Quote Originally Posted by kiwitt
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?