comunism is like sleeping with 90 women simultaneously it sound awesome but try and sort it out. everything in moderation too much either way and you just supress the masses in a dictatorship i can genuinly see this in america if your not carefull.
Communism vs. Capitalism, which is really better?
- Thread starter Dorkamongus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd rather be a capitalist in capitalist society than a communist in a communist society. Although I'd rather be a communist in a communist society than a worker in a capitalist society.
Incorrect. Humanity cannot be the flaw in a political system. Ideal political systems are supposed to support humanity to their full potential and allow society to function properly. If something doesn't work because of a human presence, than IT is what is flawwed. This is why communism doesn't work:Axzarious said:
Human are by nature selfish, greedy, violent, aggressive, intelligent, manipulative creatures. We are only modivated to improve our own lives. This is why we have cities, cars, history, etc. and other animals don't. Those traits are why we have survived and prospered for so long. We are self surving.
Now, while we serve our interests, there are different levels of interests to fulfill.
(I am refering here to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs)
Now, communism encourages us to REJECT fulfilling our own interests. Imagine why that idea might now work well...
No. Communism is a lie. A dream. A lazy, fantastic Utopia where everyone works hand in hand and prance around in a god damned meadow.hecticpicnic said:
Capitalism isn't. It is reality. It is hard, bitter, unfair at times, but it is grounded in truth: You get only what you earn, and you're going to have to fight to keep it. The hard working and determined survive and prosper.
I like to take the berlin wall as an amazing example of communism versus capitalism. If communes is so good, then why were people jumping out of buildings simply to get to the west (capitalist) side of the wall?
I see a lot of you here have the socialist idea in mind. A mild version of it I mean. That's fine, however; I just find it to be a bad idea even when people claim that capitalism is filled with corrupt money hungry war mongers. The fault not only seems to fall on the government, but the citizens as well. The citizens become a bit to dependent on the government to sort out their problems. Also, they seem less likely to take responsibility for their own actions hence the ability for a random person to complain about anything and getting it their way, usually.
Obviously this is just my opinion, and I probably won't change anyone's mind which I don't exactly intend to do anyways.
Obviously this is just my opinion, and I probably won't change anyone's mind which I don't exactly intend to do anyways.
*hand shake* For once we agree. And why is this not IN THE RELIGION AND POLITICS SECTION!!! Also Capitalism allows people who WORK to actually be rewarded.Souplex said:
I've never particularly heard of it, but a quick search shows it has some similarities to a theoretical model I read of a while ago called energy economics.UberNoodle said:
Now, these both seem to define a system that isn't based on scarcity. (eg. They presume there is no meaningful day to day limit on resources.)
While it's obviously being pedantic to say so, this isn't economics anymore.
The reason being that the formal definition of economics is the study of how to efficiently distribute limited resources.
If you take out the 'limited' part, most of economics as a subject becomes irrelevant.
Although, in a way, that might well point out precisely why it's so difficult for some people to let go of the existing system; If you presume the fundamental premise of economics to be something that cannot be circumvented. (which is definitely the case in theoretical terms, since the earth, and even the universe probably contains a finite amount of matter and energy in it, but in practice, nearly infinite resources relative to what people want is good enough to make classical economics meaningless.)
It would definitely take a radical change in people's mindset to view things differently.
What happens when there aren't such constraints on resources anymore?
Why would trade need to exist?
Why give something in exchange for something else, if the things being exchanged have no real value?
Might as well just give people whatever they ask for right?
But, the practical question here is what are our resources, relative to what people might want to have?
There's a few obvious areas that could be more efficient if trade and profit weren't meaningful considerations.
Consumer products can be more durable, and designed to be easier to modify and upgrade, rather than wholesale replacement of items constantly because the companies involved need to keep selling new stuff to survive...
But it would make things interesting, to say the least.
The questions are:
Do we have the resources to support these alternate ideas?
Can people's mindset and beliefs be shifted sufficiently to implement these ideas if they actually are viable?
