Poll: Capitalism or Communism?

[Carol Pentalentathon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[wilsontheterrible]

Cuba would be a shining example of communism (and the only one) if other countries could give it resources without fear of America cutting them off -.-

I like the ideas of socialism, communism I'm kinda 'eeeeeehhh' about, just because I don't live my life to get ahead or get rich.
Capitolism I really don't like, the shift and change in power is so frequent, so jarring...but at least I'm allowed a little more freedom.
Democracy is about as realistic as socialism. Mainly because, it'll never work. There's too many people. Too many people alive to cater for, too many people not giving a shit and too many people are assholes.

So, I voted 'communism' only to even out the scale a bit

Oh yes, Cuba is a shining example. Next time I'm able to visit the mass graves around La Cabaña where Che Guavara executed my great uncle and his sons for refusing to give up their storefront and work on a plantation I'll keep in mind how fantastic the revolution was. Or how about the practice of forcing abortions upon those they feel undesireable? Or the fact that hotel guests are not allowed outside of the resort towns, lest they see the deplorable conditions in which the cuban people live. What kind of shining example of humanity prevents its citizens from leaving at the point of a gun and holds their children hostage if they get permission? What kind of grand society refuses to allow its citizens to have computers, or cell phones, or any kind of internet access?

No, socialism and communism are the ultimate corruptions of human dignity when they suppose that human beings lack the strength and intelligence to take care of themselves. Government should exist for the SOLE purpose of protecting the rights and property of its citizens and providing a just court of law, thats it.

Your biggest complaint about capitalism is that the power shifts? I count that as its biggest boon. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the big players are constantly building empires and being torn down by competitors they never have the time to oppress anybody.

I would much rather live under the most dispicable business leader in the world than live under a 'benevolent' government. A businessmans greed may be sated, his lust for power may be kept in check by the ambitions of his peers, and when he dies all his terrible deeds may be forgotten. But a government that firmly believes that it has the best interests of the people at heart will hound those people from cradle to grave, it will make the people fight wars and oppress their fellow citizens, it will justify its actions by assuming the will of the people.

Capitalism gives people the chance to suceed or fail by their own merits, they may get help from charity or their close relations, and they may do as they please so long as they don't violate the rights of others. Communism strips the people of those rights and takes it upon itself to not only protect the rights of its citizens but to protect the citizens from themselves.

 

[Agow95]

I vote Communism as a theory, but unfortunately we haven't been able to work it in practise.

 

[Mad Sun]

Pure Capitalism never worked, either. We have not lived in a purely capitalist society since the days of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison (specifically, the 19th/early 20th century). Do you know why? When the Industrial Revolution took hold, workers were needed more than ever. They would get up at, maybe, 4 in the morning, work for twelve to fourteen hours, go home, and go to sleep. 6 days a week. The working age was very low, starting at 6, and all members of the family were expected to contribute, as wages were also very low. Children and adults alike were injured by the hazardous machines whose jobs they had been doing decades earlier. Breathing in cotton dust from the mills, or fumes from the mine could cause lung cancer, or other health problems. They would live in small, often one room houses with a couple other families. Open sewage systems led to contaminated water, which, in turn, led to more disease. And the 1% prospered.

Conditions were so poor that Communism was created BECAUSE of it. And do you actually think that it was the good nature of the upper class that caused things to change? There was even a movement to keep them in their place (called Social Darwinism. Wikipedia is that way. --^).

And again, as I said on page 3. We live under a Socialist economy, but it's only third-rate because a few (most) people in government (exclusively Congress) still believe that we're Capitalists, and won't take our Socialism to the next level.

Recommended reading: Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." Perhaps the best-known example of corporate greed in existence today. For extra effect, imagine yourself living and working in this time period, and the subject matter are the same products that you use daily. Happy Hunting.

 

[akkronym]

Communism doesn't account for human nature; it assumes that we'd rather be nice to each other than have more stuff for ourselves (incredibly straw man analysis but essentially true).
Capitalism does, but it has no direct solution for corruption. If someone abuses the system to get power, there's nothing that can take it away because "They earned it."

I personally prefer Capitalism to Communism for the simple fact that in Communism, you can't really go higher; ever. In Capitalism, even if someone has a monopoly, all it takes a revolutionary idea (yeah I know, just go down to the supermarket and pick one up right?) and you're big dog on campus. Best example I can think of right now is how big Kodak used to be and how expensive film was before digital cameras.

Then again, as a general point, I'm indifferent to human suffering which at times has labeled me a terrible person, so I don't really care about the poverty line capitalism creates and communism remedies; I'm more interested in whether or not you have the ability to be successful and follow your own goals.

