Poll: Capitalism or Communism?

[alrekr]

I've heard enough horror stories from my dad (He lived in Communist Armenia back in the day.) to learn that that system cannot work.

Well I've heard enough Capitalist Africa stories to see that the system cannot work...

Armenia wasn't communist. No one on here seems to understand the correct use of the word. Go look up Karl Marx and read through his political and economic works. Stalinism is not the same as communism or Leninism or Marxism!

 

[Frost27]

Socialism. In other words, i choose neither.

 

[Frost27]

Socialism. In other words, i choose neither.

 

[Johnny Impact]

In heaven, the angels follow the ideal of communism. (From each, to each)
In hell, the demons follow the reality of communism. (From all, to whomever is in charge)
On earth, we make do with capitalism.

I don't believe in heaven or hell but this is a fabulous way to sum it up. I take it you're quoting someone?

The insurmountable fallacy of socialism is the assumption of the nonexistence of greed, callousness, and sloth. Capitalism's irredeemable flaw is it makes virtues of greed and callousness.

Philosophical ideals are pretty on paper but they get messed up as soon as humans involve themselves. Until all humans are perfect (read: never), there can be no perfect system.

Given the choice, I'll take capitalism. At least that way I get to keep some of what I earn.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Communism works. In theory.

Capitalism works. In theory.

Both are shitty in reality, but Communism sounds better on paper.

In a nutshell.

Democratic socialism is like a middle ground. Just ask the Scandinavians. They live in real democratic socialist countries and they're the richest and most developed (culturally) countries in the world. They actually have internet as human right in Sweden! How awesome is that?

Actually, they don't. They have no corporate income tax, a downright regressive income tax (Working and middle class wages are stable over time. The wealthy's are not owing to multiple fluctuating income streams. With the huge income stream and planning needed to administer a welfare state, it falls to the regular working stiffs to pay their own way) less regulation than we have here in the states and the highest national average scores on the individualism index.

Back in the 1850s Sweden was a barely developed peasant state before they embraced capitalism and then they embraced it with a zeal and fervor rarely seen and they developed rapidly. In the seventies and eighties a large tide of social democrat sentiment swept the country and when the economy slowed down in the nineties, they threw them out of office and it shows. Currently, they're privatizing the fuck out of their healthcare system (with 25% of clinics and emergency facilities privately owned because, surprise surprise, the government is not the most efficient service provider.)

Even in their last parliamentary election, the socialists ran on the platform of throwing out the recent market liberalization reforms that were put in place. They got spanked.

And when the Liberalists ran on the platform of throwing out the -notsorecent- socialist universal healthcare adn free schooling that the Socialists put in place. They got spanked. Hence,a mix. Just as he said.

I can only speak from my experience and everything that the right has privatize have started to be completely shit.

one example is our trains which you are lucky if they do not break down once a day. (My mother often have to wait 1-4hours for them to work again, and people comes in somewhere between 08.00-12.00 for work since the trains will not work)

There are huge scandals about private healtcare for elder people (they buy food for 7 people when they need to feed 10 people)they havent got enought diapers since they cannot spend more then 9kr a day (around 1.3$) while the owner of Camera earns half a billion kr


[Source in Swedish]
DN [http://www.dn.se/sthlm/anstallda-uppmanas-tavla-i-att-spara-pengar]
DN2 [http://www.dn.se/sthlm/jag-forstar-inte-hur-personalen-orkar]


Source in English
"Care home turned cost cutting 'into a game'" [http://www.thelocal.se/38086/20111222/]
"Carema admits flaws in patient's starvation death" [http://www.thelocal.se/37714/20111203/]
"Care home staff weigh diapers to save money" [http://www.thelocal.se/37292/20111111/]
"'Secret' bonus scheme at nursing homes revealed" [http://www.thelocal.se/37192/20111106/]
"Man with dementia left to die in front of TV" [http://www.thelocal.se/37326/20111113/]



And the support for the Social democrats is rising again.

