Poll: Capitalism or Communism?
- Thread starter Jak23
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Implying that the world has seen a true communist country yet. Russia was a simple dictatorship, and China is probably the most capitalistic country existing.Jak23 said:
I for one am for communism, but true communism thatsupports everyone, the whole community (thus communism). Capitalism only creates competition, rivalry, selfishness.
"There's never been 'true' communism..."
Then, there's never been 'true' capitalism, either, so why are you making statements about it?
Give your side an excuse, it applies the other way.
Then, there's never been 'true' capitalism, either, so why are you making statements about it?
Give your side an excuse, it applies the other way.
Elfgore, the problem is that what people complain about in 'Capitalism' is the same 'theory' that people see in Communism/Socialism etc. in real life.
Communism doesn't eliminate anything. It renames it. It puts up smoke and mirrors and I don't understand why so many don't see this.
Everyone is 'equal' in Communism...except, well someone needs to be in charge of things, right? And someone needs to make sure everyone is on the same page...and that someone needs to have the power to enforce it...and...and...
As for eliminating corporate greed...no, instead you get 'Collectives'. And those 'Collectives' compete against other 'Collectives' for resources...because everyone wants those...
Communism doesn't eliminate anything. It renames it. It puts up smoke and mirrors and I don't understand why so many don't see this.
Everyone is 'equal' in Communism...except, well someone needs to be in charge of things, right? And someone needs to make sure everyone is on the same page...and that someone needs to have the power to enforce it...and...and...
As for eliminating corporate greed...no, instead you get 'Collectives'. And those 'Collectives' compete against other 'Collectives' for resources...because everyone wants those...
I'm what you call idealistic, sure. I have a lot of idealistic (maybe even naive) beliefs. When it comes to Communism, it's just not going to ever be practical. People (especially those who pursue power) are just naturally inclined to aspire to have more than they need, because (our instincts say) who's to say everything will stay this nice?
People are greedy. I don't know why, or what purpose it serves, but they are. I will always love the idea of Communism, but it just isn't going to work in reality. It's a shame, really... the alternative is Capitalism, which I have a particular seething hate for.
Come to think of it, either way everything is going to shit... At least with Communism there's a chance of some good ideas getting out there into the world and smaller companies getting a fair shot before everything returns to more or less the same rich-getting-richer society. Sure, what the hell. Communism it is.
People are greedy. I don't know why, or what purpose it serves, but they are. I will always love the idea of Communism, but it just isn't going to work in reality. It's a shame, really... the alternative is Capitalism, which I have a particular seething hate for.
Come to think of it, either way everything is going to shit... At least with Communism there's a chance of some good ideas getting out there into the world and smaller companies getting a fair shot before everything returns to more or less the same rich-getting-richer society. Sure, what the hell. Communism it is.
I want the system that affords me the maximum amount of freedom and self reliance. That's capitalism. I have no use for a state to control everything, hell or anything really. Just enforce understandable laws against harm fraud and theft and I'm happy. My money situation I'll work out between me and the next guy.
Fuck both, were dead either way. Communism, were dead because the individual can't be trusted and we won't meet the demands of the citizens, thus we will die from lack of food and housing. Capitalism, were dead because the big businesses control everything and there's no government interference which means monopolies, less than quality goods, potentially unhealthy practices in the work place where food and drugs are produced, no price monitoring equals death by contamination of food, inability to purchase monopolized goods,breakdown of important mechanisms such as cars in a busy highway killing people and the list goes on.
In communism, at least we die simply, and we can blame it on the government.
In capitalism, we bring the thunder down on ourselves and we have ourselves to blame.
Since we'd be dead either way, I'd go for the communism thank you very much.
In communism, at least we die simply, and we can blame it on the government.
In capitalism, we bring the thunder down on ourselves and we have ourselves to blame.
Since we'd be dead either way, I'd go for the communism thank you very much.
Pretty much this. Capitalism brings about a more free consumer market, but socialistic principles allow for some services to the community as a whole. I like the Australian form of government (democratic socialist), but I wish they would put somebody responsible and intelligent in the race instead of the two main options we have now.Seventh Actuality said:
Communism, however, would be the perfect form of government if it wasn't for the humans it would administer. As it was said, in a utopia, communism would be apt because there would be no greed from the populace, nor the government, and in such a scenario that nation would prosper.
