Poll: Capitalism VS Communism VS Socialism

[JMeganSnow]

What are you referring to? Who is forcing who at the point of a gun to go to school for 16 years, 18 hour days? What are you getting at?

The person I just described is most medical doctors--who spend 16+ years in school and then frequently work amazingly long, arduous hours. Let's compensate them just the same as you. Isn't that what you're advocating? And what do you do when they decide to leave the profession of medicine because it's just not worth it to them any more? Get the government to MAKE them work?

Anything the government does is done at the point of a gun--that's the only authority and power the government has. So you might want to be a little more careful about what exactly you're advocating when you start arguing that people ought not to earn more than they absolutely need--according to you.

Grr, my quote got goofed up and I'm not sure how to fix it. Sorry.

 

[lenin_117]

What are you referring to? Who is forcing who at the point of a gun to go to school for 16 years, 18 hour days? What are you getting at?

The person I just described is most medical doctors--who spend 16+ years in school and then frequently work amazingly long, arduous hours. Let's compensate them just the same as you. Isn't that what you're advocating? And what do you do when they decide to leave the profession of medicine because it's just not worth it to them any more? Get the government to MAKE them work?

Anything the government does is done at the point of a gun--that's the only authority and power the government has. So you might want to be a little more careful about what exactly you're advocating when you start arguing that people ought not to earn more than they absolutely need--according to you.

But doctors in countries with socialised healthcare get paid more than for instance than plumbers or bricklayers so your argument is null and void. Also, the Government does not make them work. Where are you getting this from?

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I must say it's absolutely awesome to actually have somebody defending capitalism on an internet forum, considering that I've seen a lot of capitalist hatred on the internet.

That said, is it possible to have too much of a good thing? I say it's high time we started breaking out the humor.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Phillosophic]

So you'd voluntarily go to school for 16 years and work 18 hour days for *no additional money*? Yes, that is stupid. It's self-abuse. However, if this is what you want to do, in a free country, *you can do it*. No one will stop you. You just can't force *other* people who have actual self-respect to do the same at the point of a gun.

What are you referring to? Who is forcing who at the point of a gun to go to school for 16 years, 18 hour days? What are you getting at?

The person I just described is most medical doctors--who spend 16+ years in school and then frequently work amazingly long, arduous hours. Let's compensate them just the same as you. Isn't that what you're advocating? And what do you do when they decide to leave the profession of medicine because it's just not worth it to them any more? Get the government to MAKE them work?

Anything the government does is done at the point of a gun--that's the only authority and power the government has. So you might want to be a little more careful about what exactly you're advocating when you start arguing that people ought not to earn more than they absolutely need--according to you.[/quote]

I see your point on this but some doctors get into the proffesion, not for the money but because they feel the need to help others. For some the money isn't the main incentive. I would like to think that at least some people didn't become doctors just for the money. This world would be a scary ass place to live if everyone did everything just for financial gain. Wait a minute....the world is scary.

 

[fuzzypenguin]

I don't give a damn whether the system works "better" for ten million other people if my friends and family can't get treatment for love or money at the moment of truth. I don't own those people and they don't own me, so who the hell are they to dictate to me the conditions of *my* healthcare because they didn't want to have to take care of their own?

this is the crux of the US healthcare system. the few people who can afford the life saving surgerys can get them right away and everthings sunshine and rainbows untill you realise that instead of the rich waiting there turn and having a slight chance (very slight) that they wont get there surgery in time they condem those who cant afford the surgery to a 0% chance of getting there life saveing operation in time.

 

[lenin_117]

I must say it's absolutely awesome to actually have somebody defending capitalism on an internet forum, considering that I've seen a lot of capitalist hatred on the internet.

That said, is it possible to have too much of a good thing? I say it's high time we started breaking out the humor.

What's this!? An attempt to cheapen a discussion! Alack, I fear the whole thread will meander down an ally-way of easy jokes and poor wit to end up standing on the drug-filled needle of uselessness. Unless this crisis can be averted. Yes, that's it! My fellow readers, please ignore the post made by Samurai Goomba (a fictional name i just made up). If we can't see the problem, then it doesn't exist. OH NO! The joke has made me capitalist. Somebody shoot me, please!

 

[JMeganSnow]

Well fine, nothing is ever 'free' if you approach things like that. Of course we have to pay our taxes, but I still define the NHS as a 'free' service.

That's like saying that World of Warcraft is "free" because you don't have to pay to download it--you just have to pay a monthly fee if you actually want to PLAY for longer than the trial period. Or that broadcast TV is "free" because they pay for it with advertisements rather than demanding you fork over cash. It means your TV programs are full of advertisements.

TANSTAAFL isn't just a cute saying, it's the literal truth.

Our education system isn't actually that clear cut. We have public schols (actually private schools, usually boarding, cost ludicrous fees), private schools (the same thing, essentially), and we have state schools. State schools actually provide quality education, and give candidates equal opportunities without prejudice to their background. A lot of our country's politicians went to state school, including notable people like John Prescott.

