Communism vs. Capitalism, which is really better?
- Thread starter Dorkamongus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The deal with communism is not "Hey, get everything for free!" it is "Contribute what you can and you will have what you need.". The important thing to realize is that communism is suggesting that the individual should join the collective not because of some abstract idea about how the collective is better then the individual, but because the individual will benefit directly fom joining the collective.spartan231490 said:
The idea is no different then joining a labor union, joining a gaming clan or a sportsclub. You get more influence and can accomplish more if everyone works together against a common goal. In a communistic society you are expected to work as well as you can and in return you will be given the things you need to survive (and hopefully prosper and live a good life). At its' very core the communistic system is meant to be beneficial to everyone in the workforce as individuals.
This whole "You must become a drone and not be an individual" is a twisted view of communism that came into being during the cold war to smear the Soviet Union and scare the US and Europe away from communism. Because what it breaks down to is that the average workers are the ones who will benefit from a communistic system as they'll be seeing a redistribution of wealth from the ultrarich down to everyone else. And that wealth is not insignificant. What communism needs however is a fully industrialized society or post-industrial society, because it relies so heavily on productivity.
I disagree. I am saying that they very system which guarantees you the same wealth as everyone else, regardless of input to the society, inherently degrades individual value, and leads to a dull, gray, monotonous existence, instead of a dynamic, vibrant life of achievement.Gethsemani said:
It basically depends on what you value more. Do you value equality, collectivism and security, or do you value personal freedom, individualism and ambition?
I know I'm boiling it down to really simplistic ideals here, and not even scratching the many different variants of Socialism/Communism/Capitalism/Free-Market Systems that come to mind, but since I basically figure you're comparing Command Economies and State Ownership to Free Enterprise and Market Economies, that's basically how I think about it. The only thing that really makes one system superior to another is how closely it aligns to your values; what people consider a 'failed system' is going to totally differ depending on what they consider ideal.
I know I'm boiling it down to really simplistic ideals here, and not even scratching the many different variants of Socialism/Communism/Capitalism/Free-Market Systems that come to mind, but since I basically figure you're comparing Command Economies and State Ownership to Free Enterprise and Market Economies, that's basically how I think about it. The only thing that really makes one system superior to another is how closely it aligns to your values; what people consider a 'failed system' is going to totally differ depending on what they consider ideal.
See, I am kind of at a loss here at your statement. Are you saying that unless I can strive to become succesful and rise up to the challenge, my life would be dull? If so, that's a very strange way to measure life quality.spartan231490 said:
Being succesful (or getting rich) is one measure of life quality, certainly. But it is not the only one. Remember that old slogan "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? For all it is worth, that is exactly what communism wants. In a true communism your life quality isn't measured by how far up the corporate ladder you get or how much money you can pile up. It is measured by how happy you are with your life.
If anything, the communistic system reinforces individual value when compared to the capitalistic system where the majority of people must inevitably be a part of the workforce with little say about how or what to produce. The Capitalistic system surely strenghtens the individual value of the succesful, but for everyone else (the overwhelming majority) it reduces them to little more then disposable assets for those that run the companies the workforce is employed with
Because our education is just so totally way better than theirs, right? I mean, we'd NEVER attempt to indoctrinate children. It's not like we're always teaching them to submit to a higher authority and then putting consequences in case they don't, right? It's not like you're being told from the moment you're born that unless you listen to the government your life will be ruined. We'd never dare force people into the educational system and tell them that unless they submit to the teachers authority and do as they say you'll end up being a dead beat. And we sure as hell do not encourage adults to go to college because unless you've got a diploma and a huge debt you won't be able to get a job. And hell, in the end, at least the government doesn't use lies and propaganda to get popular support for their decisions instead of, you know, letting the people decide for themselves.ravenshrike said:
Yep.
The problem with USSR communism was lack of competition (or the feeling that you are getting more for doing more and better; the struggle to do it better than something else you can compare to; it existed, but not globally or in average person's life), which led to loss of motivation, which led to decline of quality, which affected motivation (morale).
