CommunismVsCapitilism

[Strike For The South]

Which do you guys think is better?

Ps I want to have an actual conversation not a flame war so if you make it in to that I will find and...well just don't do it

[PanzerJaeger]

Compare Russia with the USA. Theres your answer.

Communism was the worst ideology ever to infect humanity.

[kiwitt]

Given the choice: Capitalism. Where individual efforts are rewarded appropriately.

[bmolsson]

China has resorted to capitalism.

BS. They resort to slavery and we don't do anything about it. Shame on us.

On the flip side, the USA is still one of the world's largest economies, and whatever economic problems we face stem from stupidity on the part of certain individuals, and not the system.

The success of US is more due to the size of the economy than the system itself. US success is built on SME, unfortunately there is a trend, just like in Europe, to not acknowledge this.
So far US have managed to keep monopolisitic forces at bay. The largest threat against US economy is money politics and monopolism.

[Strike For The South]

So far US have managed to keep monopolisitic forces at bay. The largest threat against US economy is money politics and monopolism.

Although Im a capitalist I agree if companies get uber big ie microsoft they should be split

[bmolsson]

Capitalism with clear fair competition regulation is the best.

[AntiochusIII]

I must agree with bmolsson here...

Capitalism, unregulated, uncontrolled one, is dangerous. Capitalism without some sort of Socialism in place is a nightmare as much as Communism-that-isn't-exactly-what-Marx-wants was. Imagine living as a simple British citizen during the early Industrial Revolution. Hell.

Monopolism is, if you look it one way, Capitalism goes wild. Everybody except the monopoly "aristocrats" loses.

SME is the key, I suppose, for true competition and energetic liberty that Capitalism advertises...

And yeah, the Chinese government should go to...well, I don't believe in hell...whatever serves as an equivalent of hell in Communist China. As a civilization China is one of the greatest ever. As a nation currently it sucks. Badly. Capitalism in China isn't that strong and freedom the West enjoys is virtually nil in China.

[bmolsson]

Sweat shops are capitalism at it's worst. Our economy relied on something similar in the 1920s or thereabouts. Luckily we've since found a balance.

Not the same thing. Chinese workers have no right to organize themselves.

Size matters, but not that much. Look at the USSR--they were much bigger than the USA. A small nation can be more than successful with capitalism. The real trick is making sure that the government does not interfere with business to the point of being crippling, but also making sure that the businesses do not exploit the workers.

USSR's economy was never even close to US in size. Furthermore, the collaps of USSR was political rather than economical.

The real trick is to enforce the rules of the game in a free market economy. The workers is only a part of that.

[bmolsson]

I believe that Social Security should be seen as a insurance scheme, it is actually nothing else. With that in mind, there are no problem to have it privately owned. No taxes are required....

[Roark]

Nobody's ever successfully implemented Communism, nor do I think they will. All the governments who tried got a little stuck at the bit where they're supposed to hand over power....

[bmolsson]

Nobody's ever successfully implemented Communism, nor do I think they will. All the governments who tried got a little stuck at the bit where they're supposed to hand over power....

More or less every army is a communistic society. Communism is successful during a war or revolution. The moment peace comes and people are no longer driven by fear, it doesn't work anymore.
Same thing with capitalism, it works wonders in peace, but is many times a disaster in war.
Communism have no place in a peaceful and prosperous world and it should always be seen as a threat since it is expansionistic in it's nature.

[Kääpäkorven Konsuli]

Well it is bit hard to compare, because there have been many capitalistic countries but not a single one communistic. (USSR was socialistic for example).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

More or less every army is a communistic society.

No their not but they are indeed the best examples of socialism that works. That is if you dont mind being dictated to and being thrown in jail for being late for work or quiting. Or telling your boss to shove it.

[bmolsson]

No their not but they are indeed the best examples of socialism that works. That is if you dont mind being dictated to and being thrown in jail for being late for work or quiting. Or telling your boss to shove it.

When you mention it, I might implement it in my companies. Would end all those pesky negotiations with unions.....

[Soulforged]

Given the choice: Capitalism. Where individual efforts are rewarded appropriately.