Yes, I know, there are incidental differences in the socialized and partly-socialized institutions in various countries, just like parts of a sinking ship can suddenly and unexpectedly rise much higher out of the water than they ordinarily would. The entire ship is still going down if someone doesn't get busy and plug the gaping holes in the side.

IIRC Britain still has a pretty solid legacy of rational education. Not so in the U.S., which is why ours is going down faster. Or maybe not, I'm not sure how long the two countries have had state school systems. Even the private schools in the U.S. are "state" schools of a sort, because they exist solely at the state's discretion and must adhere to state-dictated standards or be run out of business. If nothing else, this manufactures a vested interest in seeing to it that the private schools aren't much better than the public ones.

Most of the people I'm friends with homeschool their kids out of desperation.

Your last paragraph brings the argument to a very personal level, and I don't see what you're getting at. You can get your healthcare for love or money. Those other 10 million people are people's families and friends too, and if the majority benefit then I think that's the main priority.

That's what you think, but socialized care means long wait times even *for* people who want to and can pay twice because of another systemic problem: rationing. This is why almost all the Canadians who pay for their own care come to the U.S. to get it--because the doctors who perform the surgeries are severely limited in how many paying patients they can take, assuming they're allowed to take ANY.

This is necessitated by the nature of socialized healthcare, because if the doctors remain free to take only the patients they want, they will, of course, take the self-pay patients who pay more and cause them less grief.

And the U.S. is getting ready to socialize its healthcare system. I know one Canadian who quipped that they hoped it didn't happen--where else would they go to get surgery? Mexico?

Government involvement in any sector of the economy is like a raging infection--it moves in, corrupts, and drains the healthy tissue while the government bureaucracy swells and swells. The exact progress of the infection is impossible to predict, but the end result--death--is inevitable unless measures are taken to stop the infection and cast it out entirely.

 

[JMeganSnow]

this is the crux of the US healthcare system. the few people who can afford the life saving surgerys can get them right away and everthings sunshine and rainbows untill you realise that instead of the rich waiting there turn and having a slight chance (very slight) that they wont get there surgery in time they condem those who cant afford the surgery to a 0% chance of getting there life saveing operation in time.

It'd work a lot better without the government interference--believe it or not, there was a time when EVERYONE could afford perfectly adequate medical care and medical insurance out of their own pocket. Those VERY few people who couldn't were MORE than adequately handled by the MANY charitable organizations that undertook to provide care for them.

Medicare (which was the start of the socialized healthcare system in the U.S.) was pushed through not by claims that the elderly were *unable* to obtain care, but because it was *beneath their dignity* for them to have to depend on charity. The doctors protesting Medicare offered to treat these super-marginalized patients FOR FREE, bearing the expense themselves!

But oh, all our woes are caused by Evil Rich People conspiring to deny healthcare to the downtrodden masses. What a crock. Sure, someone making $30K a year can't afford the type of healthcare that Donald Trump might receive, and as a consequence Mr. Trump might manage to live an extra six months--one half of a a man's lifetime medical expenses occur in the last six months of their life.

I quote from Dr. Leonard Peikoff in his excellent essay "Medicine, the Death of a Profession":

In a free society, you personally would have to make a choice; do you want to defer consuption, cancel vacations, forgo pleasures year after year, so as to extend your life in the ICU by a few months at the end? If you do, no one would interfere under capitalism. You could hoard your cash and then have a glorious spree in the hospital as you die. I would not care to do this [I wouldn't, either]. It does not bother me that some billionaire can live months longer than I by using machinery that I cannot begin to afford. I would rather be able to make ends meet, enjoy my life, and die a bit sooner. But in a free society, you are not bound by my decision; each man makes and finances his own choice. The moral principle here is clear-cut: a man has a right to act to sustain his life, but no right to loot others in the process. If he cannot afford some science-fiction cure, he must learn to accept the facts of reality and make the best of it.

In a free society, the few who could afford costly discoveries would, by the normal mechanism, help to bring the costs down. Gradually, more and more of us could afford more and more of the new technology, and there would be no health-cost crisis at all. Everyone would benefit, no one would be crushed. The terminally ill would not be robbing everyone else of his life, as is happening now, thanks to government intervention; the elderly would not be devouring the substance of the young.

 

[Dele]

Government involvement in any sector of the economy is like a raging infection--it moves in, corrupts, and drains the healthy tissue while the government bureaucracy swells and swells. The exact progress of the infection is impossible to predict, but the end result--death--is inevitable unless measures are taken to stop the infection and cast it out entirely.

You know you just gave us the right to treat you like a typical capitalism fanboy (or girl)...

It'd work a lot better without the government interference--believe it or not, there was a time when EVERYONE could afford perfectly adequate medical care and medical insurance out of their own pocket. Those VERY few people who couldn't were MORE than adequately handled by the MANY charitable organizations that undertook to provide care for them.

I live on such a society where everyone can afford medical care. Just because your system is screwed up (pfft Mexico will soon have better healthcare than you) doesn't mean there aint a working one.

