostility.

Capitalism allocates resources and opportunities according to market principles. The system of markets therefore makes the determinations on use and worth, not the opinion of an individual.

Without status and markets, your individual determinations have more weight in your perception of society and others.
 

brainslurper

New member
Aug 18, 2009
940
0
0
Khanht Cope said:
brainslurper said:
Your idea just sounds like america with all the republicans removed.
Obviously that would be a horrible idea. lol
It would just be awful. Poor people could get health care and food, and gay people could get married. Corporations couldn't pump as much shit into the air as they wanted, oh it would just be awful.
 

Neyon

New member
May 3, 2009
124
0
0
Conza said:
Jak23 said:
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.
They are not mutually exclusive!

Look at China, both Capitalist and Communist.
People still call china Communist, but it isn't. At all. Not even a little bit.

Capitalism works perfectly so long as there is competition and externalitites are regulated. Communism never works because it destroys incentive systems and often revolves around central planning which will never work.
 

Al-Bundy-da-G

New member
Apr 11, 2011
929
0
0
trooperpaul said:
erttheking said:
Communism has been tried again and again and again and it JUST DOESN'T WORK! It's well intentioned but fundamentally flawed.
Capitalism has been tried again and again and again and it JUST DOESN'T WORK! It's well intentioned but fundamentally flawed.
China, USA, UK. - Capitalist

USSR, North Vietnam, North Korea - Communist

Which ones are still afloat, and which is generally better for the people.

Also Capitalism sounds bad on paper but it works.
 

MrTub

New member
Mar 12, 2009
1,742
0
0
Nikolaz72 said:
Tubez said:
Nikolaz72 said:
SlideRail said:
Adam Jensen said:
Kopikatsu said:
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'
Except the private business is employed by the government not the families.

And the local is news about whole Sweden, they produce news for people that do not speak Swedish and live in Sweden. And DN stands for Dagens nyheter[Daily News] which is the biggest newspaper in Sweden (as far as I know)

About the trains:

She is about 20mins late perhaps 3/5 days in the week.

I used the trains for a couple of months and in the morning it was ok, but when I tried to get home there was always "signalfel" or something else which ment that the train was delayed.

And our government is going to do a study if there is better to use private or government owned, and I look forward seeing it being published.

As I stated this is a completely personal experience I have no proof that government run is better but from what I've seen it doesn't seem to work that great since using the trains more expensive now and it works perhaps 90% of the time
 

Shinigami214

New member
Jan 6, 2008
115
0
0
Socialized Medicine said:
Khanht Cope said:
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).
Sadly, while Ms. Black's income is might not be directly related to her worth in society, it has everything to do with the freedoms that she can enjoy within a Capitalist society, where the level of wealth one enjoys are what determine education (and by default, career and earning potential), health (and by extension, life expectancy), and living standards (which affect almost every aspect of one's life).

The more you insist that 'money isn't everything' the more it becomes apparent that you do not recognise the importance that wealth plays in a capitalist society.
 

Shinigami214

New member
Jan 6, 2008
115
0
0
Al-Bundy-da-G said:
trooperpaul said:
erttheking said:
Communism has been tried again and again and again and it JUST DOESN'T WORK! It's well intentioned but fundamentally flawed.
Capitalism has been tried again and again and again and it JUST DOESN'T WORK! It's well intentioned but fundamentally flawed.
China, USA, UK. - Capitalist

USSR, North Vietnam, North Korea - Communist

Which ones are still afloat, and which is generally better for the people.

Also Capitalism sounds bad on paper but it works.

Correction:

Politically, China is communist (and even so, its a flawed conclusion, as it its totalitarian, not communist), albeit being driven economically by capitalism.

USSR, North Vietnam, and North Korea are not communist either - they are simply totalitarian/authoritarian (which is far from the same thing).

Also, the flaw in your 'argument' is that North Korea is not only still afloat, but allegedly developing a nuclear missile programme.