I see you use examples from a website correctly named 'local' this is not national news, and far from international. Theese are 'single' cases. Bad apples if you will. Your mother doesnt remember when the trains go on time, because it aint special. She remembers when they come late, and in the end. She 'only' remembers them comming late. Its Phsycology 101 stuff. Human brain dismisses uninterresting repetetive things. Which is sometimes why you forget shit when you go to the store. 'Man with Dementia left to die' (1 case) CArema admitsflaws in patient (1)'s death. Thats two cases of death. Two cases of care home doing some stupid shit. And 'one' nursing home. Sure you might be able to find about ten, maybe twenty. OF those cases in the last ten years, but in Sweeden we have hundreds. Heck, maybe over a thousand of theese things. Its 'not' the majority.

Now im not trying to support privatised businesses, youknow who's fault it is for using them? Not the states, they made better facillities available. Its the families who paid for them thinking 'Less expensive = Worse'

Except the private business is employed by the government not the families.

And the local is news about whole Sweden, they produce news for people that do not speak Swedish and live in Sweden. And DN stands for Dagens nyheter[Daily News] which is the biggest newspaper in Sweden (as far as I know)

About the trains:

She is about 20mins late perhaps 3/5 days in the week.

I used the trains for a couple of months and in the morning it was ok, but when I tried to get home there was always "signalfel" or something else which ment that the train was delayed.

And our government is going to do a study if there is better to use private or government owned, and I look forward seeing it being published.

As I stated this is a completely personal experience I have no proof that government run is better but from what I've seen it doesn't seem to work that great since using the trains more expensive now and it works perhaps 90% of the time

I think im missing your point, but to me it seems that you are contradicting yourself.

"I have no proof that goverment run is better (Suggesting its better) But from what I've seen (You've seen it without having proof?) It doesn't seem to work that great (Suggesting its worse) Im just a bit confused to what message you want to bring across to me, are you for or against privatized public transportation?

 

[Lazy Kitty]

A healthy mix between the two.

 

[A.A.K]

- snip -

Yea sorry you feel so strongly on the matter.
I lived in Cuba for a couple of months and loved it.
The history, the people, the government, left me alone and I didn't care. I enjoyed it. Hence my opinion. I'm well aware Cuba's got a shit reputation and bad things happen, but they didn't seem to get in my way or bother me.

As for capitolism, I don't like any system where you can buy power.

 

[spartan231490]

Communism fails. That's just the way it works. Truthfully, I don't understand how anyone can think it would work. It's based on the principle that your work is not worth anything, and on the principle that you can get something for nothing. Two obvious inaccuracies. Further, the only logical result of communism is a radical decrease in productivity, and an ever increasing chance of shortages.

Capitalism may have it's flaws, but it's no where near as bad as communism.

i dont think you quite understand it, Marx thaught that the workers were not being paid for all the houers of work they put into the thing they were making, they would get paid for 4 houers of work when in fact they had put in 8 houers of work, so your work is woth something but more than your boss pays you. And the idea that you would get something for nothing is not in marxisme either, it says in one of the text where marx is defending communisme that the property of the richest 1/10th of the population would be tazed heavily to the advantage of the other 9/10ths of the population, because they had nothing compared to the richest 1/10th. so getting the money to equalize the riches of the people would come from the rich to the poor, so that everyone had equal property for the good of most of the population.
his theory was formed in Europa during the industrialization, were things were very very bad for the poor and very very good for the rich.
by the way i am sorry if i misspelled anything. happy hollydays^^

If everyone has equal property, regardless of what they do or do not do, then you are essentially saying that the only thing that you are being paid for is the fact that you exist. Therefore, your work is not worth anything, and you are being given something for nothing.

 

[MrTub]

Communism works. In theory.

Capitalism works. In theory.

Both are shitty in reality, but Communism sounds better on paper.

In a nutshell.

Democratic socialism is like a middle ground. Just ask the Scandinavians. They live in real democratic socialist countries and they're the richest and most developed (culturally) countries in the world. They actually have internet as human right in Sweden! How awesome is that?

Actually, they don't. They have no corporate income tax, a downright regressive income tax (Working and middle class wages are stable over time. The wealthy's are not owing to multiple fluctuating income streams. With the huge income stream and planning needed to administer a welfare state, it falls to the regular working stiffs to pay their own way) less regulation than we have here in the states and the highest national average scores on the individualism index.