 

[Shinigami214]

I don't really care about the poverty line capitalism creates and communism remedies; I'm more interested in whether or not you have the ability to be successful and follow your own goals.

Actually if there is a system that most spectacularly perpetuates inequality stemming from a highly uneven distribution of wealth/resources, its capitalism.

Compare two people:

One is born to a wealthy family who own a corporation. He/She gets to go to Harvard, joins the family business at a high-ranking directors-ship or CEO post, and generally enjoy a comfortable life that wants of nothing more (barring something unforeseeable like the corporation collapsing and bankruptcy, which we can't really take into account).

The other person is born to a working class family who lives in a downtrodden area rife with gang violence. Even IF he/she is able to stay out of gangs, away from drugs, and finish high school (public school naturally, since they won't afford anything better), the life he/she will lead will be characterised by struggle, sacrifice, and limited achievement.

Completely aside from the human-suffering aspect, which you admitted you don't care about, can one honestly say both of them have enjoyed the freedom and ability to successful follow their own goals?

 

[Shinigami214]

Capitalism gives people the chance to suceed or fail by their own merits.

Spectacularly misinformed or misguided.

 

[viranimus]

Neither. Both are virulent corruptable systems that will never work. Basically the difference boils down to when do you want your melt down. Sooner or later.

 

[Kapol]

The problem with Communism isn't the idea behind it, it's the fact that it could never realistically work because those in charge would take advantage of it. Power corrupts and all that. Capitalism, while better to a degree, leads to all sorts of problems. Namely the idea that big companies hold most of the power and can influence the entire country based on their own desire (*cough*SOPA*cough*).

I think that Communism is the better IDEA, but you need a mix of both to realistically get anything done that gives the people choices while not strangling them.

 

[LordFisheh]

I think communism is too controlled. I'd feel like I was playing a game the whole time; I can do a few things within the confines of the system, but really, I couldn't go beyond the boundaries of the level. I'd be able to develop, get a job and do well at it, and all that. But I couldn't create something private and independent and take it as far as my skill would allow - at least, not without.

 

[Grimbold]

Has there ever been a communist democracy? It would be interesting to see how that would turn out. All the socialist countries just followed stupid Lenin and Stalin. Also my avatar does not represent my viewpoint in this issue.

 

[SadakoMoose]

One of the main reasons that the US outlasted the Soviet Union during the Cold War, was it's Military Industrial Complex.
Make no mistake, war is an economic detriment. The loss of manpower, the strain on productivity, the waste of resources, and the slowing down of the global economy are all major pains for an economy. However, when the US would go into the 3rd world proxy war, it's contractors (think Colt, Lockheed Martin, etc) would go into the Black. While that was not enough to make those wars a profitable activity for the US as a whole, it was a far less substantial loss than like with the USSR. Since everything was state owned, the only way they could make any money off of war was if the 3rd world country that was siding with them at that time actually ever got around to paying them back. Even then, the since all the resources to build arms and equip soldiers were state owned, there was no economic stimulation as a result.
At the end of the day, they chose Guns over Butter way too much, and when they tried to reintroduce some free enterprise with the Glasnost, it was too little too late.

So, in the End, having too much war isn't good for Capitalists or Communists.
It just hurts Communists more.

But yeah, Mixed Economies with Social Democracies kick ass.

 

[wilsontheterrible]

Capitalism gives people the chance to suceed or fail by their own merits.

Spectacularly misinformed or misguided.

What exactly gives you the right to judge my assertions on the nature of economic systems? My mothers family fled Cuba in the 1980's, I was born in Detroit and lived in the ghettos around Hamtramck for most of my life, surrounded by Polish and eastern europeans that fled the USSR. I worked in a slaughterhouse from the age of 14 to 18 until I got a job as a janitor while I put myself through accounting school with a minor in international finanical reporting standards. I've gotten scholarships from the CATO insitute for an essay on the effects of standards convergence between US GAAP standards and international IFRS standards.

In what way am I misinformed? Did the Cuban revolution NOT result in the violent execution and imprisonment of Cuban citizens? Did the USSR NOT butcher millions of its own citizens through savage acts like the Holodomor in the interests of crushing the cultural diversity out of its people? Does China NOT have a viscious record of brutally oppressing any form of dissent? Which communist regime doesn't have a history virtually bathed in the blood of its own citizens for that matter?

There is an often misunderstood line from the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." People like to focus on the 'equal' bit, implying that all people are made and stay equal. I refute that. All people are 'created' equal and seperate themselves based on their own merits and ambitions. I am not the same as anybody else, our goals, our drives, and our commitment are all completely different.

So where exactly am I wrong in this?