They're not rewarded appropriately at all. Look an actor who only does ideal things doesn't produce nothing at all, gains well better that a guy who is just one more in the chain of production in a company, and works more hours and under harsh conditions. This absurd of the capitalism and economic neoliberal way of thinking is what leads to discussions like "are fair the pensions to aged mans", the truth is not, they're not actually working, but with communism you have an advantage on administration because everybody recieves what they work for and what they need, nothing more. This may seem a little opressing, but it's intended to be. As general income increases benefits do to.
The theory of communism is large an exhaustive (specially if we talk about other autors outside Marx, Engels or Lenin) so i will remit to the wise of Marx and say that communism is superior. The very word communism signifies community of all, of property, of woman, of job, of children (that's what it should be on the end, but it's to ideal to talk about). But if you think that communism is the only thing that appears to happen or have happened in reality then you're mistaken again. Democracy is another ilusion. True democracy don't rely on representatives. The thing is simple, government by the people to the people. True democracy is a heated subject, but i know three ways to get to it in wich three different authors wrote: Marx as the true communism (the state don't exists it's laws an behavior are already of public knowledge by a great majority of people born from the proletariate who have learned to act in society), Castoriadis (he proposes a travel to ancient greece, and a new interpretation of certain aspects of it's society, but in general he talks about the existence of common knowledge and how it should be applied to participate on government by all) and Bakunin (creating a cooperative system with not central government, keeping nationalism and certain fronteirs, he called his ideal model "The League"). But that's just to make my point. Also everybody thinks that communism is past and of eastern society, like if USA could never get into it. In fact as Trosky stated britain was very close to get into it, a series of condition (treated like a scientific statement) must have appeared for that but it wasn't that rare. USA makes well use of capitalism, and capitalism controlled is not bad, but communism is better. The problem with capitalism seems to have two sides here: 1- Everybody thinks that the society of the capitalist with people winning large amounts of money while others starve in the street, it's fair and it's by default. The capitalism surges almost with the industrial revolution, but the process begun before in the absolutism, with mercantilism. Now is you do some research you will notice that the only thing that changed since nobility, is that now "everybody" can achieve that state of superiority above all others. Law remained the same (being one of the most effective instruments in keeping the society regid), so the thing that everybody can do it is not absolute at all. There're two problems that were discussed way before capitalism existed: One is the inheritance of property and the other is Intelectual Property. There's no actual way in the material world to justify such a thing, but you can impose an idea as fair and create a law that protect this things, most people will accept it, even more those who are already rich. So most of the capital worked by others passes to the hands of some lucky man who can put it in some bank and get the inrest, and live of it. The same happened on monarchy and nobility in general, permited one person to just sit, get fat and receive profit for doing that. Well if anybody has a coment in this then i respond, if not... well i just can't go forever, right?

[Roark]

Hmm, yeah...

Considering the salaries of Web Developers, Lawyers, and Public Relations professionals, I don't think that capitalism rewards "appropriately" at all...

[Soulforged]

Hmm, yeah...

Considering the salaries of Web Developers, Lawyers, and Public Relations professionals, I don't think that capitalism rewards "appropriately" at all...

Totally agree. . But if i wanted ot iniciate a revolution here, i would have to wait for a thousand years so people can undestand history, politics and actuallity, an ignorant proletaraite like the bolsheviks will be a disaster as it was. The irony is that i was forced for life to follow a profesional career, and it's laws...

[Roark]

Lawyers are just a convenient scapegoat for society, mate. We love to hate them. The education and training to get there, though, is huuuge.

Web Developers, however, cheese me right off. My best mate has no training, and is earning 120,000 p.a.

Jealousy is so ugly.

[Al Khalifah]

Even the semi-socialist European states are rather unstable, such as France.

On the flip side, the USA is still one of the world's largest economies, and whatever economic problems we face stem from stupidity on the part of certain individuals, and not the system.

The 'semi-socialist' European Union is in fact a larger economy than the United States.

2005 GDP (nominal) as conducted by the IMF (Country / US$ million)
European Union 13,926,873
United States 12,438,873
Japan 4,799,061

[ah_dut]

The 'semi-socialist' European Union is in fact a larger economy than the United States.

2005 GDP (nominal) as conducted by the IMF (Country / US$ million)
European Union 13,926,873
United States 12,438,873
Japan 4,799,061

The EU isn't as solid a trading block as America though and has many differing languages.

