Communism vs. Capitalism, which is really better?

[CrystalShadow]

Uh, there's one massive flaw in these discussions:

Communism is a political system (eg. a form of government)

Capitalism is an economic theory (eg. A way to distribute wealth)

Granted, Communism draws it's inspiration from economic and social theories written by Carl Marx, but fundamentally it is like comparing apples and oranges.

Want proof?

China. - China, in a practical sense, is a capitalist communist country.

If they were really opposites, that would be impossible by definition.


The trouble with economic theory, is that we simply don't have any real alternatives to Capitalism.

Communist countries tend to go with a 'control economy', but that rarely works.

It's based on the idea of a central authority deciding what should be produced, but there doesn't seem to be anyone capable of working that out effectively.

Capitalism meanwhile, for all it's faults, is largely self-regulating. Barring certain issues of fairness and short-term stability, a capitalist economy is capable of sorting itself out without any central planning.

That' the main reason why it's successful at all.

 

[John the Gamer]

Hive-mind societies are better. (unification works too)

But I'd go for capitalism in this case. just not OUR type. It needs to change. Economic crisis are not fun.

 

[CrystalShadow]

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.

Yeah, what they really mean is "It sounds good in theory".

That is, not that it would actually work, but that intuitively (without considering the implications) it seems like a good idea.

 

[Ledan]

In Theory: Communism

In Practice: Capitalism

Communism is unattainable due to the simple fact that if you give a human power at some point they WILL abuse it. There's no getting around it.
*Snip*

Wait!
What about Nelson Mandela? He didn't abuse his power when he got it.
Did George Washington? He could have become absolute monarch of America....

 

[Terrorist_school_drop-out]

Look, I live in an ex-comunist state(Romania), country which is now a corrupt and failing democracy, so yey for me. While I myself haven't lived in the former period my parents sure as shit have and so has every 30-something adult and the ghost of that period still lives strong in the general mentality. So let's just make this clear: COMUNISM DOESN'T WORK. It is, simply put, an absolute lie. No, it doesn't work on paper either, at all. For all intents and purposes it's just another totalitarian system, one in which the general populace is lied to and told that they're all equall.
Another thing I want to make clear is that ALL PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUALL. This, to me, is just fucking stupid. How can you supose that a PhD physicist is at the same level of socyetal worth as a street cleaner. Or an army general is at the same level as a mall cop. And before you jump into my ear and say I'm an elitist or something, let me just ask you the phrase "upwards movement" means anything to you?
All in all, without wanting to insult anyone, let me just say that if you belive comunism is a good ideea then you are gullible as fuck and clearly haven't seen what comunism is really about.

 

[UberNoodle]

Being controlled by government and knowing it, versus, being controlled by corporations and not knowing it.

Hmmm ... tough choice.

 

[UberNoodle]

Look, I live in an ex-comunist state(Romania), country which is now a corrupt and failing democracy, so yey for me. While I myself haven't lived in the former period my parents sure as shit have and so has every 30-something adult and the ghost of that period still lives strong in the general mentality. So let's just make this clear: COMUNISM DOESN'T WORK. It is, simply put, an absolute lie. No, it doesn't work on paper either, at all. For all intents and purposes it's just another totalitarian system, one in which the general populace is lied to and told that they're all equall.
Another thing I want to make clear is that ALL PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUALL. This, to me, is just fucking stupid. How can you supose that a PhD physicist is at the same level of socyetal worth as a street cleaner. Or an army general is at the same level as a mall cop. And before you jump into my ear and say I'm an elitist or something, let me just ask you the phrase "upwards movement" means anything to you?
All in all, without wanting to insult anyone, let me just say that if you belive comunism is a good ideea then you are gullible as fuck and clearly haven't seen what comunism is really about.

