Theory wise, communism, realistically, capitalism. That is LITERALLY all it comes down do. In anything bigger than a very small place, communism will not work.
Communism vs. Capitalism, which is really better?
- Thread starter Dorkamongus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sure there's a sense of achievement! Who's to say you couldn't move up or down in your career? Who's to say that you couldn't make more money than other people? Do you think that everyone in China makes the exact same amount of money? Don't make me laugh!innocentEX said:
Just because businesses are run by the government doesn't mean that those businesses totally suck! There is a reason Chinese businesses are growing at the rate they are. I mean yes, China kinda sucks from a human rights and environmental standpoint, but economically, they are doing very well.
Your image of cookie cutter Communism is naieve, my good man.
Capitalism, obviously. I know it's trendy to hate on capitalism, but trust me, if you were living in a communist country, you wouldn't dig it. When the Berlin Wall went down nobody was going from the West side to the East side, and for good reason.Dorkamongus said:
I should also point out also that Chinese and Russian communism are very, very different. Most people in this thread, including me, have the Russian idea in their head. Chinese look at communism a little differently, they can't really be put in the same box as by-the-book communism of the Soviet era.
Communism is not better than Capitalism in theory. In theory, both are wonderful systems that produce utopian outcomes. In practice we know this not to be the case.
Raw, undiluted capitalism doesn't really work very well, as there are too many imperfections in the market which people tend to exploit to everyone elses' detriment (ie. the 2008 financial crisis that fundamentally stemmed from a lack of Government regulation in financial markets).
Attempts at Communism haven't proven particularly effective either for a number of reasons (human greed, corruption, lack of an effective price mechanism on which to base the monetary system, poor central planning etc.). The main problem with Communism, besides the fact that evil ****s have tended to be in charge of communist systems, is that it's so unwieldy. It's hugely difficult for a Government to effectively organise the lives of millions and millions of people, and they always tend to get it drastically wrong, leading to poor outcomes for their citizens even when their intentions aren't bad.
A capitalist system with moderately socialist tendencies is the best current system. Key pieces of social infrastructure, such as education and healthcare are best managed by the Government, as this leads to better outcomes for society as a whole. But even then its not that straight forward. While the profit motive in the American healthcare system is the reason why America has the highest health care costs in the world, it has also led to the development of some spectacular new medical technologies, which benefit everyone, including those in socialised healthcare systems.
What's more, what may be great for some countries won't be for others. A heavily socialist country can often be extremely desirable for a developing nation which needs major investments in public infrasture and local industries in order to raise living standards to a level that doesn't involve immense human suffering. However for a developed, western country, a similar system can (and has) cause growth to stagnate and debt to mount. And there are an enormous number of other factors in play too that I really can't be arsed going into right now.
So while you can go around and round in circles arguing about which extreme end of the scale is worst, it's somewhere (not easily defined) in the centre of the economic spectrum where people do best.
Raw, undiluted capitalism doesn't really work very well, as there are too many imperfections in the market which people tend to exploit to everyone elses' detriment (ie. the 2008 financial crisis that fundamentally stemmed from a lack of Government regulation in financial markets).
Attempts at Communism haven't proven particularly effective either for a number of reasons (human greed, corruption, lack of an effective price mechanism on which to base the monetary system, poor central planning etc.). The main problem with Communism, besides the fact that evil ****s have tended to be in charge of communist systems, is that it's so unwieldy. It's hugely difficult for a Government to effectively organise the lives of millions and millions of people, and they always tend to get it drastically wrong, leading to poor outcomes for their citizens even when their intentions aren't bad.
A capitalist system with moderately socialist tendencies is the best current system. Key pieces of social infrastructure, such as education and healthcare are best managed by the Government, as this leads to better outcomes for society as a whole. But even then its not that straight forward. While the profit motive in the American healthcare system is the reason why America has the highest health care costs in the world, it has also led to the development of some spectacular new medical technologies, which benefit everyone, including those in socialised healthcare systems.
What's more, what may be great for some countries won't be for others. A heavily socialist country can often be extremely desirable for a developing nation which needs major investments in public infrasture and local industries in order to raise living standards to a level that doesn't involve immense human suffering. However for a developed, western country, a similar system can (and has) cause growth to stagnate and debt to mount. And there are an enormous number of other factors in play too that I really can't be arsed going into right now.
So while you can go around and round in circles arguing about which extreme end of the scale is worst, it's somewhere (not easily defined) in the centre of the economic spectrum where people do best.
China is a pretty big place man. They're doing pretty well. So long as you have effective checks and balances, Communism CAN work. There just aren't very many good examples because corruption sucks all over the place. Capitalism was pretty terrible with corruption before people figured "hey, lets make government regulations for these corporations!" Unions helped, and so did "The Jungle."WrongSprite said:
I predict that unless it all goes to shit before they get their act together, the Chinese will have their own age of enlightenment and will grow up out of the repression and terrible environmental policy that has plagued their people. Or at least I hope they do, for their own sake.
