Communism vs. Capitalism, which is really better?

[MikeOfThunder]

Since I never grew up in the Cold War, I've never really got why our (USA) country is so paranoid about Communism.

During the Cold War you had McCarthyism and the Red Scare in the United States, but you also had the Anti-Cosmopolitan searches in the Soviet Union. Both superpowers had their fears over the enemies ideology infiltrating their society.

I believe that Capital Socialism (Not Communism, but national medical care, education etc.) is the best of all worlds. Granted, much like everything you can find it's flaws however it gives everyone a basic set of rights and the ability to achieve great feats if one is lucky and prepared to work.

After all, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea... All these places had communism and they all had rampent poverty, the wealth remained unshared.

 

[Cypher10110]

Since I never grew up in the Cold War, I've never really got why our (USA) country is so paranoid about Communism. I mean, if you look at it, Communism is, theoretically, better. It's built around true equality for all humans. Every man, woman, and child is given what they need and some of what they want and any contrubution they make is for the "greater good". There's no need for money, since all needs are met. Granted, the whole idea of Communism falls down when put into practice, but the entirety of the blame seems to fall on the shoulders of the leaders, not the government itself.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is better in practice, but flawed theoretically. It is based essentially around greed. Money is the central pillar, the Bible, and God all wrapped into one package. If people need or want something, they get money (somehow) and buy it. In order to get money, they get jobs. To get the better jobs, They need education. To get that education, they need money. So, to get that money, they need to compete with other people for the lower level jobs. From what I can tell, Capitalism is essentially "survival of the smartest, fittest, most appealing, and most well connected."

So, which do you think is better, and why? Please put down your reason for saying so, and feel free to tear apart this OP for your counter arguements if you wish. I'm mainly just curious as to what other people think.

The problem with communism is it's execution, as far as I know in most places in the world culminated in totalitarianism regimes and/or civil strife. It was no better or worse, there were simply different problems to deal with. The key in any society or civilisation is to make life BETTER.

So "old idea 1" vs "old idea 2" is a bit of a close-minded argument.

If you would like to understand a more modern world view that is based exclusively on scientific principles I'd suggest watching the film:
"ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&feature=feedf

It's available free to watch on YouTube, and basically shows how the global economy has it's priorities all wrong, and what SHOULD be making the world a BETTER place is actually CAUSING the problems politicians claim they try to solve.

In engineering/mathematics there is something called the systems approach, it's a top-down holistic approach to problems. In the film it uses a systems method to explain an "ideal" situation. The next step would be to ask: "How can we get from *here* to *there* ?"

I don't feel I'm a "crack pot" for believing the world needs to change.

I'm and atheist, an engineer, and I've got a creative side, I don't believe in conspiracy theories, I'm a critical thinker, and I spend most of my time "wasting" time. I do what I enjoy doing, I seek fulfilment in what I am able to do, but alot of my life just feels hollow.

For me the film was a wakeup call. I don't care if I don't get a great job and earn money, because fulfilment has nothing to do with money. I care that I can survive and live a physically and psychologically healthy life, with enough time to pursue my writing, my drawing, and maybe someday create something beautiful.

This might seem incredibly out-of-context if you haven't watched the film. Politics of a county and the state of a civilisation as a whole are but 1 small step away from each other, and after watching that film it's difficult for me to think of them as separate any-more.

The idea of a "fixed" world is a utopian ideal for a problem-solver like myself, but I feel it's a dream worth chasing. Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, these things are stepping just stones to the advancement of mankind. It's time to move on.

TLDR; Watched a film, blew my mind; the global economy is broken, the world cannot sustain itself like this, a change needs to come, why not make the change for the better? Communism was thought to be a good idea because in part it was, capitalism was thought to be a good idea because in part it was, it's time for new ideas.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Communism is doomed to failure because of Capitalism. (Capitalism supplies greed)
Capitalism is doomed to failure because of Communism. (Greed requires a working class to be above)

If you would like to understand a more modern world view that is based exclusively on scientific principles I'd suggest watching the film:
"ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&feature=feedf

Equally I would warn against Zeitgeist because it makes some astonishingly ill-informed opinions, under the cover of being "The Truth". It's much loved by conspiracy nuts and most of the information within has been well known for at least my lifetime.

It's an interesting start, but on NO account take it as the "Truth".

 

[Baron Von Evil Satan]

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 Washington could have become a monarch, but chose not to because he remembered what rule was like under the British. Hell, he didn't even want to be president. However, if Washington did become a monarch then at some point even he would abuse his power. Control over people does that. That is partly why slavery was such a terrible institution.

 

[Shycte]

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

Ayn Rand is disgusting.

She isn't the prettiest of woman of all, I'll give you that.

Anyway, Communism as defined my Marx isn't the same as Leninism and Stalinism. Marxism is more like John Lennon Imagine. Capitalism is more fair in my opinion though.

All men are born free, intellegent and with free will. Don't see the point in trying to take that away.

 

[LostintheWick]

We all like the intentions behind the idea of Communism.
But to get the lives we all like to live, we use capitalism. Great system for a while, but if left without any kind of "checks and balances", the power/money will inevitably polarize and produces entities like Monsanto.

The system should balance itself out in theory. Just sucks for the folks who have to live during the transitioning. We aren't there yet but it's coming.

I say we go for a modified Capitalism. Capitalism with the intention and desire to live together and make life better for EVERYONE as equals.

 

[sgtshock]

Capitalism. History has yet to provide a single example of a successful communist country. I'm pretty sure no one tried to escape into communist East Germany from capitalist West Germany during the Cold War.