Maybe you are missing the premise that the matter of 'equality' is based on. It isn't that those people are equal in skill, worth or social value. It is that they should be equal in the sense of them all being 'communal'. Sure, communism is definately broken, and inequality runs rampant within it. However, the premise that drove its development was not nonsensical idea you are upset about. A PHD physicist would use his or her value to support society, aka the 'commune', as would a plumber, a bricklayer, a shopkeeper or a general. It's 'fucking stupid' because, perhaps, you are misinterpreting it. Though, I say again, when contorted into a political system, it doesn't work.

{EDIT - Capitalism has the fate of converting the Democracy that supports it to a harmful and exploitative Corporatocrasy. On either end of the scale, we have the exploitation, of a kind, of the citizens by corrupt institutions. On one side, the people are kept in check by fear and isolationalism. On the other, by fear also, but much differently, rabid consumerism, disconnection and greed.}

 

[Woodsey]

Can't really be arsed to get involved in this, but I'll just point out that Capitalism is an economic system, not a political structure.

And God has nothing to do with Capitalism, that's just an American thing.

 

[AwesomePeanutz]

Cuba seems to be doing quite well with the whole Communist thing. Yeah they're hardly the richest country in the world BUT and this a massive but, they have the best healthcare in the entire world which is free and more importantly a lot of the people there seem genuinely happy.

Cuba can only sustain themselves because they get aid from the outside world. Sure, it has the best healthcare in the world, Communist/Socialist states tend to...

But economically, Cuba is pretty much unable to sustain itself in the first place. Therefore, if it did not get supplies and aid from outside sources, it wouldn't be able to supply any sort of aid to their people.

 

[Vryyk]

-snip-

I'd say Capitalism is better just based off of it's track record. I really like the idea of Communism, it would be nice to see everyone getting along and being happy. Unfortunately, greed is essentially bound to human nature, and greed is a huge goddamn monkey wrench in the works for Communism.

Capitalism requires greed to function on the other hand, so it works quite well in practice. Luckily, there are still many decent, generous people who get rich, so a lot of that money still gets shared around. Celebrities and businessmen, whatever their motivations, are the number one benefactors of charity.

 

[Ericb]

In Theory: Communism

In Practice: Capitalism

Communism is unattainable due to the simple fact that if you give a human power at some point they WILL abuse it. There's no getting around it.
*Snip*

Wait!
What about Nelson Mandela? He didn't abuse his power when he got it.
Did George Washington? He could have become absolute monarch of America....

Yes, wouldn't Humanity be a lot nicer if these kind of people were the rule instead of the exception?

Uh, there's one massive flaw in these discussions:

Communism is a political system (eg. a form of government)

Capitalism is an economic theory (eg. A way to distribute wealth)

Granted, Communism draws it's inspiration from economic and social theories written by Carl Marx, but fundamentally it is like comparing apples and oranges.

Want proof?

China. - China, in a practical sense, is a capitalist communist country.

If they were really opposites, that would be impossible by definition.

This clarification is sorely needed in this type of discussions.

North Americans have been culturally poisoned by the McCarthyism to the point of the mere word "Communism" rings Stalin's voice singing URSS anthem in their ears.

 

[Sun Flash]

Communism is good for small communities with little to give or receive from the rest of the world.
Capitalism works better in situations like now, with huge nation states as it offers more freedom and is more constructive to the person as a singular, in terms of personal goals and general "advancement"

Personally, I like a mix, Capitalist economy, but more socialist/communist welfare and government.

I don't know if that makes sense but meh. *shrug*

 

[Vryyk]

In Theory: Communism

In Practice: Capitalism

Communism is unattainable due to the simple fact that if you give a human power at some point they WILL abuse it. There's no getting around it.
*Snip*

Wait!
What about Nelson Mandela? He didn't abuse his power when he got it.
Did George Washington? He could have become absolute monarch of America....

The problem with vesting all power in one person is that they will, a good leader or not, eventually die. And somewhere along the line, one of those men will drive a country to hell.

Rome fell into a slow decline after it became an empire, but the impact of this was lessened because the Senate (a body of the people) still had quite substantial power. Spreading out power keeps leaders at each others throats, which keeps corruption down quite substantially and obviates the inherent risks of making one bloodline fully sovereign.