And France, Germany etc do have pretty high unemploymeny to my knowledge

[Lazul]

If cummunism would suddenly work I would choose it, but seeing as the human race is to damn stupid to make it work and care more for themselfs then anybody ells it will never work.
So I guess we are stuck with this crappy system we have now.

But what we Are capable of doing is moving capitalism to the left and mix it with socialism wich would lead more happy and less sad faces.

...[snip]...

EDIT: I don't think we need this colourful language here...

Ser Clegane

[Steppe Merc]

Communism is a far better idea. I believe it is ultimately impossible for an entire nation to achieve true communism.

Lazul summed up my views exactly (save for whatever was snipped, I don't want to know, and I don't neccasarily agree. )

[Kagemusha]

Communism is Utopia.It will never happen as long as humans are still individuals.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Capitalism.

Communism is slavery. You are enslaved to your fellow man, bound to give him the result of your labor, whether or not he has earned it.

They're not rewarded appropriately at all. Look an actor who only does ideal things doesn't produce nothing at all, gains well better that a guy who is just one more in the chain of production in a company, and works more hours and under harsh conditions.

Millions of people would pay to see a movie with a famous actor, while any body off the street could perform a menial factory job. It's simple supply and demand; there is only that one actor in the entire world, while there are millions who could do the factory job. Yes, some people are probably overpaid. But that's not a problem witht he system, it's because of people who are willing to keep seeing movies or going to sports games no matter how expensive.

This absurd of the capitalism and economic neoliberal way of thinking is what leads to discussions like "are fair the pensions to aged mans", the truth is not, they're not actually working, but with communism you have an advantage on administration because everybody recieves what they work for and what they need, nothing more. This may seem a little opressing, but it's intended to be. As general income increases benefits do to.

An advantage on administration? Hardly. You have to decide what the 'needs' are for each seperate person, and assign accordingly. Since it would take forever to do that by committee, you'd probably end up with a couple people deciding the fate of the entire populace.

And here we come to one of the fundamental flaws of communism-it gives money based on subjective needs, not work, and so people make themselves needier to get more money, instead of working harder. Also, they try to reduce their abilities so they work less, and can force others to work harder.

And general income will never increase. People can work really hard, and have a practically nothing to gain from it, while others can stop working completely, and lose nothing. So why would people work more? Perhaps, if people were ants, communism would work, but we have brains and are not purposeless drones whose sole reason for existence is increasing production.

1- Everybody thinks that the society of the capitalist with people winning large amounts of money while others starve in the street, it's fair and it's by default.

There is no large seperation a la Victorian England. The vast majority of homeless in the USA have some sort of mental disorder. On average, the poor family in the USA has 2 color TVs, amoung other things. They would be high middle class 50 years ago. The American economy raises the standard of living for all of its people. The tycoons who get rich off some thing, like cars, vacuums, etc., do so by providing those products cheaply. It is in their interest to see that there are people who can afford their products.

There're two problems that were discussed way before capitalism existed: One is the inheritance of property and the other is Intelectual Property. There's no actual way in the material world to justify such a thing, but you can impose an idea as fair and create a law that protect this things, most people will accept it, even more those who are already rich. So most of the capital worked by others passes to the hands of some lucky man who can put it in some bank and get the inrest, and live of it. The same happened on monarchy and nobility in general, permited one person to just sit, get fat and receive profit for doing that. Well if anybody has a coment in this then i respond, if not... well i just can't go forever, right?

Why does most of the money go to the executives? Supply and demand. There is a low supply of executives, and high demand for someone who can lead a company. They are not 'lucky', they work hard. Andrew Carnige (sp?) built a steel empire through hard work. Unlike the workers who just worked their jobs, he grew a huge steel empire, and so is paid more. I see a recurring theme amoung socialists where they seem to believe that since factory workers have had some small part in the construction-not the planning, marketing, conception, or design-of a product they should get a much larger share of the wealth. But unlike the executives, they are easy to replace. And were it not for the executives, they wouldn't even have a job, and that factory wouldn't exist.

Closing thoughts; I often read talk of 'seizing' the factories. Why never any talk of a bunch of socialist getting together and building their own factory? Is it because communism does not lend itself to actually creating new things, only stealing?

