Socialism is a great government in theory, but human nature tends to bugger it all up.EzraPound said:
Poll: Capitalism VS Communism VS Socialism
- Thread starter lenin_117
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This being the internet I wont be surprised if communism or socialism wins, there seems to be alot more lefties on forums than in real life. To tell the truth I arent really sure, i know sure as heck communism and socialism arent for me, if you have an equal standard of living no matter what wheres the incentive to work? That said a total capitalism isnt either, I prefer a capitalist base with some socialist aspects. A properly run NHS, unemployment benifit, pensions and public transport. But overall, if I have to pick out of the 3, capitalism
You didn't notice the part where he said "by any measurement".lenin_117 said:
If your ideal is mountains of corpses and abject human misery, then Fascism or Communism is probably your way to go. If you prefer stagnation leading toward an eventual collapse, you want Socialism.
If your goal is human liberation, dignity, and happiness, you want Capitalism. It just tends to horrify people who believe in the divine right to sit on your fat ass, because "free" also means "free to starve". Never mind that the nearly-capitalist countries invented, for the first time in history, such a phenomenon as the fat "poor". Never mind that the "poverty" in those countries is only "relative" poverty that exceeds the standard of living of the RICH in any preceding historical era! Never mind the staggering economic ignorance behind such ideas as a guaranteed minimum salary! Never mind that greed is nothing more than wanting more than what you have now--more money, more health, more *happiness*, and has led to every improvement in human life since the first ape-man banged two rocks together and made fire!
Never mind the vile injustice of forcibly taking ANYTHING from the man who has earned it and giving it to another who has not. Never mind the proper name for this practice--slavery--and that it is the greatest evil that one human being can inflict on another. Never mind, never mind, never mind! Freedom is scary! So much better to live like cattle under the boot of the commissar than to take responsibility for our own lives.
This is what you people want? Fine. I'd say that I hope you'll choke on it--only it's unnecessary. The slave drivers are ready to do all the choking anyone could ever want.
Well, sort of. Capitalism and Communism are economic systems that *arise* from specific political systems--which in turn arise from specific ethical systems, which themselves arise from their roots in the philosophical branches of epistemology and metaphysics.mipegg said:
However, since the political system and the economic system are directly tied to each other, most of the time you can get away with using them interchangeably.
The golden middle road of pragmatism is the best road to walk when it comes to governing. I say this because any leader should be willing to open up their ideology & take a dump on it, the moment it is a benefit to their people.
Or perhaps, there shouldn't be any leaders. Anarchy YAY!.
Or perhaps, there shouldn't be any leaders. Anarchy YAY!.
Ah, the lovely myth of "society as a whole".lenin_117 said:
So the Soviet peasants standing in line for hours to get bread, they don't count? The British citizens who cannot obtain drugs or surgery and must wait months just to see a specialist due to their lovely socialized healthcare system--they're not part of society? And the nearly 100 million people who died due to Nazi Germany's expansionist ambitions, how were *they* helped? (And how many people remember that Nazi stands for "National Socialist"?)
There is no such creature as "society", just a large number of individual men. The only thing that putting society above individuals means or can mean is that the welfare of *some* men comes before the welfare of *other* men. Who decides? What gives them the right?
Capitalism is the only system under which *some* men aren't eaten alive for the unearned benefit of *other* men. Upholding "society as a whole" instead of "men as individuals" means upholding cannibalism as a moral ideal. Are you sure that's the statement you want to be making?
I hate capitalism. "Yay, let's whore ourselves out to big corporations for $$$!"
GoBanana Socialism!
Go
Ooh, pragmatism--otherwise known as "It seemed like a good idea at the time!"Hawgh said:
That's ALWAYS turned out well in the long run.
Because capitalism = big corporations. Sorry to burst your bubble, honey, but the biggest corporation that has ever existed--the East India Company--was a crown-granted monopoly back in the days of mercantilism. The entire Soviet economy functioned as one huge badly-run corporation--one with no accountability to anyone.PurpleRain said:
Big corporations have their place in Capitalism because there are many industries where economies of scale are very advantageous. But Capitalism is, by and large, the system of the *middle* class--of skilled and well-paid professional men, entrepreneurs, and investors. For them, the corporation is a beautifully effective investment model, where the men who have some money but neither the knowledge or interest to run a company can hire a professional (a CEO) to do it for them.
It is, in short, the system of capital--and every man has capital to invest, whether it be his time and the work of his hands or the supreme skill of juggling a world-spanning corporation.
Firstly, I object to the statement that socialism is cannibalism. Just gibberish. Secondly, Soviets were communists. Thirdly, Society as a whole means the well-being of everybody. Fourthly, what the Nazi's does not indicate what socialists do. Finally, I don't like the baseless claim that the British need to wait a long time to get drugs or surgery.JMeganSnow said:
P.S I don't see how capitalism does it any better.