Capitalism allows so much more freedom to the inhabitants, and is also more about forging your own lifestyle and as it was in the 60s so claimed by American politicians, the 'American dream', etc. Purist capitalism, however leaves the populace, for the most part, to make its own arrangements visa vi vital amenities.
tl;dr: A capitalist society with socialistic principles.
Communism: Everyone is equal but some are more equal than othersRottweiler said:
And if you look at the way the Russians used to be, quite a remarkable amount more equal
^This. Both ideologys is based on the assumption that humans can work together but we all know they can't.Kopikatsu said:
Absolute Monarchy beats them both....it's the only form of government that does what it's claims lololol
Too true, but since socialism wasn't a part of the original question I only addressed capitalism v socialism. and laissez-faire capitalism does work. It reigned for centuries. It screws the lower and middle class over harder just about anything, but the economy continues to function. Not like communism which will eventually cause the economy to shut down.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
The problem becomes how much of a mix.
Personally? The State provides things like education, social security, welfare, healthcare, and can step into the market to help stabilize it in emergencies. An example being bailing out a company. Healthcare has public and private options, so everyone has a choice. That is just me.spartan231490 said:
And, in the end, it comes down to this:
No one that I am aware of can show a real life example of successful Communism (*possibly* on the village level, but I doubt even there.)
Despite that, many people continue to claim that somehow, somewhere, it's a wonderful system.
Very well, for those of you who argue that Communism is superior: show me an example of a Communist system that lasted 5 years or more. Just one. Don't make excuses for it, don't say 'well so and so ruined it', show me an example, in real life, of an actual Communist country, village, city, state, etc. that lasted 5+ years.
Now, let's take the other side of the coin. Look at countries who *claimed* that Communism was the best government ever (and, usually, murdered a great many of their own people in order to force everyone to be Communist) and tell me how it worked.
What I find funny is that this entire conversation has not once shown Communism as a real life example of success, but is perfectly willing to make any excuse to claim that it 'should' work.
Look, if you want to say that in a Perfect World, with Perfect People, Communism is somehow perfect, that's up to you. However, in a Perfect World, with Perfect People, no form of government would be needed.
No one that I am aware of can show a real life example of successful Communism (*possibly* on the village level, but I doubt even there.)
Despite that, many people continue to claim that somehow, somewhere, it's a wonderful system.
Very well, for those of you who argue that Communism is superior: show me an example of a Communist system that lasted 5 years or more. Just one. Don't make excuses for it, don't say 'well so and so ruined it', show me an example, in real life, of an actual Communist country, village, city, state, etc. that lasted 5+ years.
Now, let's take the other side of the coin. Look at countries who *claimed* that Communism was the best government ever (and, usually, murdered a great many of their own people in order to force everyone to be Communist) and tell me how it worked.
What I find funny is that this entire conversation has not once shown Communism as a real life example of success, but is perfectly willing to make any excuse to claim that it 'should' work.
Look, if you want to say that in a Perfect World, with Perfect People, Communism is somehow perfect, that's up to you. However, in a Perfect World, with Perfect People, no form of government would be needed.
Communism was not as such an idealogoy for a present day economic system.
It is an anticipated stage in human developement that emerges when productive forces are sufficent for assured abundance of wealth. Its birth is signalled by the dissolution of the state.
It is stateless, classess and moneyless. It is closest to absolute freedom. Even economically.
"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
~ Marx
Hypothetically: society's energy in Communism might be powered by advanced and extensive developement of renewable energy technology. The sun and ocean's power would not be owned and sold to you by a market, and it would not be distributed to you by the state on the condition that you submit to its authority.
It would be produced and distributed by wider society according to need. Greed, theft, jealousy and corruption are unnecessary and fatuous in a society absolved of scarcity.
Most users hold equal status (though levels of subjective credibility can vary). Not because any central authority decrees it to be so; they just do. There is no distinction in status between American users and others, or males users and female users, employed or unemployed. Those distinctions only exist subjectively in the minds of individuals.
It is governed by consent of the various communities. You can move to preferable rules of another community (or create your own) if you wish.
Google is one of many free and valuable services available to everyone.
There is (still mostly) common access to its means of production.
You can make videos, articles, mods and blogs, and show them on public platforms like youtube if you desire. You don't need to prove credentials to obtain and be tied to an employment contract to do so. Other youtube videos and users are not your competition unless you subjectively perceive them to be.
