Out of the three choices which is best and which would you rather live with? It would help if you've experienced two or more but subjective rants are welcome. I personally would go for Socialism because it seems to balance everything better. BTW communism isn't "Lenin" communism, think more like Stalin or even Marx. Long Live the Reds!!!
Poll: Capitalism VS Communism VS Socialism
- Thread starter lenin_117
- Start date
Oh, god, it's a trick question. Why the scare quotes around "best"? Are we supposed to pick the one that ISN'T best? Is this a jab at the concept of "best"? Then why even have the poll?!
I'M SO CONFUSED!!!
Anyway, *laissez-faire* capitalism is the best system because it's the only one consonant with the above-mentioned human nature. It is the only system that respects individual rights and leaves people free to think and thus, to survive.
I'M SO CONFUSED!!!
Anyway, *laissez-faire* capitalism is the best system because it's the only one consonant with the above-mentioned human nature. It is the only system that respects individual rights and leaves people free to think and thus, to survive.
This thread is just begging to have all its inhabitants banned when the inevitable descent into unfounded, hippie-style "We have a guy who can make bread" defense of communism versus pigheaded, blinkered "America Fuck Yeah" capitalism, um, descends.
For my bit you have to have a little of both, like Chinese food. Pure capitalism is as fatally flawed as pure communism.
For my bit you have to have a little of both, like Chinese food. Pure capitalism is as fatally flawed as pure communism.
EDIT: Sorry, didn't read the post properly. I agree with both sides.Lord Harrab said:
By the way, aren't Communism and Socialism the same thing?
P.S. I'm going Socialism, because it's under the figureheads of Lenin and Che Guevara.
P.P.S. Stalin sucked as a communist leader, he was the epitome of everything that was wrong with communism.
Um, "subjective"? As in, based on opinions instead of facts? Then why should you care what they think? And even so, they should have a 1 in 3 chance of actually picking the best, then, so it *could* actually be the best, right?lenin_117 said:
I'M STILL CONFUSED!!!!!
Okay, okay, I'll stop screwing with you; I'm pretty sure this is only amusing me in any case. It's 2:30 am and I can't sleep, I have to do SOMETHING.
My ideal setup if I was running the world, would be capitalism, but with a maximum income for anyone one person, maybe $500,000 a year.
That would allow anyone hugely talented to get fairly rich, but when you hear figures like some CEOs earning over 530 times their company's lowest earners, it's just obscene and unnecessary.
There's a point where you pass 'luxury living' and it just becomes a status symbol to prove you're better than someone else.
The way I see it, if it was illegal to earn more than a certain amount, they'd have to employ more people , and pay them a suitable wage, when I hear of the near levels or poverty in America, when it comes to minimum wage workers, its kinda sick really, for the land of prosperity, that can afford to throw £3billion a week at Iraq, but the masses who hold the country up by doing all the hard work can't afford basic medical care.
By the way, yes, I KNOW there's millions of people starving and dying and living on a few cents a day in the third world, but my point is damn, we can't even look after our own people. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but if the wealth was spread around a bit more, maybe we could afford to feed everyone.
I oughta state I'm not sure how I could make it work, as it would have to be worldwide, or, as now, the moment anyone became successful they would just move their accounts out of the country to avoid the taxes, or my limit. Which pisses me off no end, when someone grows up in my country, learns their skills, gets the promotion and the breaks to become famous and top of their field, then does all they can to avoid dropping some of their huge profits back into the system.
For me tho, no 'extreme' version of any of them will really work well.
I dislike the current system where it seems that unless you are famous, the only way to be successful is to be heartless to others and stamp on other people as you climb up the ladder.
Yes I'm a hippy and should go back to Russia, I'm sure.
That would allow anyone hugely talented to get fairly rich, but when you hear figures like some CEOs earning over 530 times their company's lowest earners, it's just obscene and unnecessary.
There's a point where you pass 'luxury living' and it just becomes a status symbol to prove you're better than someone else.
The way I see it, if it was illegal to earn more than a certain amount, they'd have to employ more people , and pay them a suitable wage, when I hear of the near levels or poverty in America, when it comes to minimum wage workers, its kinda sick really, for the land of prosperity, that can afford to throw £3billion a week at Iraq, but the masses who hold the country up by doing all the hard work can't afford basic medical care.
By the way, yes, I KNOW there's millions of people starving and dying and living on a few cents a day in the third world, but my point is damn, we can't even look after our own people. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but if the wealth was spread around a bit more, maybe we could afford to feed everyone.
I oughta state I'm not sure how I could make it work, as it would have to be worldwide, or, as now, the moment anyone became successful they would just move their accounts out of the country to avoid the taxes, or my limit. Which pisses me off no end, when someone grows up in my country, learns their skills, gets the promotion and the breaks to become famous and top of their field, then does all they can to avoid dropping some of their huge profits back into the system.
For me tho, no 'extreme' version of any of them will really work well.
I dislike the current system where it seems that unless you are famous, the only way to be successful is to be heartless to others and stamp on other people as you climb up the ladder.
Yes I'm a hippy and should go back to Russia, I'm sure.
I know, I know, but I got used to working 3rd shift and now daylight burns my sensitive skin.lenin_117 said:
I am having fun reading people's retarded ideas on economics, though. I'm not sure which is more comical--the people who think some version of communism/socialism/mixed economy actually works, or the ones who think what we have now (in the U.S.) could in any conceivable way be considered "capitalism".
Spoken like someone who's never seen Laizzaiz-faire capitalism in action. It tends to turn the stomach somewhat.JMeganSnow said:
Communism's flaws are well-known, so they will not bear repeating. Capitalism has issues with monopolism (which Adam Smith [Father of Capitalism] identified as being both inherently inefficent save in a few cases and representing an overconcentration of power in the hands of people unfit for such power.), Commercial government (which in the 1920s led America into the disasterous protectionist state that nearly ruined it, and in the 1890s led to the rise of the Robber Barons) and the provision of public goods (something that Smith again argued for the provision of).
That being said, as an student of economics (I recently finished the Wealth of Nations, and am currently perusing Keynes's General Theory), I would vote for socialism. That is: Socialism in the sense of the mixed economy, whereby capitalism provides most of the goods and is regulated by the governemt just enough to ensure that it's actions do not harm society at large, and the state makes certain provisions (healthcare, infrastructure, military and so on) that the free market lacks an incentive to do so.
In essence, the economics of Adam Smith.
And maybe a little bit of Keynes, if a slump occurs.