Poll: Capitalism or Communism?
- Thread starter Jak23
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well communism is the only way forward as a society. We will know we are in the "future" when communism is able to work as intended. However capitalism works better now for obvious reasons and eventually we'll be able to look back at this part of history with a mixture of sympathy and respect for those who built empires and wonders under it's rule.
It didn't work because a communist country can not exist in a capitalistic world.erttheking said:
There is NO country that can exist on it's own without treading with other countries unless it heavily cripples it self (i.e. doesn't buy goods from other and doesn't have enough for the needs of its people) If a communistic country starts trading with capitalistic countries, it would be on capitalistic term. That is using money. Communism relies more on treading goods and services. And even much more on sharing than on treading. We take all that we have and share it equally. Capitalism doesn't accept such term.
That's why no communist country survived. At least not as a good example.
The best example of a communist country would be ex Yugoslavia during Tito's regime.
The worst would be Stalin's regime.
As you can see, communism on it's own is neither good nor bad. It's a system that gives its "user" the ability to create heaven or hell on earth. Or something in between.
IMHO, the best option would be a healthy combination of both. Socialism.
Capitalism is great for improving the economy. But in a social level it's the same as feudalism. If you're born rich, you will probably stay that. If not, you will die working to survive. It really rare that someone succeeds from a poor family.
Communism is great on a social level. The problems start when the economy can't support a good social standard. Don't look at Stalin's communism as a standard. Real communism doesn't kill everyone who has a different opinion. Stalin was a paranoid idiot with to much power.
But he also shows a potential problem with totalitarianism.
If we use capitalism's strength in the economy department, but use communism's strength in the social, we could have a great society.
Once socialism is achieved, it will slowly turn into a health, true communism.
People don't know that REAL communism never existed. You can't skip capitalism and go straight to communism.
Capitalism will make the industrial economy. Once there are no free resources, people without the capital will revolt, the people with capital will try healthcare, unemployment help...
The central government will take from those with capital and finance those without. That is socialism. Later when the transition of equality is done, the central government will not even be needed.
I mean seriously, why should someone who was born in a rich family have more than someone who work over 12 hours a day for the minimal wage.
Why should a fucking football player of Justin Fuckin' Bieber have more money than a freaking firefighter, policemen or doctor. People who save lifes? Or teacher and professor. People who educate the next generation. The generation which will take over the society? Scientist who made all the stuff we have.
I never understood the US tax system.
If someone is earning several millions per year, than he obviously has to much money. Tax the hell out of him. I'm not saying take all of it. I'm saying take more than you would from someone who earns less than he needs to survive.
If someone's payment is less than the he needs, don't tax him.
All the money taken should be invested in education, medicine and helping the poor.
Is it that hard to give something you own to help someone? My father is the only one working in my family, I go to college. We have barely to survive. Jet if I see a kid on the street, I give him my money for lunch. I can survive with 1 day without lunch. Why can't someone who could use his money as fuel give some of it?
Epic captcha is epic:
escape dbankr
We like to put down communism, but don't forget, USSR was right there with us, and in some cases ahead of us. If they hadn't tried to over reach in Afghanistan or match the US's military spending, they would still be around and likely in much better shape.
I'm with the middle of the road here. One cannot make this choice in an absolute sense if one understands the issues involved. To make a binary choice between a completely free market and the total lack of trade is to make the choice between a populace enslaved and, well... a populace enslaved.
Trade is necessary. Strong regulation of trade is also necessary.
also
Trade is necessary. Strong regulation of trade is also necessary.
also
^what he said^btenkink said:
I don't like extremes. It seems to me a lot of people agree with that. I am quite happy with that.
I would say there has never been a Communistic nation outside of the city states found in the ancient world. Same reason why Democracy and every other system has failed when governing a large nation: Corruption. A handful of people get into positions at the top and then twist the whole thing to gather more power and luxury to themselves, while the rest of the nation suffers for their greed.Jak23 said:
Take the USSR for example: The people demand reform to make the country a communistic one, believing that was the only way to ensure equality and sharing of resources to get rid of the classes. A handful of people came to power during this reform and turned the nation into a dictatorship ruled by a 'military class' that they where practically kings of. To keep the people in line they said "We have brought you Communism" and, as people in any nation filled with hope for a better future, they caught this lie. These so called leaders then stole the nations resources, killed anyone who protested or might of relieved the lie for what it was. This is more then evident by the fact these people living exactly like kings and even making massive statues and monuments to their 'greatness.' All while the people starved in the streets.