I can't say I understand people's deep driving instinct to defend one system or another. Lets face it, they all suck in ways and they're all useful in ways. Which one you endorse should depend entirely on what you want your government to accomplish, there is never one "correct" form of government.
For examples, free market capatalism is a great preserver of liberties. But it can't wage a war to save it's ass. Trying to get 1000 different corporations to cooperate to make weapons and ship them and keep prices low and send supplies and work with each other is just inefficient. America has a long history of centralizing power in the hands of government whenever there is a legitamte military threat (F.D.R practically owned the manufacturing companies during WWII going as far as to mandate what they could and couldn't produce) and theres a legitemate reason for that. It's nessacary to get anything done.
Communism has no problems holding a war. Unfortunately, they also have little to no soft power and their people's freedom is typically infringed. Their economy, or rather lack their of, makes trading or abusing an economic superiority very difficult. Buying out other countries isn't really an option for a soviet style government; they very much have to conquer or ignore. This lack of free money also makes living in these countries less than perfect as (barring war time preparations) they have all the control of production and no clue what to do with it. Much after making bombs, the governement doesn't know how to keep the people happy and so the people typically aren't
I think both systems have their strengths and their stunning failings. I call my self a political adaptionist. No real over arching political ideaology besides adapting the government to suit the situation.
... So I suppose this is my long-winded way of saying I didn't vote ...
For examples, free market capatalism is a great preserver of liberties. But it can't wage a war to save it's ass. Trying to get 1000 different corporations to cooperate to make weapons and ship them and keep prices low and send supplies and work with each other is just inefficient. America has a long history of centralizing power in the hands of government whenever there is a legitamte military threat (F.D.R practically owned the manufacturing companies during WWII going as far as to mandate what they could and couldn't produce) and theres a legitemate reason for that. It's nessacary to get anything done.
Communism has no problems holding a war. Unfortunately, they also have little to no soft power and their people's freedom is typically infringed. Their economy, or rather lack their of, makes trading or abusing an economic superiority very difficult. Buying out other countries isn't really an option for a soviet style government; they very much have to conquer or ignore. This lack of free money also makes living in these countries less than perfect as (barring war time preparations) they have all the control of production and no clue what to do with it. Much after making bombs, the governement doesn't know how to keep the people happy and so the people typically aren't
I think both systems have their strengths and their stunning failings. I call my self a political adaptionist. No real over arching political ideaology besides adapting the government to suit the situation.
... So I suppose this is my long-winded way of saying I didn't vote ...
1. You missed to metion Anarchism for the Poll, not my choice but a valid alternative.
2. To messure Communism only by the examples that failed is unfair. One reason they failed is corruption, a phenomenon capitalism faces as wellthoug it is not as destuctivbe in capitalist systems because you can hide it better. Another reason is that the countrys who changed their system to communism were poor to begin with so no great economy and not much wealth to spread.
3. Not every Country that runs a gouvernmend with socialist Elements is in bad shape, take Germany, we have the best export ratio of the world, a whole lot of succesfull corperations and so on PLUS we have healthcare for everyone, free education. People who want to study get support and the university won't cost them anything if their not wealthy enugh else it is just a tiny fraction of what Us Universitys take (about 700$ a Semester).
4. Many Capitalist arguments are realy short sighted. The one "When you work hard you earn your monney and nobody should take it away" might aply when you are a Blacksmith and forge 200 Swords and sell them on the marked. In modern economy that's unlikely the case. When you work realy hard you might only manage to feed your family (physikal labour) while most rich persons gain ridicoulus amounts of monney for each hour they work. Now how is it possible for a person to make an hour of work 500 times worth more than that of a skilled Labour worker?
Because of education? Screw you whatever they thought you somebody else thought up so you use "public good" to get more monney.
Because of responsibility? Screw you too because the manager responible might loose their job, that is nothing compared to a worker who does minnimum wage and doesn't have enough savings to ensure his survival in case of an accident or job loss.
Because you had an idear/invention that was smarter than everything the others came up with? Fine take a little credit for it but don't harvest a monopoly for something that advances technology/society because you were only able to get that far because technology/society is in the currend state.
No matter how you turn it, if you get more money per hour than a labour worker it is only because the you take monney out of a pool which is filled by everybody.
Ps: i hope it's possible to understand everything, my English is realy rusty
2. To messure Communism only by the examples that failed is unfair. One reason they failed is corruption, a phenomenon capitalism faces as wellthoug it is not as destuctivbe in capitalist systems because you can hide it better. Another reason is that the countrys who changed their system to communism were poor to begin with so no great economy and not much wealth to spread.