4: There are many different applications for the word "equality." One (the good one) is that everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, regardless of their race, sex or orientation. And that they all have the same basic human rights. They all have the right to be as rich and successful as they can be. The good version of equality is that everyone is given the same level of potential opportunity for greatness.Mikeyfell said:
4.1: Another (the confused) version of equality is that everyone stays at the same level, with the same fortune. This is completely different. Everyone is stuck at one, default level of wealth and no matter how hard they work, they won't make any more money.
4.2: Have you been watching the recent Office episodes? Jim recently exceeded the amount of money he can make in a year, so now he's lost all incentive to work. He's having to come up with things to pass the time. And this doesn't just happen on television; it works exactly like that in the real world.
5: So? People can have a lot more money than other people. So? Unless they've stolen all that money, they earned it. Oh sure, people inherit lots of money, but if they don't work hard on managing it properly, they could loose it all.Mikeyfell said:
5.1: I personally, directly like rich people. My family owns a small window cleaning company. We're middle-class people ourselves, but our biggest and most important customers are millionaires. Rich people = houses with LOTS of windows = lots of business for us. If you could magically turn the American government into communism, would you do it? Because you've just put my father out of the job. Thanks.
5.2: And don't think it's just me. Just one big-ass house requires:
Several house cleaners
Plumbers
Gardeners
Electricians
And many more to come by practically all the time. Not to mention, the possibly hundreds of people who built the house to begin with. People who had work to do for at least a YEAR, JUST because there's this one super rich dude.
5.3: And don't think we could all just get other jobs, because all the other jobs are pretty much taken. What will we have to work for? Trust me, without rich people, the economy would hurt, badly.
6: Homeless people are always going to be something we have to work to fix. You seem to forget about shelters, charities and all these other organizations (lots of which are powered by capitalism and donations) that help people like this out. Why do so many people just act like these things don't exist?Mikeyfell said:
6.1: You know, there are a lot more homeless people out there now because of the house market crash. And I'm sure you're aware that that was mostly caused by people giving out loans to everybody, regardless of how much money they had (I.E. an communistic/socialistic mentality). Sooooo yeah. :\
7: http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/01/29/davos.bill.gates.donates/index.htmlMikeyfell said:
Please, just for the sake of common decency, if you're going to start your posts with "wrong" in giant, red font, don't proceed to say things that are so obviously wrong themselves.
7.1: It is human nature to be greedy, and like I said, communism isn't going to get rid of that. But, sometimes, it's also human nature to be generous. Communism doesn't let you be generous. Everyone (in theory) is given the same amount of money and good fortune, so there's no room for it.
8: Yeah, except for, you know, all the stuff I've said.Mikeyfell said:
8.1: So it seems that when I talk about the corruption of power, and how it applies to the government just as much (if not more) as it does to big business, your counter-argument is basically to close your ears, pretend you didn't hear it, and proceed to talk like I never even said it.Mikeyfell said:
8.2: Let me put it this way:
You: In capitalism, the top 1% of people can have whatever they want, they don't help people because of human nature. Power corrupts.
Me: That's what happens in communism too. It's one, all-powerful entity that can do anything. How could the rich business people become corrupted, but not the government?
You: Because in capitalism, the top 1% of people can have whatever they want and don't help people because of human nature. Power corrupts. This point outweighs your point.
Me: -_-
that is completely unrelated to my argument and putting the words "the good one" in parentheses makes you look like a dick headUltraHammer said:
and yes pointing that out makes me look like a dick head too but I'm trying to make a point
and why exactly is that worse exactly? If everyone got the same amount of money regardless of what they did people might do what they wanted to do instead of what they have to do to make money. with everyone happier we'd see progress for good reasons instead of progress for selfish reasons.
in Communism wouldn't you make the same amount of money cleaning my windows as you would cleaning Rich McRichman's windows?
Do you really think that the super rich guy has his giant house so he can employ gardeners and plumbers and electricians. No, of course not. He has a big house so people will look at him and say "look at him he has a big house."
Capitalism is fueled by selfishness it is a bad thing. It helps people inadvertently but ultimately it rewards the worst parts of human nature
Communism says "fuck you" to human nature "you get what you get, deal with it." it isn't better but it's more fair to more people.
that money wouldn't go away it would go to everyone else for them to spend on what they want
it would help the economy.
