Capitalism vs Comunism team debate

[Askthepizzaguy]

Thank you for admitting that we are indeed turning into a socialist country.

Not "turning into", we have been ever since the federal government and the state governments started taxing our incomes and using them for state projects, like almost every other government on earth. That's soft socialism.

You yourself, sir, do not understand the difference between a socialist and a communist country.

ORLY?

What if I did, wouldn't that just make you feel... silly?

Cuba is NOT a communist country, it simply is trying to pursue Communism.

Splitting hairs. If their nation is a state controlled economy with a one party system and an authoritative repressive regime, and they self-identify as Communist, that makes them... Communist.

Tada!

According to the Wiki page on Cuba, the government of Cuba is a Socialist Republic,
Single-party Communist state. Sounds like you do not understand the difference between a socialist and a communist country, but if I said that, I would be being presumptuous. Maybe it was just a long series of typographical errors on your part.

It is an extreme socialist country (as was the USSR).

Yes, and it is also a communist state. If they weren't communist, why on Earth would they call themselves such, and why on Earth would every right-winger in the country call them Communists? Even the left-wingers admit they are Communist. It's not a big secret. It's a series of tubes.

One of the key ideas of the American system of government is that you could not allow too much power in a small number of hands, because it would lead to abuse.

Like the abuses at Abu-Ghraib? Or Guantanamo Bay? Or warrantless wiretapping? Or legitimizing torture? Or hiring Blackwater and letting them run roughshod over Iraq? Trust me our government allows plenty of power into a small number of hands, and it does lead to abuse.

That is what happens in "communist" (no such thing) countries,

I think you've been proved wrong in that there are no communist countries. If you look at the map Sheogorath provided, I see a few which are communist by definition.

regardless of whether it started peaceful or not. When a group of people take control, they can do whatever the heck they want.

This is true for any system of government, and has been demonstrated countless times throughout history. It's also true for anarchy.

It may be simply economic exploitation, or it could be massacres.

And capitalist countries never exploited people economically? Such as big corporations engaging in massive fraud or Ponzi schemes or credit card companies engaging in abusive practices which require current legislation in order to stop? Or how about those massacres, surely a capitalist country like the United States never carpet bombed anyone, engaged in Shock and Awe, destroyed people and vegetation using Agent Orange, or dropped a Nuke on anyone. Nope... no economic exploitation, no massacres, in any nation besides Communist nations, which by the way don't exist according to you, and let's also ignore the Nazis and the Fascists and the British Empire and....

Government and economy are inseparable, as they define each other, which is why I refer to the economic system in the States and the government in the States as the same thing. Your right, pure Capitalism IS an idealist thing, and it has never and can never be realized because people are not perfect. The closer we are to that ideal though, the better.

So you would advocate dismantling the military because it is not a capitalist enterprise? Or perhaps ending all welfare and medical care for the sick, poor, and the elderly? Or perhaps ending our federally mandated interstate highway system? Or perhaps letting capitalists such as drug lords rule over our borders? Or perhaps having a capitalist police force which only responds to crimes if you can pay the police? Or fire response and emergency personnel who respond to the rich people first and insist on fees and monthy payments and interest?

See, we have plenty of ways of reducing the size of government and becoming more capitalist and free-market oriented, and if capitalism is such an ideal, and progressing towards that ideal is always better, why not cut these useless programs?

We may know we can never attain it, but we should always strive to keep as close as possible, not say "It is impossible! Let's become socialists!".

We don't have to become that which we already are.

It is Capitalism that has improved living for people across the world and take us to the state where the poor now adays for most part live better than most people 100 years ago, not socialism.

Tell that to the elderly who cannot get any medicine without the government's help. Tell that to the college student who improved his life through government loans and grants. Tell that to yourself when you drive on the interstate. Tell that to the victims of crimes who sought and found justice thanks to the government's police system, court system, and penal system. Tell that to the homeless who found assistance through outreach programs. Tell that to everyone who trusts in the military to defend this country.

You love capitalism in it's purest form? Recall if you will a bit of history: the wealthy industrialists who made a huge fortune on the backs of the poor, without safety regulations, exploiting child laborers, and paying them a pittance everyday, with conditions that made them die young, and the government who did nothing about it. That's pure capitalism. It's pretty much what they do in China... oh wait! I thought they were Communist. I guess it turns out that extreme capitalism (anarchy) is the same thing as extreme communism (totalitarianism) because they are both bad for us and they both involve abuses of human rights, and they both create a system of wealth only for the elite class.

Communism is idealistic also, but the ideal of communism is to give the government power instead of limiting government power.

The ideal of communism is to have equality for the masses and have shared property amongst all people, but it doesn't meet that ideal, does it? The ideal of capitalism is to have freedom for the masses and a path towards prosperity for all people, but it doesn't meet that ideal, does it? In more idealistic forms, either ideology results in a super-class of people who oppress the rest, either the government does, or the corporations do. They end up resulting in the exact same thing. One big corporation which abuses everyone in a hierarchical command structure.

It comes down to which ideal is better.

Neither ideal is better. They are extremes.

Evil people find their way everywhere, but they can do a heck of a lot more damage and have much more control in a communist or socialist country with concentrated power.

Organized crime, drug lords, corruption, fraud, legal defense teams, control over the media by owning media conglomerates, monopolizing utilities and rental properties and businesses so that the consumer has no protections, exploiting child labor and allowing the sick and the elderly to suffer and die. That is a world run by wealth, not civil rights and government protections.

The Federal Government should ensure fair play, but nothing else in the economy.

Define fair play? That sounds awfully socialist to me. That's not at all a concept that exists in capitalism. Capitalism is whatever the free market allows; he who bids highest for that which is being sold, he who bids lowest as a price for goods and services offered. Buy low, sell high, get rich or die trying.

Bad businesses should fall, and good businesses should rise.

Define good or bad in this context? A good business is a profitable one? So, loan sharks are good businessmen? Those who buy up a bunch of property, and due to their monopoly on the system artificially inflate their price, and then sell them off, having contributed nothing to our society except create more inflation, that's good business?

Poor people over all live a LOT better today than 100 years ago, and it is Capitalism that has done that.

Wrong, 100 years ago we had capitalism, and the poor had no protections, no safety regulations, no welfare, and no unemployment or insurance. Now they live in much more progressive conditions. Government intervention and social engineering has "done that".

And even more socialist nations like Sweden have even better standards of living. How many weeks of vacation? Free education, free healthcare? Capitalism didn't provide them with squat.

If you want to help the poor, socialism is not the answer.

How are the sick and the infirm and the mentally unstable and the underage and the unemployed going to prosper without government intervention? Not everyone is made of money. If you want to help the POOR, idealistic capitalism is not the answer.

Socialism only makes/keeps them dependent on the government, and gives ambitious people great opportunity to exploit and enslave them.

Capitalism only makes/keeps them dependent on the business class, who can fire them at any time without giving a reason, and if they cannot work for whatever reason, then they are out of luck, eh? Capitalism gives ambitious people great opportunity to exploit and enslave them.