 

[UberNoodle]

Uh, there's one massive flaw in these discussions:

Communism is a political system (eg. a form of government)

Capitalism is an economic theory (eg. A way to distribute wealth)

Granted, Communism draws it's inspiration from economic and social theories written by Carl Marx, but fundamentally it is like comparing apples and oranges.

Want proof?

China. - China, in a practical sense, is a capitalist communist country.

If they were really opposites, that would be impossible by definition.


The trouble with economic theory, is that we simply don't have any real alternatives to Capitalism.

Communist countries tend to go with a 'control economy', but that rarely works.

It's based on the idea of a central authority deciding what should be produced, but there doesn't seem to be anyone capable of working that out effectively.

Capitalism meanwhile, for all it's faults, is largely self-regulating. Barring certain issues of fairness and short-term stability, a capitalist economy is capable of sorting itself out without any central planning.

That' the main reason why it's successful at all.

What do you think of the Venus Project. Sure it's way out there, but the premise is interesting - the removal of scarcity as a means for defining value. It is estimated that all the people of the world today could have enough resources to live with only a globally distributed 1.5 global hectares per person to supply it. In reality, the average American uses around 15 global hectares per person. Actually, most of that is wasted. The core idea of those quacks at VP is not so crazy - build a society that doesn't run on debt and scarcity and which instead runs on each individuals input to the growth of that society. On top of that, the society uses resources responsibly and renewably, in an attempt to remove the pressure of scarcity. I'm no advocate for their actual plan, however, when you say that "no other system works", really what your saying is that nobody is prepared to learn and adjust to another system. Inuit language wouldn't work for me as a system for communication, because it's entirely alien to my instinct, what I know. If I learnt it, perhaps that could change. But I'm taking the dicussion to the hypothetical. It would take the utter destruction of Capitalism and all memory of it, to allow any other system to supplant it.

 

[Spaceparanoid42]

Can't really be arsed to get involved in this, but I'll just point out that Capitalism is an economic system, not a political structure.

Communism is also an economic system and not a political structure.

I'd say neither are the way to go. Both systems are heavily flawed. Capitalism puts the needs and rights of big business before the needs and rights of people, and communism takes human motivation and aspiration out of the equation. Both are extremes on the opposite side of the spectrum when it comes to running an economy. Extremism on either side doesn't work.

I vote for something in between, something that takes the best bits of both and strikes a balance between them. Most European countries seem to have this sort of thing, or at least be close. I would say my vote would be for Democratic Socialism, like what Great Britain has.

 

[Ph33nix]

capitalism is far superior because people only do things that will benefit themselves and even if it has a few downs they are better than communism continuous downs were everyone's quality of living goes down as time goes on. Also the reason we Americans hate communism so much is because they pointed nukes at us and threatened to use them every two or three years for 50 odd years and it was down right terrifying for people who lived during the cold war.

 

[Woodsey]

Can't really be arsed to get involved in this, but I'll just point out that Capitalism is an economic system, not a political structure.

Communism is also an economic system and not a political structure.

I'd say neither are the way to go. Both systems are heavily flawed. Capitalism puts the needs and rights of big business before the needs and rights of people, and communism takes human motivation and aspiration out of the equation. Both are extremes on the opposite side of the spectrum when it comes to running an economy. Extremism on either side doesn't work.

I vote for something in between, something that takes the best bits of both and strikes a balance between them. Most European countries seem to have this sort of thing, or at least be close. I would say my vote would be for Democratic Socialism, like what Great Britain has.

No, communism encompasses an economic system, but it is also a political one.

That's why we stick it on a political spectrum, and not capitalism.

 

[Jonci]

In a village, communism would work. In a country, capitalism is necessary. Both can fail to greed, but Capitalism gives a system that can moniter and change much faster.

 

[kiljoy712]

In theory, communism is paradise. In practice, human nature fucks it over. Capitalism is the closest we can get, with everyone being equal in the sense that we all have equal opportunity that just depends on how hard we work and all that fun.