Back in the 1850s Sweden was a barely developed peasant state before they embraced capitalism and then they embraced it with a zeal and fervor rarely seen and they developed rapidly. In the seventies and eighties a large tide of social democrat sentiment swept the country and when the economy slowed down in the nineties, they threw them out of office and it shows. Currently, they're privatizing the fuck out of their healthcare system (with 25% of clinics and emergency facilities privately owned because, surprise surprise, the government is not the most efficient service provider.)

Even in their last parliamentary election, the socialists ran on the platform of throwing out the recent market liberalization reforms that were put in place. They got spanked.

And when the Liberalists ran on the platform of throwing out the -notsorecent- socialist universal healthcare adn free schooling that the Socialists put in place. They got spanked. Hence,a mix. Just as he said.

I can only speak from my experience and everything that the right has privatize have started to be completely shit.

one example is our trains which you are lucky if they do not break down once a day. (My mother often have to wait 1-4hours for them to work again, and people comes in somewhere between 08.00-12.00 for work since the trains will not work)

There are huge scandals about private healtcare for elder people (they buy food for 7 people when they need to feed 10 people)they havent got enought diapers since they cannot spend more then 9kr a day (around 1.3$) while the owner of Camera earns half a billion kr


[Source in Swedish]
DN [http://www.dn.se/sthlm/anstallda-uppmanas-tavla-i-att-spara-pengar]
DN2 [http://www.dn.se/sthlm/jag-forstar-inte-hur-personalen-orkar]


Source in English
"Care home turned cost cutting 'into a game'" [http://www.thelocal.se/38086/20111222/]
"Carema admits flaws in patient's starvation death" [http://www.thelocal.se/37714/20111203/]
"Care home staff weigh diapers to save money" [http://www.thelocal.se/37292/20111111/]
"'Secret' bonus scheme at nursing homes revealed" [http://www.thelocal.se/37192/20111106/]
"Man with dementia left to die in front of TV" [http://www.thelocal.se/37326/20111113/]



And the support for the Social democrats is rising again.

I see you use examples from a website correctly named 'local' this is not national news, and far from international. Theese are 'single' cases. Bad apples if you will. Your mother doesnt remember when the trains go on time, because it aint special. She remembers when they come late, and in the end. She 'only' remembers them comming late. Its Phsycology 101 stuff. Human brain dismisses uninterresting repetetive things. Which is sometimes why you forget shit when you go to the store. 'Man with Dementia left to die' (1 case) CArema admitsflaws in patient (1)'s death. Thats two cases of death. Two cases of care home doing some stupid shit. And 'one' nursing home. Sure you might be able to find about ten, maybe twenty. OF those cases in the last ten years, but in Sweeden we have hundreds. Heck, maybe over a thousand of theese things. Its 'not' the majority.

Now im not trying to support privatised businesses, youknow who's fault it is for using them? Not the states, they made better facillities available. Its the families who paid for them thinking 'Less expensive = Worse'

Except the private business is employed by the government not the families.

And the local is news about whole Sweden, they produce news for people that do not speak Swedish and live in Sweden. And DN stands for Dagens nyheter[Daily News] which is the biggest newspaper in Sweden (as far as I know)

About the trains:

She is about 20mins late perhaps 3/5 days in the week.

I used the trains for a couple of months and in the morning it was ok, but when I tried to get home there was always "signalfel" or something else which ment that the train was delayed.

And our government is going to do a study if there is better to use private or government owned, and I look forward seeing it being published.

As I stated this is a completely personal experience I have no proof that government run is better but from what I've seen it doesn't seem to work that great since using the trains more expensive now and it works perhaps 90% of the time

I think im missing your point, but to me it seems that you are contradicting yourself.

"I have no proof that goverment run is better (Suggesting its better) But from what I've seen (You've seen it without having proof?) It doesn't seem to work that great (Suggesting its worse) Im just a bit confused to what message you want to bring across to me, are you for or against privatized public transportation?

What I ment from proof is that I have no study to show that X is better and honestly I do not give a fuck if its government owned or private owned as long as it work, which clearly isnt the case with out private public transportation so therefor I have to assume that government owned public transportation is better since it used to work when the government was taking care of it so therefor I want the government to buy it back and run it.

As for health care I do think government run is better since you shouldn't be trying to make a profit.

 

[Comando96]

I hate the fact all these people are saying Capitalism isn't fucking working... what we currently have isn't "Capitalism".
Its Corporatism.