A man diagnosed with cancer could probably be helped greatly by chemotherapy.
A man diagnosed with having a sword through his chest would not be helped by chemotherapy. At all. It'd probably make things worse.
I guess that's where I stand; they're for different situations.
A man diagnosed with having a sword through his chest would not be helped by chemotherapy. At all. It'd probably make things worse.
I guess that's where I stand; they're for different situations.
I've been in China for an extended period of time. It is not communist. It is very much a borderline capitalist state.Velvo said:
Have you even read the theory of capitalism? Believe me, that does not go on there.
I personally think that capitalism is better. I don't want full-on capitalism, but I want much of it.
ITT: 33 Identical posts.
Since this is A video game forum:
"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?"
"No!" Says the man in Washington, "It Belongs to the poor."
"No!" Says the man in The Vatican, "It belongs to God."
"No!" Says the man in Moscow, "It belongs to everyone!"
"I rejected those answers.
Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...Rapture!
A city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be limited by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small!
And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well..." - Andrew Ryan
Since this is A video game forum:
"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?"
"No!" Says the man in Washington, "It Belongs to the poor."
"No!" Says the man in The Vatican, "It belongs to God."
"No!" Says the man in Moscow, "It belongs to everyone!"
"I rejected those answers.
Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...Rapture!
A city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be limited by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small!
And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well..." - Andrew Ryan
Communism has never, and will never, work. The theory of absolute equality is absurd. "Everyone is equal, but some are more 'equal' than others."
A society without the promise of upwards movement is one that will not function, as the only driving force behind doing well and being successful is the benefits associated with it.
Capitalism has been proven time and time again to be the ruling train of economic thought and practice, there is absolutely no debating that. Countries such as the United States, Japan, and Germany all function on very similar economic practices (that is, free-market enterprise with government intervention) and are widely considered to be the world's economic powerhouses.
China's economy is not communist in nature. Yes, it has many communist ties (such as an overwhelming amount of government ownership in private enterprises) but at it's core it is still a free-market enterprise. However, comparing China's economy to counties such as the United States or Germany is simply a waste of time, as they have yet to emerge as a world player in any real field.
A society without the promise of upwards movement is one that will not function, as the only driving force behind doing well and being successful is the benefits associated with it.
Capitalism has been proven time and time again to be the ruling train of economic thought and practice, there is absolutely no debating that. Countries such as the United States, Japan, and Germany all function on very similar economic practices (that is, free-market enterprise with government intervention) and are widely considered to be the world's economic powerhouses.
China's economy is not communist in nature. Yes, it has many communist ties (such as an overwhelming amount of government ownership in private enterprises) but at it's core it is still a free-market enterprise. However, comparing China's economy to counties such as the United States or Germany is simply a waste of time, as they have yet to emerge as a world player in any real field.
Yes, I have read treatises on Communism and Capitalism. No, I've never been to China. Yes, I realize I can't say from direct experience what China exactly is. I have been led to believe that China is a state in which the government has the final word on all business matters but leaves it up to others to determine what business actually goes on. If I'm wrong on that, please educate me upon the finer points of Chinese economic policy. To me though, my description seems more like a form of Communism than Capitalism.WrongSprite said:
Or at least it's a progression from a Communist state to a more Capitalist one, necessary considering the development of that nation. Seems much like the development of Capitalist states to more Socialist ones over the past century. Ever been to Finland? Hmm, seems like they both tend towards one really good idea of combining the two into an amalgam of what works from both!
I'd rather meet somewhere in the middle, possibly closer to the left than the right. In anycase, I can't say which is better. I'm no political analyst!
[sub]This belongs in the Religion & Politics forum... Also "no vs threads please".[/sub]
[sub]This belongs in the Religion & Politics forum... Also "no vs threads please".[/sub]
And Finland is known for...what, exactly? Nothing besides being a nice place to live. Which is all well and good, but being competitive and simply being "good" are grossly different things.Velvo said:Yes, I have read treatises on Communism and Capitalism. No, I've never been to China. Yes, I realize I can't say from direct experience what China exactly is. I have been led to believe that China is a state in which the government has the final word on all business matters but leaves it up to others to determine what business actually goes on. If I'm wrong on that, please educate me upon the finer points of Chinese economic policy. To me though, my description seems more like a form of Communism than Capitalism.WrongSprite said:
Or at least it's a progression from a Communist state to a more Capitalist one, necessary considering the development of that nation. Seems much like the development of Capitalist states to more Socialist ones over the past century. Ever been to Finland? Hmm, seems like they both tend towards one really good idea of combining the two into an amalgam of what works from both!
Since you seem to be "in the know" about Chinese communism, how exactly does it work there? Because I thoughtVelvo said:
was exactly what communism meant.