I guess that depends on your political affiliations though. that's a toss up
with Capitalism the homeless people get to live in shelters made by donations
with Communism the homeless people would all have enough money to own a home.......
"Why do so many people just act like Capitalism is a good thing?"
even though it might cause me physical pain to explain your stupidity to you. I'm going to try. Giving loans and giving credit are both fundamental principles of Capitalism. Another fundamental principle of Capitalism is that you can sell anything. The thing that happened during the housing market crash was that the banks that were giving out the loans were packaging as many loans together as they could and selling them to bigger banks, with interest. (interest is yet another Capitalist principle). People who couldn't afford their mortgages started to defect on their loans or pay them with credit. (credit is money you borrowed from the bank)
Then this is what happened. Let's say that bank A packaged 10 home-equity loans worth $1 million and sold it to bank B for $900 thousand. so 5 of those mortgages defect and the other 5 take out a line of credit to pay theirs. so seeing their bad investment bank B buys a bunch more loan packages and groups them together until they have 100 loans now worth $1 billion and sells that to bank C. So when bank C tries to collect their money they need to get half of it from insurance companies to cover the defected loans and they try to get the other half of their money from bank A which doesn't have any money because all their loans have been payed in credit. so bank A bankrupted it's self, bank B bankrupted bank C and bank C bankrupted the insurance company. No bank will take a lone from another bank and no insurance company will touch a bank with a ten foot pole. so all the banks start taking houses away from people but they can't do anything with them because nobody else can get a lone to buy a house.
The housing market crashed because banks were selling imaginary money to other banks
THAT WAS CAPITALISM
Bill Gates is not the only person in the top 1%
Communism won't change greed or generosity
Communism doesn't reward greed, Capitalism does reward greed
Generosity is often it's own reward
which system sounds better?
in 4.0-4.2 you told me you have watched The Office
in 5.0-5.3 you told me that rich people can give poor people borderline slave labor jobs
in 6.0-6.1 you made a fool of your self
in 7.0-7.1 you made the point that rich people could be generous. Then you said that there would be no generosity in Communism
in 8.0-8.2 you tried to piss me off so you could start a flame war
the first 3 points you made were all correct
they were facts
but when I say "giving all humans what they need is better than giving greedy humans what they want." you start flinging your shit. what the hell is wrong with you?
you do realize you posted what you thought my rebuttal would be before I got to read your counter argument
ouch... I sort of called you out there didn't I
let me put it this way for you
me: In capitalism, the top 1% of people can have whatever they want, they don't help people because of human nature. Power corrupts.
you: That's what happens in communism too. It's one, all-powerful entity that can do anything. How could the rich business people become corrupted, but not the government?
me: Of course the government will get corrupted, that's why I said in my first post that both systems were shit. Communism is only better because it doesn't reward individual greed.
now it's your turn to rebuttal, see I don't get to guess at this part because without you reading my post I could type what ever I wanted to to make you look stupid. but I won't do that because it's childish
It was privatised for ideological reasons not because it couldn't work. I understand that it didn't work all that well but that doesn't mean that it can't. What happened when the Tories privatised was they closed the lines that weren't making proft but the problem was that people needed these lines to get to the main line. It would be like think 'Look at the motorway. Not as many people are using these slip roads so maybe we should close them to save money'. In theory it makes sense (for about a minute until you actually think about it) but in practice it's retarded. The privatisation has caused more trouble than its worth and the nationalisation of the railways is, theoretically, the best way to run them. Of course, there isn't a single party that I trust enough to actually do it properly.Valkyrie101 said:
I cant really come down on either side, as the main weakness is indeed human beings. There will always be a spectrum of opinion. However, Agent K summed it up nicely in 1997:
"... The person is smart. The people are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it".
"... The person is smart. The people are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it".
Hmm... you seem to be getting offended a lot. At worst, I've been sarcastic and smartassy, but you've gone straight-out and used "dickhead" "fool" and "stupidity". I'm tempted to go on a long speech about how hard your posts are to read because you never use proper capitalization. But we're here for political debate (or at least I am.)
9.1: Also, I call it "the good one" because, well, don't you think not being racist, sexist or homophobic is good? What, do you think it's baaaad, huh? Are you racist?!? :O
9.2: And I call it "the confused one" because people are getting it confused with the good one.