It's a branch of Capitalism... but probably one of the worse ones... its better than feudalism but meh, bad.

Capitalism with Free market economics as opposed to the bullshit somehow left to exist today. Tax on an incremental scale or in the case of negative externality goods. Use this fund of tax for things which are of a positive externality either provide totally or fund, and repair the damage to society from negative externalities.

Capitalism has been the driving force for development of human society and culture for the past 6000 fucking years.

We've just managed to fuck capitalism up and we need to get the horribly deformed and mutated model [http://images.wikia.com/fallout/images/d/d1/FO01_NPC_Master_B.png] we currently have back to a less abuse-able, and overall superiorly sustainable version.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Either, as long as it's not Cannibalism.

(Soylent Green joke in 5...4...)

As always, governmental principles of this nature isn't a matter of "is one better than the other", but a question of moderation and necessity.
Inclusion/exclusion, Motivation/greed. Not to mention the ethics therein.

Today's world revolves around money (Yes, I can hear the chorus of "NO SHIT, SON"), rather than any sort of ideal. But money in itself is impartial, and without sufficient public involvement worthless.

 

[Khanht Cope]

If everyone has equal property, regardless of what they do or do not do, then you are essentially saying that the only thing that you are being paid for is the fact that you exist. Therefore, your work is not worth anything, and you are being given something for nothing.

You're lost to ignorance if the only thing you're willing to entertain is a misguided obsession with the tyranny of equal prosperity.

The underlying goal behind socialism isn't to take away from haves or forbid them from having, so that they don't have more. It is to attain a society and economic system that shifts the goal of the economy so that it operates toward meeting human needs as opposed to market-induced wants.

This is hardly wrong; but so far has proven difficult to do correctly.

Capitalism can languish and dictate unemployment and inactivity in a world full of need if the market conditions make it so. As it shows in depressions.

As you know: markets aren't spurred by poverty. They're spurred by sales for their commercial junk.

If socialism was successfully implemented in a way that worked toward meeting need; it would be energised toward expansion by the needs in the world and ultimately guarantee a minimum standard of living for everyone.

Production and opportunity is intended to be socialised; rather than the produce. The goal to make the poor less poor; rather than making the rich less rich.

You may say it is unrealistic; but capitalism was conceived long before any pretense that it served the common good. It has proved that the right structural incentives can motivate the system to work toward and serve desirable goals.

I'm an advocate of post-capitalism. But at the same time, I share the scepticism of conservatives about government and legislative power. While I have some misgivings about socialist ideas of a post-capitalist transition to a better place; I can give it a fairer hearing as to what it is trying to be.

Where you choose to see only theft and tyranny; I see a flawed thesis in the difficult science of proposing and realising a more palatable and equitable post-capitalist structure.

 

[Khanht Cope]

I hate the fact all these people are saying Capitalism isn't fucking working... what we currently have isn't "Capitalism".
Its Corporatism.

It's a branch of Capitalism... but probably one of the worse ones... its better than feudalism but meh, bad.

Capitalism with Free market economics as opposed to the bullshit somehow left to exist today. Tax on an incremental scale or in the case of negative externality goods. Use this fund of tax for things which are of a positive externality either provide totally or fund, and repair the damage to society from negative externalities.

Capitalism has been the driving force for development of human society and culture for the past 6000 fucking years.

We've just managed to fuck capitalism up and we need to get the horribly deformed and mutated model [http://images.wikia.com/fallout/images/d/d1/FO01_NPC_Master_B.png] we currently have back to a less abuse-able, and overall superiorly sustainable version.

I agree. (apart from the bit about 6,000 years; unless you consider all notion of trade to be capitalism. I would argue that human developement has and will continue to happen irrespective of capitalist motivations or modes of production)

The European understanding of corporatism is it being the response of society when democratically accountable government has extensive influence. Various castes form lobbying groups to leverage the government (with at least a couple of white lies) for resources and goodies for various causes.

This is not so different in nature from the American understanding of corporatism; though it serves as something of a reflection of institutional corruption and skull-duggery in American politics.

The US accounts for around 1/5th of the worlds total GDP and taxes its citizens at socialist rates, yet has some of the least extensive social welfare provision in the developed world.