You can take other user's digital media and creations and transform them into memes or improved work without being chased on grounds of copyright theft and endangering their livelihood. (with obvious exceptions, but those are for reasons connected to the capitalist outside world)
There is complete freedom to pursue passions and interests at will. You can consume as much from the internet as you wish (or can). You can produce for it as your passion desires without economic stimulation or obligation. Works can be distributed infinitely and immediately to all who know of them and desire them without a trade obligation.
You don't have to work like a drone to acquire the capital to buy the freedom to make and do what you wish (at a pace and vigour determined by the market), or to keep up with Moviebob's latest vid.
Sites and free services would be ad-less, internet security and other digital software would all be free and torrent sharing of popular works would be legal and a good thing... if people's livelihoods didn't depend on the Capitalist outside world.
I concede that the internet requires support from Capitalism in the outside world. But inside the digital world; there is no such need for a Capitalist system to manage it.
Right now Capitalism (markets and the state) is looking for ways for its influence to colonise the internet. Mostly to protect livelihoods, and to secure livelihoods for internet producers. What a capitalist internet economy will be like in the future is is difficult to predict; but take the early years of the internet as a clue that communist utopia could potentially be possible, realistic and preferable if the conditions could ever be met.
Consider also the paradox of Capitalism.
Technological advancements herald unemployment rather than easier working life. Productive forces sufficient for the population to bask in prosperity would herald the urgency of population growth.
It would fall apart if you did the opposite.
Though it is advocated as a system based on nothing more than the notion of free, voluntary and universally beneficial trade; the system demands a proportion of unemployment and scarcity (artificial if need be). No matter what you try to do, the misery has to go somewhere.
It is an anticipated stage in human developement that emerges when productive forces are sufficent for assured abundance of wealth. Its birth is signalled by the dissolution of the state.
It is stateless, classess and moneyless. It is closest to absolute freedom. Even economically.
"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
~ Marx
Hypothetically: society's energy in Communism might be powered by advanced and extensive developement of renewable energy technology. The sun and ocean's power would not be owned and sold to you by a market, and it would not be distributed to you by the state on the condition that you submit to its authority.
It would be produced and distributed by wider society according to need. Greed, theft, jealousy and corruption are unnecessary and fatuous in a society absolved of scarcity.
An existing example of society that holds the most things in common with Communism is the internet society.Rottweiler said:
Most users hold equal status (though levels of subjective credibility can vary). Not because any central authority decrees it to be so; they just do. There is no distinction in status between American users and others, or males users and female users, employed or unemployed. Those distinctions only exist subjectively in the minds of individuals.
It is governed by consent of the various communities. You can move to preferable rules of another community (or create your own) if you wish.
Google is one of many free and valuable services available to everyone.
There is (still mostly) common access to its means of production.
You can make videos, articles, mods and blogs, and show them on public platforms like youtube if you desire. You don't need to prove credentials to obtain and be tied to an employment contract to do so. Other youtube videos and users are not your competition unless you subjectively perceive them to be.
You can take other user's digital media and creations and transform them into memes or improved work without being chased on grounds of copyright theft and endangering their livelihood. (with obvious exceptions, but those are for reasons connected to the capitalist outside world)
There is complete freedom to pursue passions and interests at will. You can consume as much from the internet as you wish (or can). You can produce for it as your passion desires without economic stimulation or obligation. Works can be distributed infinitely and immediately to all who know of them and desire them without a trade obligation.
You don't have to work like a drone to acquire the capital to buy the freedom to make and do what you wish (at a pace and vigour determined by the market), or to keep up with Moviebob's latest vid.
Sites and free services would be ad-less, internet security and other digital software would all be free and torrent sharing of popular works would be legal and a good thing... if people's livelihoods didn't depend on the Capitalist outside world.
I concede that the internet requires support from Capitalism in the outside world. But inside the digital world; there is no such need for a Capitalist system to manage it.
Right now Capitalism (markets and the state) is looking for ways for its influence to colonise the internet. Mostly to protect livelihoods, and to secure livelihoods for internet producers. What a capitalist internet economy will be like in the future is is difficult to predict; but take the early years of the internet as a clue that communist utopia could potentially be possible, realistic and preferable if the conditions could ever be met.
Consider also the paradox of Capitalism.
Technological advancements herald unemployment rather than easier working life. Productive forces sufficient for the population to bask in prosperity would herald the urgency of population growth.
It would fall apart if you did the opposite.
Though it is advocated as a system based on nothing more than the notion of free, voluntary and universally beneficial trade; the system demands a proportion of unemployment and scarcity (artificial if need be). No matter what you try to do, the misery has to go somewhere.