9.3: Fully aware of my dickheadedness, thank you very much.
12.1: Seriously, I don't understand this point at all. He hires all these people, and gives them all jobs, but oooh, because he did it for SELFISH reasons, that makes it bad! So it's the motive that makes it bad? If he was hiring people to garden and clean an orphanage, would that make it okay?
12.2: No, really. If he hired all those same people to take care of an orphanage full of children, would that make it okay for them to hire them?
13.1: Let me get back to the whole "doing what people want to do" thing. Most jobs in the world are things that have to be done, and most people don't want to do it. Construction workers, for example. I think most of them would rather sit at home and watch television than work, I know I would.
13.2: So let's say that almost no one becomes a construction worker, because no one wants to do it. Well crap, now we don't have anything getting built.
13.3: I'm not sure what you're going to say, but as far as I can see, the only way around this is to make people become construction workers. Fair enough, I guess? So now you get hundreds of people who have to build a building. Okay, but it's still not like they have any incentive to work. They're all getting paid the same, and all have to work the same hours, so no matter how bad of a job they do, it won't matter. They'll work real slow and take the longest breaks they possibly could. They'd have no reason to be creative and come up with faster techniques for doing anything. And this is just one example. Pretty much every job is crappily done when you have no incentive to work.
14.1: Say that one student studied really hard on a test, and got an A.
Another student didn't work hardly at all on a test, and got a D.
Well, that's not very equal. By your rules, we should round both of those scores into a B-.
Just replace "grades" with "money" and it's the exact same thing.
14.2: One person works really hard, makes a lot of money.
Another person doesn't work at all, makes almost no money.
Give them both the same amount of money. Fair? To you, for whatever reason, that sounds completely fair.
14.3: And look, I know. I KNOW that there are LOTS of people who are poor, despite having worked really hard. I KNOW. Did you ever watch the Pursuit of Happyness? It's about a guy who works really hard, is really good at what he does, but keeps struggling to not be impoverished.
14.4: At the end, all his work finally pays off and he gets a great job. And that's based on a true story; and the person it's based off is now a millionaire.
14.5: The fact is, a LOT of people are gonna be homeless or at the bottom of the barrel in their lives. But opportunity never really is completely gone. Maybe it's different in other countries, but in America, nobody is completely trapped to live on the streets forever, nobody. There's always a way to make it for yourself, and it may be hard, but there's always a way.
14.6: Unless of course you're completely disabled. In which case the government MUST aid you. Or unless you're in prison, in which case you HAVE lost your freedom.
14.7: You're completely right in that communism does say "fuck you" to human nature. But you're wrong to think that's a good thing. It says "fuck you" to work and effort, humans are miserable without that.
What I was mainly trying to say was that one of the major things that caused it was because bad loans were made; loans that people couldn't pay. I wasn't trying to say that the mortgage companies were trying to be "fair to everyone", their motives and/or reasons they made those bad decisions were completely different than that. Still, it's what they did. It was badly-run, poorly managed capitalistic business.
In communism, everyone would be given a loan... and since everyone would be making the same amount of money, that would certainly be easy to control. I'll have to admit that "everyone could afford a house" is one thing about communism that works... in theory. And since most of the rest of it doesn't even work in theory, that's much better!
17.1: Oh, but that's just in terms of the citizens. For the government? Yeah it rewards greed. It totally, totally rewards greed. They literally get to be in control of all the money.
18.1: Okay, maybe this is another case of fundamental misunderstanding on your part. Maybe you THOUGHT that I said "and the rich people whip me whenever I wash their windows." But if you don't think that, then well...
18.2: Then let me get this straight. Being a window cleaner, a house cleaner or a gardener or such, is a 'borderline slave labor' job, in your book. Is that correct? You can ignore this WHOLE post, just answer this ONE question for me, please.
"You: In capitalism, the top 1% of people can have whatever they want, they don't help people because of human nature. Power corrupts."
This represents your basic argument that you've carried with you since before we ever met. You've made it clear to me that you have agreed with this statement before this conversation ever started.
"Me: That's what happens in communism too. It's one, all-powerful entity that can do anything. How could the rich business people become corrupted, but not the government?"