Crazed Rabbit

[Kagemusha]

I would like to ask alittle question here.Why everything has to be black and white in economics politics.I think you can have free markets and taxpayed wellfare state at the sametime.It takes something from both ideologys.First in order to be competitive you have to have a free markets that are not lead by the government.So supply will meet demand.I think that labour Unions are also important,ofcourse their main job is to look after workers intrests.But they also look after that unprofessional workers wont destroy the quality of products.In a Nordic model government doesnt tax companies more heavily then in Capitalistic Nations.The wellfare state is builded by high income taxation of workers.So they are paying the goverment for their free healthcare,education and pensions.It has nothing to do with Communism where you would get same pay,no matter what you do.People are not equal in their contributions for society.And that will never chance.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The wellfare state is builded by high income taxation of workers.So they are paying the goverment for their free healthcare,education and pensions.

While that is not communism, it does provide a drag on the economy because of inherent government efficiency, and so the people don't get as much out of there money as they would through private institutions.

A non-welfare state will have a better economy and so its people will be better off.

Crazed Rabbit

[Goofball]

They're not rewarded appropriately at all.

They most certainly are. Consumers ultimately dictate the rewards for all workers, be they trash collectors, movie stars, or corporate executives. A municipality that pays it's trash collectors too much will have to raise property taxes to such levels that owners will become dissatisfied and vote in new city leaders who will make cost cuts in areas like trash collectors' wages. A movie studio that pays its actors too much will eventually go under due to experiencing losses, as will a corporation that pays its executives too much.

The key word here is "appropriate." If you believe "appropriate" reward for work should be correlated to how much somebody sweats while working, then you are correct, we do not reward people appropriately for their labor.

However, if you believe that "appropriate" reward for work should be correlated to how much consumers are willing to pay for that work, then yes, we are rewarding labor appropriately.

Just because a job is physically difficult, uncomfortable, or dangerous does not mean it should offer high remuneration. If there is no consumer demand for the skills required to do that job, then the job should not command high wages. Translation: if you have not taken the time to learn skills that are valued by society, then tough titty; you will not make a lot of money.

[Kagemusha]

While that is not communism, it does provide a drag on the economy because of inherent government efficiency, and so the people don't get as much out of there money as they would through private institutions.

A non-welfare state will have a better economy and so its people will be better off.

Crazed Rabbit

Explain to me why?Our government byus much of its services from private organisations.And at this years study Finland is the less corrupted country in the world.Some governments are more capable than others.I also understand that this kind of model doesnt suit very large countries because the organizations tend to get too heavy.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gov't beuracracies (sp?) are naturally less efficient than private businesses, even if they contract out a lot of private companies, because the gov't has a monopoly. No one else can compete with them, so they have no incentive to improve their services. And in the USA at least, the workers are lazy, overpaid people*.

And besides, people should be able to choose what they want to pay for, and not have it chosen for them.

*I'm talking about gov't departments, like the dep't of motor vehicles, and not police or firefighters.

Crazed Rabbit

[Reverend Joe]

They most certainly are. Consumers ultimately dictate the rewards for all workers, be they trash collectors, movie stars, or corporate executives. A municipality that pays it's trash collectors too much will have to raise property taxes to such levels that owners will become dissatisfied and vote in new city leaders who will make cost cuts in areas like trash collectors' wages. A movie studio that pays its actors too much will eventually go under due to experiencing losses, as will a corporation that pays its executives too much.

People are often blind to everything except what is in front of them. Letting people decide the pay levels of professions is a terrible idea, because of social stigmas, raw greed, and basic human idiocy (and its cousin, ignorance). Unfortunately, this means that any and all systems are doomed to failure, because every human is inherently greedy, and desperate to spread his or her own gene pool. It doesn't always surface, but it is down there, in our basic survivalist instincts.

The short answer: neither capitalism nor communism, or anarchism, or socialism, or any other system will work. Unless we can find a way to remove the Reptilian complex and limbic system from our brains and operate entirely on the neocortex, this will always remain true. And besides, removing the instincts that tear down our systems will also turn us into mindless automatons, perfectly utilizing whatever system we are handed.

So pick an economic and governmental system, and defend it all you like, because in the end, it won't work- the point is to be hopeful.


(In case you are wondering, yes, I have been reading "The Dragons of Eden".)