Therefore it's an Utopian BS story. What we really need is just switching the economy to resource-based. So that you can provide a specific resource (labor, product, whatever) and get the resources to sustain you and your work in return. It's complicated to quantize the resource unit, nor do I know specifics, but this is what would keep the competition inside and excessive accumulation of resources - outside.
The biggest problem with it is the details of implementation. The fact capitalism is what seems to work at all is also a huge BUT. If it wasn't something that works, we wouldn't be here, so I'm questioning the need of anything else... as it would probably fit only a subset of all possible human personalities.
Therefore it's an Utopian BS story. What we really need is just switching the economy to resource-based. So that you can provide a specific resource (labor, product, whatever) and get the resources to sustain you and your work in return. It's complicated to quantize the resource unit, nor do I know specifics, but this is what would keep the competition inside and excessive accumulation of resources - outside.
The biggest problem with it is the details of implementation. The fact capitalism is what seems to work at all is also a huge BUT. If it wasn't something that works, we wouldn't be here, so I'm questioning the need of anything else... as it would probably fit only a subset of all possible human personalities.
Simply put (Mostly because Im lazy and don't want to take the time to explain the whole idea) neither idea is inherently "better" than the other. Both have flaws and merits, but the person who executes it really decides whether or not the idea works. Communism could be a flourishing system in Russia at this very moment if corruption had not bled the country dry and forced it too abandon communism. Likewise, the United States has had some rocky economical ground lately and I have heard speculation that it will get worse. Capitalism has lasted longer because it doesn't hinge on people being "good" and willing sharing their belongings with their neighbor. Capitalism knows that people are selfish pigs and will climb over pregnant women and elderly ladies to get their greedy hands on money. Thus the system flourishes for now as it is founded on the ideals of greed and selfishness. Before I wrap this up I should say that I am for capitalism as it is a realistic form of economical management. In other words, greed works.
In theory? Communism.
In practice? Capitalism.
The basic most problem is that people like to be called on and counted. There's a fundamental need for occupations like doctors, engineers, and lawyers to be well paid- the jobs are highly technical and demand a great deal of effort.
And on a broader scale? Money driving the economy works a hell of a lot better than the will of the people. Communism put man in space. Capitalism landed him on the moon.
In practice? Capitalism.
The basic most problem is that people like to be called on and counted. There's a fundamental need for occupations like doctors, engineers, and lawyers to be well paid- the jobs are highly technical and demand a great deal of effort.
And on a broader scale? Money driving the economy works a hell of a lot better than the will of the people. Communism put man in space. Capitalism landed him on the moon.
Humanity is the essential flaw to both. The reason why capitalism is "Better" Is also essentially the same reason "Democracy" is considered the "Best". They are the best only in the sense that both are better than the other alternatives. Essentially its a choice between Bad, worse, and horrible. You go with the least bad.
I hate how people say (about anything really) that "it works in theory". No. Something that doesn't work in practice also does not work in theory. If it does, the the theory is wrong and should be discarded. And since you are claiming is does not work, without implementing the idea, you prove that it in fact, does not work in theory either.
Its not an either/or question, ideally you want a mixed economy. Very few countries in the world actually practice out and out unrestrained capitalism.
True, and communism would be better except for one problem...Dorkamongus said:
People are dicks.
When Stalin controlled the Soviet Union, he had the people live in an almost communist manner, except that anyone who didn't agree to the tiniest thing about Stalin died horribly, and if Stalin was in the mood, publicly.
You could consider him as a Communist Dictator.
Personally, I don't know why we were/are scared of communists either, but my guess is that we believed/believe that with communism comes dictatorship, and with dictatorship comes no free will, and that's horrible.
Capitalism. A big problem with communism is that it centralizes power too much, and as good old Plato said "All power corrupts". Also when speaking about communism it is important to make the distinction between Marx version and say for example Leninism and Stalinism.
Well, seeing as how in every sci-fi movie, every society is communistic. Yeah.
But really, there has to be a balance between them. I'm a big leftie myself, but even I understand that somewhere in the middle is the best choice.
Edit : And yeah, what the other guy said. People are dicks.
But really, there has to be a balance between them. I'm a big leftie myself, but even I understand that somewhere in the middle is the best choice.
Edit : And yeah, what the other guy said. People are dicks.