This represents my first post. It wasn't directly aimed at YOU, it was aimed at anyone who believed in the "power corrupts" argument. You just so happened to fit that description.
"You: Because in capitalism, the top 1% of people can have whatever they want and don't help people because of human nature. Power corrupts. This point outweighs your point."
And THIS represents your first reply to me.
So yeah I wasn't trying to predict what you were going to say, I was summing up what our conversation had been so far. You honestly don't have to believe me either, because when I explain it, it does sound a little weird.
15.1: But hey... what IS your response to...
"That's what happens in communism too. It's one, all-powerful entity that can do anything. How could the rich business people become corrupted, but not the government?"
anyway?
15.2: You didn't actually respond to it, you just talked about how immature I was because you thought I was predicting the future. My whole original point to that part of the post was to point out that you never actually presented an argument against it, and whadea know, you STILL haven't.
15.3: Sorry for being even more of a huge dickhead now. I'm even starting to annoy myself, but I couldn't think of any way to communicate 15.1 and 15.2 properly and clearly without being cocky about it.
Mikeyfell said:
9: Uh, yes it is. You said that capitalism has inequality, and I explained how "financial equality" and "legal and human rights" equality are totally different things.Mikeyfell said:
9.1: Also, I call it "the good one" because, well, don't you think not being racist, sexist or homophobic is good? What, do you think it's baaaad, huh? Are you racist?!? :O
9.2: And I call it "the confused one" because people are getting it confused with the good one.
9.3: Fully aware of my dickheadedness, thank you very much.
10: Here we go! We're making some progress here! You're actually starting to explain more about how communism--in theory--is supposed to work. So tell me, if people went around doing whatever they wanted to do, in what way would that progress the world? It would definitely help the independent arts, that's for sure. I honestly just want to see you back this one up on your own.Mikeyfell said:
11: :| Um, yeah. Because McRichman wouldn't be rich anymore, and so his house wouldn't have very many windows. Therefore, we would make less money. Thank you for pointing that out, basically having no choice but to agree with me on this point, yet somehow talking like you don't.Mikeyfell said:
12: So now you're saying it's bad to employ people if you're doing it for your own, personal gain? Because that's what hiring people is for!Mikeyfell said:
12.1: Seriously, I don't understand this point at all. He hires all these people, and gives them all jobs, but oooh, because he did it for SELFISH reasons, that makes it bad! So it's the motive that makes it bad? If he was hiring people to garden and clean an orphanage, would that make it okay?
12.2: No, really. If he hired all those same people to take care of an orphanage full of children, would that make it okay for them to hire them?
13: Liiiiiike, working harder and being innovative?Mikeyfell said:
13.1: Let me get back to the whole "doing what people want to do" thing. Most jobs in the world are things that have to be done, and most people don't want to do it. Construction workers, for example. I think most of them would rather sit at home and watch television than work, I know I would.
13.2: So let's say that almost no one becomes a construction worker, because no one wants to do it. Well crap, now we don't have anything getting built.
13.3: I'm not sure what you're going to say, but as far as I can see, the only way around this is to make people become construction workers. Fair enough, I guess? So now you get hundreds of people who have to build a building. Okay, but it's still not like they have any incentive to work. They're all getting paid the same, and all have to work the same hours, so no matter how bad of a job they do, it won't matter. They'll work real slow and take the longest breaks they possibly could. They'd have no reason to be creative and come up with faster techniques for doing anything. And this is just one example. Pretty much every job is crappily done when you have no incentive to work.
14: Alright, now I'm going to get a little personal. YOU sir, have a bent understanding of "fair". You get what you get, deal with it? That's exactly what capitalism is. It's now my favorite time of the day; metaphor time.Mikeyfell said:
14.1: Say that one student studied really hard on a test, and got an A.
Another student didn't work hardly at all on a test, and got a D.
Well, that's not very equal. By your rules, we should round both of those scores into a B-.
Just replace "grades" with "money" and it's the exact same thing.
14.2: One person works really hard, makes a lot of money.
Another person doesn't work at all, makes almost no money.
Give them both the same amount of money. Fair? To you, for whatever reason, that sounds completely fair.