3. Not every Country that runs a gouvernmend with socialist Elements is in bad shape, take Germany, we have the best export ratio of the world, a whole lot of succesfull corperations and so on PLUS we have healthcare for everyone, free education. People who want to study get support and the university won't cost them anything if their not wealthy enugh else it is just a tiny fraction of what Us Universitys take (about 700$ a Semester).
4. Many Capitalist arguments are realy short sighted. The one "When you work hard you earn your monney and nobody should take it away" might aply when you are a Blacksmith and forge 200 Swords and sell them on the marked. In modern economy that's unlikely the case. When you work realy hard you might only manage to feed your family (physikal labour) while most rich persons gain ridicoulus amounts of monney for each hour they work. Now how is it possible for a person to make an hour of work 500 times worth more than that of a skilled Labour worker?
Because of education? Screw you whatever they thought you somebody else thought up so you use "public good" to get more monney.
Because of responsibility? Screw you too because the manager responible might loose their job, that is nothing compared to a worker who does minnimum wage and doesn't have enough savings to ensure his survival in case of an accident or job loss.
Because you had an idear/invention that was smarter than everything the others came up with? Fine take a little credit for it but don't harvest a monopoly for something that advances technology/society because you were only able to get that far because technology/society is in the currend state.
No matter how you turn it, if you get more money per hour than a labour worker it is only because the you take monney out of a pool which is filled by everybody.
Ps: i hope it's possible to understand everything, my English is realy rusty
You can object all you like, that doesn't make it less true. What is cannibalism? Killing a man and using his body to feed your hunger. Well, what difference does it make if instead of chopping up his physical body you just take his house, his savings, the clothes off his back, the food from his mouth and all his hopes and aspirations? You're still feeding off him like a parasite--a blood-sucker in all but the literal sense.lenin_117 said:
Communism, socialism, and fascism are all the same fundamental system with slightly different appearances. In all of them, the economy is centrally planned by the government.
So, I ask again, how is "everybody's" well-being enhanced by being made to wait hours for a few scraps of bread, months for medical care, or a few minutes for the gas chamber? Or do these people just not count somehow?
Fine, I'll restrict myself to talking about the Allende government in Chile, Fidel Castro's Cuba, North Korea, China, Britain, Canada, and Zimbabwe. Oh, and Hugo Chavez' Venezuela. Heck, you may as well include the rest of Europe and the U.S. in there, too, along with Mexico and the rest of Central and South America.
If you keep claiming "that's not socialism" you're going to run out of things that *are* socialism very, very quickly.
Oh, I'm sorry, did I not provide enough examples for you? How about this one? [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/british-patients-wait-longer-for-surgery-398522.html] Or this one [http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1019/p04s01-woeu.html]? This one [http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=299282509335931] is about the fundamentally similar Canadian system, which is facing the same problems. Here's another. [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/world/europe/21britain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin] And another about Canada. [http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/01/15/bc-patients.html] And I didn't even go looking for those, I just typed "British Health Care Wait" into Google.
Perhaps it doesn't--but it doesn't matter because I don't believe in any such mythical creature as "society as a whole" or it's equally mythical "good". I just believe in leaving individual men free to pursue such goods as they choose by their own judgment. The track record of free men has been fantastical beyond belief, but even if it weren't, I wouldn't see that as any justification for chains and slavery. Men are not cattle to be driven and yoked for *anybody's* purpose.
Why should the educated not be payed more than those who aren't? If you have the good sense to work though your school years and better yourself then Id say you deserve to be payed more. Especially in (at least the UK) a system where everyone can easily get access to the highest level of education.
If you have responsibility then you can be sacked for what someone else does. This is quite a gamble which surely requires some monetary reward?
If you had an idea or invention then of course you should be payed alot for that. If not wheres the incentive to invent things?
Fact is you need to have some that are payed more than others, if everyone gets the same amount then why would you try to better yourself? If I could coast through school, not work for any exams, not listen at all and get payed the same as someone whos done years and years of education why would you bother? And that pool is filled by everybody because it keeps the markets turning, if you stop buying products companies stop making money, they cut back on workers which results in lower produce and in turn more cutbacks.
If you have responsibility then you can be sacked for what someone else does. This is quite a gamble which surely requires some monetary reward?
If you had an idea or invention then of course you should be payed alot for that. If not wheres the incentive to invent things?
Fact is you need to have some that are payed more than others, if everyone gets the same amount then why would you try to better yourself? If I could coast through school, not work for any exams, not listen at all and get payed the same as someone whos done years and years of education why would you bother? And that pool is filled by everybody because it keeps the markets turning, if you stop buying products companies stop making money, they cut back on workers which results in lower produce and in turn more cutbacks.