Big business can lobby for favourable legislation that helps hinder competition and make the market and conditions more favourable to them. Think tanks help skew public opinion with their propaganda. At the same time labour movements can be suppressed with pro free market dogma, while government expansion can be legitimised by showing itself to be the counter-balance to growing corporate power.

Corporate and government power go on expanding together.

If the government had no legislative authority over conditions in the markets; the act of seeking to influence and corrupt the government and the democratic process would be totally fatuous.

Hoping for the government to counter corporate dominance is part of the bipartisan lie.

The issue is probably one for the society and it's values to overcome. Just as indicators show an almost fully market-based country like New Zealand to score with almost no perceived corruption and a high standard of well-being; there are Scandinavian countries with a stronger presence of socialist principles that also score low on corruption and high on well-being.

While I agree with the premise that America operates under a significant distortion of a real free market; you can count me out of the school that considers any and every negative thing to happen in capitalism to be the direct result of interventions. That just shows a comical level of denial and revisionist history.

 

[shimyia]

well... in theory - communism should work, making a utopia society out of this shitty world is kind of a good idea... but, i live in Moldova (Basarabia) - a post communist country. They literally destroyed the country and ended up splitting and reuniting and splitting again and isolating and introducing ridiculous taxes, collectivizationing every last piece of agriculture in order to reduce the population etc.
and in the present, the transition to capitalism still is incredibly slow and troublesome (also there is a communist party which is the most most voted one as a result of the isolation and change of mentality... so yea... not good results with either but IMO capitalism is a better bet.

 

[SilentCom]

Unless I am mistakened, communism gained inspiration from small communal tribes. Anything larger than that and communism really wouldn't work. I would have to vote capitalism because it works, sort of.

 

[spartan231490]

If everyone has equal property, regardless of what they do or do not do, then you are essentially saying that the only thing that you are being paid for is the fact that you exist. Therefore, your work is not worth anything, and you are being given something for nothing.

You're lost to ignorance if the only thing you're willing to entertain is a misguided obsession with the tyranny of equal prosperity.

The underlying goal behind socialism isn't to take away from haves or forbid them from having, so that they don't have more. It is to attain a society and economic system that shifts the goal of the economy so that it operates toward meeting human needs as opposed to market-induced wants.

This is hardly wrong; but so far has proven difficult to do correctly.

Capitalism can languish and dictate unemployment and inactivity in a world full of need if the market conditions make it so. As it shows in depressions.

As you know: markets aren't spurred by poverty. They're spurred by sales for their commercial junk.

If socialism was successfully implemented in a way that worked toward meeting need; it would be energised toward expansion by the needs in the world and ultimately guarantee a minimum standard of living for everyone.

Production and opportunity is intended to be socialised; rather than the produce. The goal to make the poor less poor; rather than making the rich less rich.

You may say it is unrealistic; but capitalism was conceived long before any pretense that it served the common good. It has proved that the right structural incentives can motivate the system to work toward and serve desirable goals.

I'm an advocate of post-capitalism. But at the same time, I share the scepticism of conservatives about government and legislative power. While I have some misgivings about socialist ideas of a post-capitalist transition to a better place; I can give it a fairer hearing as to what it is trying to be.

Where you choose to see only theft and tyranny; I see a flawed thesis in the difficult science of proposing and realising a more palatable and equitable post-capitalist structure.

A) Socialism and communism are different things. Realistically, socialism is more political than economic. Many countries have successfully implemented a great many socialist policies, from the UK to the US. I personally approve of a great deal of socialization in a country. Furthermore, as I understand it, communism and marxism are not the same thing, despite being very similar. I have almost no knowledge of true marxism. This topic asked about communism, and that is what I addressed.

B) The capitalist market does not exist independent of people's needs. It is driven by those needs, and truthfully a capitalist market will drive many of the same things that a socialist economy will when it isn't being abused by a mega-corp, or a monopoly, or aristocracy.

C) Wealth is not something that can be created from nothing. Making the poor less poor is only accomplished by making someone else less rich, and vice versa.

D) I never said anything about theft or tyranny. My problems are that the system supports a flawed system of value by giving people something for nothing, implicitly devaluing what they do. This leads to many problems including pervasive laziness, because people are inherently selfish, and will not waste their time and effort if that time and effort does not gain them anything.