14.3: And look, I know. I KNOW that there are LOTS of people who are poor, despite having worked really hard. I KNOW. Did you ever watch the Pursuit of Happyness? It's about a guy who works really hard, is really good at what he does, but keeps struggling to not be impoverished.
14.4: At the end, all his work finally pays off and he gets a great job. And that's based on a true story; and the person it's based off is now a millionaire.
14.5: The fact is, a LOT of people are gonna be homeless or at the bottom of the barrel in their lives. But opportunity never really is completely gone. Maybe it's different in other countries, but in America, nobody is completely trapped to live on the streets forever, nobody. There's always a way to make it for yourself, and it may be hard, but there's always a way.
14.6: Unless of course you're completely disabled. In which case the government MUST aid you. Or unless you're in prison, in which case you HAVE lost your freedom.
14.7: You're completely right in that communism does say "fuck you" to human nature. But you're wrong to think that's a good thing. It says "fuck you" to work and effort, humans are miserable without that.
15: Sorry, you have fallen victim to a fundamental misunderstanding, and--admittedly--some bad communication on my part.Mikeyfell said:
What I was mainly trying to say was that one of the major things that caused it was because bad loans were made; loans that people couldn't pay. I wasn't trying to say that the mortgage companies were trying to be "fair to everyone", their motives and/or reasons they made those bad decisions were completely different than that. Still, it's what they did. It was badly-run, poorly managed capitalistic business.
In communism, everyone would be given a loan... and since everyone would be making the same amount of money, that would certainly be easy to control. I'll have to admit that "everyone could afford a house" is one thing about communism that works... in theory. And since most of the rest of it doesn't even work in theory, that's much better!
16: And he's also not the only billionaire who's donated a lot of money to charity! Point is; rich people can be very generous, too.Mikeyfell said:
17: It might not necessarily reward greed, but it certainly rewards laziness or cheats of the system. You said that you agree with point #3. So you must agree that people will behave like that in droves under communism. It's ugly, it's very ugly.Mikeyfell said:
17.1: Oh, but that's just in terms of the citizens. For the government? Yeah it rewards greed. It totally, totally rewards greed. They literally get to be in control of all the money.
Explain this sentence to me. :|Mikeyfell said:
18: WHAT?!?!?! I never said that!!Mikeyfell said:
18.1: Okay, maybe this is another case of fundamental misunderstanding on your part. Maybe you THOUGHT that I said "and the rich people whip me whenever I wash their windows." But if you don't think that, then well...
18.2: Then let me get this straight. Being a window cleaner, a house cleaner or a gardener or such, is a 'borderline slave labor' job, in your book. Is that correct? You can ignore this WHOLE post, just answer this ONE question for me, please.
19: Actually, this is yet ANOTHER fundamental misunderstanding. Don't worry, that happens a lot with conversations this long, really.Mikeyfell said:
"You: In capitalism, the top 1% of people can have whatever they want, they don't help people because of human nature. Power corrupts."
This represents your basic argument that you've carried with you since before we ever met. You've made it clear to me that you have agreed with this statement before this conversation ever started.
"Me: That's what happens in communism too. It's one, all-powerful entity that can do anything. How could the rich business people become corrupted, but not the government?"
This represents my first post. It wasn't directly aimed at YOU, it was aimed at anyone who believed in the "power corrupts" argument. You just so happened to fit that description.
"You: Because in capitalism, the top 1% of people can have whatever they want and don't help people because of human nature. Power corrupts. This point outweighs your point."
And THIS represents your first reply to me.
So yeah I wasn't trying to predict what you were going to say, I was summing up what our conversation had been so far. You honestly don't have to believe me either, because when I explain it, it does sound a little weird.
15.1: But hey... what IS your response to...
"That's what happens in communism too. It's one, all-powerful entity that can do anything. How could the rich business people become corrupted, but not the government?"
anyway?
15.2: You didn't actually respond to it, you just talked about how immature I was because you thought I was predicting the future. My whole original point to that part of the post was to point out that you never actually presented an argument against it, and whadea know, you STILL haven't.
15.3: Sorry for being even more of a huge dickhead now. I'm even starting to annoy myself, but I couldn't think of any way to communicate 15.1 and 15.2 properly and clearly without being cocky about it.