Doesn't really sound communistic to me, so why don't we stop calling these countries communistic when they clearly where not.
Reminds me of a quote in Tropico 3.
"Commununism is like prohibition, it's a good idea but it'll never work."
So capitalism, the lesser of two evils.
"Commununism is like prohibition, it's a good idea but it'll never work."
So capitalism, the lesser of two evils.
Marijuana holds the answer to this question.
There are people with really good intentions who want to spend any amount of money and accept any amount of collateral damage to wage war against pot because they think that it's what's best for society; but there are also people who want to wage war against pot to fulfill their own narrow self interest (material wealth, power, fame, moral preference, whatever). Regardless of intentions the outcome is the same; which means that the notion of of distributing scarce resources on the basis of good intentions (communism socialism whatever) is a spurious pursuit at best. And considering the resources allocated are conscripted the supporters need not evaluate the effectiveness of the endevour because they do not bear the full burden of it's consequences; in other words voluntary transactions force people to make better decisions.
In other other words capitalism=freedom, freedom=pot, therefore capitalism=pot, therefore capitalism is the dankity-dank son
There are people with really good intentions who want to spend any amount of money and accept any amount of collateral damage to wage war against pot because they think that it's what's best for society; but there are also people who want to wage war against pot to fulfill their own narrow self interest (material wealth, power, fame, moral preference, whatever). Regardless of intentions the outcome is the same; which means that the notion of of distributing scarce resources on the basis of good intentions (communism socialism whatever) is a spurious pursuit at best. And considering the resources allocated are conscripted the supporters need not evaluate the effectiveness of the endevour because they do not bear the full burden of it's consequences; in other words voluntary transactions force people to make better decisions.
In other other words capitalism=freedom, freedom=pot, therefore capitalism=pot, therefore capitalism is the dankity-dank son
Capitalism, or a free market, is able to solve the problem of economic calculation (knowing how resources and labor ought to be allocated to the production of goods and services, and who shall be the recipient of those goods and services), as the problem is distributed amongst all the actors within the economy, and individuals are motivated to most effectively supply that which society demands because you get to benefit from your work, whereas if you waste then your ability to waste scarce resources is lessened. In a free market every individual is free to decide for themselves what sort of work they shall pursue and how they shall spend or save their own resources. In the end, everybody acting individually (and assuming that certain values are widely respected, such as the right to life or property) leads to a higher median living standard.
A free market is not perfect, but it is much better than any other economic system.
Any other economic system, especially Communism, cannot solve the problem of economic calculation. This is why you had too many tractors and not enough food in the USSR. It is because the central government was given the task of deciding how, when, and where all resources should be used. Not only did the bureaucrats have the incentive to be right (it's not like they were going to make a profit), they had no way of knowing whether or how a more preferable set of production possibilities existed.
It's also immoral to steal people's property. That's another problem with Communism.
A free market is not perfect, but it is much better than any other economic system.
Any other economic system, especially Communism, cannot solve the problem of economic calculation. This is why you had too many tractors and not enough food in the USSR. It is because the central government was given the task of deciding how, when, and where all resources should be used. Not only did the bureaucrats have the incentive to be right (it's not like they were going to make a profit), they had no way of knowing whether or how a more preferable set of production possibilities existed.
It's also immoral to steal people's property. That's another problem with Communism.
Honestly they're both severely flawed systems, but capitalism is slightly less flawed. I say fascism. Do what the government says or die 
Anarcho-Syndicalism is the way forward... or backward... or maybe to the side a bit... but it's movement and that's what counts!
Capitalism as humans can't deal with equality, they need to have more than others and therefore people in power will end up corrupted.
Also I don't think it's right that in a communist society, a doctor who works a stupid amount of hours in a high stress job earns the same as a taxi driver.
The middle road would be the best, but striking the right balance is incredibly hard.
Also I don't think it's right that in a communist society, a doctor who works a stupid amount of hours in a high stress job earns the same as a taxi driver.
The middle road would be the best, but striking the right balance is incredibly hard.
Communism looks good on theory, but it utterly failed: There is no progress, the bureaucracy is and cluster-cus, an extremely small amount of people control the country, there is little to no progress, etc,etc.
Capitalism may not be perfect but it can be incredibly efficient, just look at Rome; before they gave politicians perks, after that it all fell apart.
Capitalism may not be perfect but it can be incredibly efficient, just look at Rome; before they gave politicians perks, after that it all fell apart.