 

[jomala]

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 Washington could have become a monarch, but chose not to because he remembered what rule was like under the British. Hell, he didn't even want to be president. However, if Washington did become a monarch then at some point even he would abuse his power. Control over people does that. That is partly why slavery was such a terrible institution.

As I understand it, Mandela was a good "socialist" when in power, and an amazing figure, but he did not introduce anything resembling communism, despite it being part of the ANC doctrine before power. The SA constitution is very similar to Europe/NA. The main issue is the lack of effective opposition.

 

[Flying Dagger]

as a politics undergraduate, who is trying to procrastinate an essay on communism, I can only declare that this thread is neither helping me do so, or worthy of a reply.
The issues that were at play during the soviet era were so much more complex than how people here understand them.

I would explain, but the reason I'm on this site is to AVOID writing that essay.
but here, do yourself a favour and had a little read of [link]this[/link]

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

The best would be a combination of capitalism and socialism so that both the rich and the poor benefit. The big businesses bring money to the government and the government use that money to invest in big business and better the country while the poor work for the big businesses so that the government can have money to spend on bettering the country and providing national healthcare and education. That way the money goes keeps flowing through.

That's the idea anyway, the practise may be different.

The biggest problem with communism is that the people at the top usually end up corrupt. The problem with capitalism is that the poor feel like they have been forgotten and are alienated. Look at Cuba, it has the some of best healthcare of all the Americas. It has a higher life expectancy than a lot of countries but doesn't exactly have everyone living in luxury. The USA has people who can't afford some healthcare treatments but has most living in luxury.

By that logic I would value Communism better than capitalism. However, capitalist policies and practises are needed to provide a country with money so that the people can be taken care of equally with welfare.

 

[jomala]

We all like the intentions behind the idea of Communism.
But to get the lives we all like to live, we use capitalism. Great system for a while, but if left without any kind of "checks and balances", the power/money will inevitably polarize and produces entities like Monsanto.

The system should balance itself out in theory. Just sucks for the folks who have to live during the transitioning. We aren't there yet but it's coming.

I say we go for a modified Capitalism. Capitalism with the intention and desire to live together and make life better for EVERYONE as equals.

I'm surprised that (as far as I know) no one has tried "free market communism" (my term): allowing a free market in goods and services and the accumulation of savings, but not the control of enterprises through capital. I think a lot of the iniquities come not from the different earning potentials of people, or their inheritances, but the power they can wield beyond simple purchasing power.

Can anyone correct me here? Someone who's meant to be writing an essay? Suggestions as to why it would be more difficult than other systems?

 

[spazzattack]

Meh, I would prefer a Benevolent Dictatorship, but too much power to one guy gets them in over their heads.

I agree.

 

[Quiet Stranger]

As my friends say "Communism is good on paper but it always has a corrupt leader"

 

[Aedrial]

Capitalism is better for one simple reason: It has a goal.
In Communism everyone goes around being equal, and as a result they don't work towards anything.
In Capitalism the goal is to own the universe.

They work for the GREATER GOOD. =P

 

[Merkavar]

both of those systems are bad cause they are too extreme. one on each end of the spectrum.

 

[Blaster395]

Capitalism promotes competition between buisnesses, its why every year we have faster computers, better gadgets, and faster vehicles.
In communism, you don't profit from making a better computer, so society just stops all technological progress.

 

[Johann610]

The problems I have with Communism are fivefold:
The switch TO Communism COSTS LIVES--in USSR, the total was in the MILLIONS.
The central planning model of Communism ensures that bureaucrats run everything, and because bureaucrats who only work for other bureaucrats tend to work only to follow their orders, the economy will eternally be a mess (see also, glass panes so thin they shatter when shipped anywhere)
The idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" means no one gets to keep what they make; some will be taken away when they choose to work.
People can choose NOT to work, if they feel they gain nothing from it (see also, USSR dependence on grain imports in the 70s and 80s vs. export now).
Total control of economy OR politics by a "Communist Party" ensures the kind of dictatorship that I find appalling and unnecessary (see also, censorship, Siberia, China's struggles with Google).

Capitalism has only one flaw:
Those who are poor tend to stay poor.

Communism's historic problem:
Those who are poor tend to stay poor.

 

[WhatIsThisIDontEven]

Capitalism is better for one simple reason: It has a goal.
In Communism everyone goes around being equal, and as a result they don't work towards anything.
In Capitalism the goal is to own the universe.

Aaaaaactually, capitalism doesn't set economic goals, while socialism/communism asks what they want the economy to accomplish.

Source: economics class

 

[Serenegoose]

I'd propose an amalgamation of the two systems. I believe everyone, from the richest to the poorest is entitled to a standard of living that constantly changes according to the ability of the country. This should account for things that any country ought to be able to provide for everyone - food, education, healthcare - but it should also encompass items that, despite having 'luxury' status aren't too tough to provide. Ability to receive internet access being an example. I think that any capitalism ought to be regulated and watched at all times, and that 'corporate interests' should be regarded at all times as secondary to human interests. I think that it is also in the best interests of everyone to ensure that a 'living wage' does not mean that you can live off it if you have another two jobs and still will only be able to meet rent, but will actually ensure the recipient can access a reasonable standard of living, with the aim always to be improving what the 'minimum' standard of living is. I think that income taxes should be enforced widely, because there's simply nobody alive that needs four yachts, and that wasted money could be better used elsewhere. There's having an opulent standard of living and then there's just being silly, honestly.

I'll admit I dislike capitalism, but I'm not naive enough to believe that with human society the way it is, communism will work. Maybe in the future, not right now.