Poll: Capitalism or Communism?
- Thread starter Jak23
- Start date
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
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.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
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
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.
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.TestECull said:
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.
I'm an individual, I don't know who Rebecca Black is and I can make my own decisions and evaluations, but thanks anyway.Khanht Cope said:
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).
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...
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.
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.
Your bracketed remarks are most obnoxious and could conceivably be report-worthy for their unwarranted hostility.Socialized Medicine said:
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.
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.Khanht Cope said:
People still call china Communist, but it isn't. At all. Not even a little bit.Conza said:
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.
China, USA, UK. - Capitalisttrooperpaul said:
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.
Except the private business is employed by the government not the families.Nikolaz72 said:
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
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).Socialized Medicine said:
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.
Al-Bundy-da-G said:
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.