Doesn't work like that in reality. Private companies work, because there's the incentive of profit. A totally nationalized industry has no reason to bother being efficient or effective. Why make the trains run on time? No need to, because the customer has no alternative. Of course, theoretically they should want to make it work anyway, because that's the right thing to do, but that doesn't tend to happen in reality. See Soviet Russia.Chech said:
China is hardly a communist state anymore. China has embraced the ideals of capitalism and allowed themselves to grow because of it. Look at their economy for God's sake! The U.S. exports hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs to them and they gladly take them. Not to mention the fact that they also keep the value of their currency tightly controlled; keeping it greatly undervalued.Velvo said:
If nothing else, they are a kind of socialist state with capitalistic tendencies, but Karl Marx would laugh at them if they called themselves true communists. They are FAR too invested in capitalism through the U.S. Without the U.S. giving them jobs, it is unlikely they would be where they are now. There's a reason they buy up all of our bank notes!
it's unrelated because I never mentioned anything that had to do with race or gender or any of those things.UltraHammer said:
Instead of responding to each one of those points I'm just going to say a couple things about Communism\Socialism that you might not know
1. If you don't work you won't get payed. That's true for Capitalism too
2. When I say "equality" I mean that all jobs have equal monetary value. In Capitalism football players make millions of dollars while someone who takes care of traumatized children barely makes ends meet month to month instead of them both making the same amount of money.
3. poor job performance can still get you fired. (or arrested depending on how corrupt the government is)
4. The government will get corrupted just like the business man. The difference is that a corrupt CEO could take all their employee's money and run and get off scott-free the government on the other hand has an entire population that they have to keep from revolting. to stop the revolting they'll either mobilize the army to hold down rebellions or hide their corruption, maybe they'll choose the latter because it's cheaper.
5. Since the government needs educated people the government will pay for your education so you can have the job you want.
If hospitals and orphanages (ect.) were all run by the government they would get their funding regardless of how generous the billionaires were.
okay...I'll bite
have you ever experienced that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you help out your fellow man?
there's a personal emotional reward for generosity instead of a monetary reward for greed
First off, I'm not above being an asshole on the internet. I'm sorry that I offended you.
Secondly, yea. That's the kind of things that slaves did. Manual labor, cleaning, gardening. When they were too busy or lazy to do it themselves they'd buy someone to do it for them, now days they pay someone to do it for them. It's not the same, and it's not even bad but you can see the connection
That makes sense, okay I get it now
The thing is that I never argued against that. My point was this: "Having an even distribution of wealth is the most important thing for an economy and Communism is the only way to get that."
Trust me we're both annoyed
Communism sounds better, but Capitalism functions better. And with regards to Communism, there's a quote I've heard a lot (but I can't remember who first said it) that goes "Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others."
Kapt.Rob stated above that both suffer from one common factor, and that is humans.Baron Von Evil Satan said:
Capitalism can't escape from this factor either. Because even though eco-101 teaches that Capitalism is rooted in supply and demand, what happens overtime are that resources (limited) and ideas aren't brought to market fast-enough or in ample supply to meet the needs (demands to eat and have a decent education, health or place to live). You can't rush innovation (some of which leads to employment), sometimes it just happens by accident or luck. And because there are tens of millions of people waiting around for jobs, politicians and creative opportunists, will take advantage of loopholes in the FIAT currency we have today by actually not producing anything but rather increasing manufactured profits based on this monetary system.
What we have today is more millionaires than ever before. But at a rate that can't keep up with the amount of those falling into poverty. So, the gap is ever widening. Eventually the debate ends up a moral question regardless if it's legal or doable: Is it worth the extra millionaires at the expense of more and more people having no hope of improving their lives (or worse death)?
Just like the Communist that abused their power, the so-called capitalist take advantage of this system want to change nothing. And instead use slogans to champion "Capitalism, God, Country, etc..." when it's really just a racket.
It all comes back to human nature. "Power corrupts..." you know the rest.
In the middle is the best -- the benefits of fairness and progressive taxation brought by socialism and the drive to succeed and progress and innovate brought by capitalism.