 

[Uncompetative]

What form of Government did the Native Americans use?

That one.

Low population. Green. Teepees.

 

[Jharry5]

Communism sounds good when you read the theory, but when its implimented something gets lost in translation... human nature gets in the way of the theory.
Capitalism seems to only really benefit either bankers or big businesses (just look at the current finicial situation...)
For me, the most balanced is socialism.

 

[Arachon]

I voted Anarchism, to be more specific, Anarcho-Syndicalism. It's the only system that won't allow a "gonverment" (or corporation etc) to impose on the freedom of humans, since the lack of a proper "gonverment"as a single organisation, will mean that no single group can attain absolute power.

 

[JMeganSnow]

You know you just gave us the right to treat you like a typical capitalism fanboy (or girl)...

Us who? I'm already taking on all comers, one more won't hurt. I administrate a forum devoted to philosophical and political discussion. I hardly think I'm going to wilt because you threaten to call me a "fanboy".

The definition of "works" is pretty damn broad. If you're a totalitarian dictator, shooting everyone who disagrees with you is about the only functional way to stay in power--it "works", in other words. That doesn't make it benevolent.

The ultimate reason why Capitalism is the best system is because it is the only system which preserves everyone's rights, which is the only moral way for humans to live together--to respect each other as political equals instead of some version of masters and slaves.

However, there is such a massive quantity of misunderstanding about what Capitalism is, how it works, and why it is moral that it's necessary to present practical examples--but the practical examples are just illustrations of the principles involved, they aren't the be-all and end-all of the argument. It's very easy to find counter-examples that arise from slightly different circumstances, just as it's possible to find that guy who smoked a pack a day for 40 years and lived to be 103. Is this therefore evidence that smoking is good for you?

Bismarck originated the idea of state-guaranteed retirement in an age when almost no one could expect to live to BE 65--so it "worked" fine and was considered a lovely benevolent system. Now, in the U.S., with most of the population expecting to live to be 78 and more people taking money OUT of the system than are paying INTO it, we're seeing the final consequences of his attempted guarantee. Social Security IS going to crash and a LOT of people are going to suffer for it.

Sooner or later, the consequences of bad policies *always* catch up.

 

[742]

they all suck.
we COULD enable the rich to climb to the top on the broken bodies and shattered dreams of those who werent quite as lucky as they were...
or we could take things from people who earned them, just because someone else is a noob.

or maybe, we could do something inbetween. taking a chance of both, neither, or just a LITTLE of each. its all in how well its managed, and were humans, so lets face, it, were gunna fuck up, in a board room or in the oval office, its going to FAIL.

 

[JMeganSnow]

ok back on topic capitalism is the way to go but some things need to be socialized or you would have a nation of illiterates.

We would? This whole "public" education thing is pretty new and most people were literate long before it was introduced. If the government had undertaken to provide everyone with shoes, by now someone would be claiming that everyone but the rich would be forced to go barefoot without the shoe program.

People are perfectly capable of figuring out what's going to benefit them and pursuing it--and why should the rest of the population, the ones who don't care and don't want it, be forced into education at everyone else's expense? Let them rot in their ignorance if that's what they want. Freedom includes the freedom to be a damnfool.

Basic education is neither difficult nor costly--most adults are qualified to undertake it. Some places in India have perfectly acceptable schools that cost less than a dime a day. Government subsidies and government guns are neither required nor wanted.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Communism is a great government in theory, but human nature tends to bugger it all up.

Capitalism is a great government in theory, but human nature tends to bugger it all up.

I salute both of you sirs!

Any system is a valid which can work under the right set of circumstances with an uncorrupt and competent adminstration. I personally edge towards socialism, because I have a personal belief that we should look out for the guy less fortunate than ourselves. But a working capitalist or communist system would suit me just fine if it wasn't mired in corruption and incompetancy.

 

[Castor Krieg]

I'm so sorry, normally I wouldn't even bother to reply to Internet chat, yet alone register, but the sheer stupidity of people here is incredible. Your devotion for Socialism shows that most of you live in rich Western European countries. It makes the whole situation almost as funny as intellectual Marx praising workers lol.

Eye opener - I live in Poland, and although I was born in 1984 I remember NOTHING in stores. Meat was rationed. If you wanted to get Western goods you had to go and pay in USD. This is your socialism at work.

For more modern example go France. I spent a year doing my MA there and this country is pure rubbish - I never saw a bigger bunch of lazy bums in my entire life. Nobody works, everyone is on strike, people deny responsibility all the time.

I also lived in Hong Kong - efficiency, simple laws, simple rules. Yes, everyone is crazy about making money and spending it, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?!?


Because you cannot keep up with competition doesn't mean that competition is bad. Kinda reminds me of psychological dilemma where people would take credit for their successes but blame outside factors for their misfortune. Don't want to work hard and long hours? Fine, BUT LET SOMEONE ELSE DO THAT. They try harder than you, they should be compensated more.

I'm surprised that someone might have voted for Socialism (ppl voting for Communism are so much morons it's not even funny) - don't you read any books to know better?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I'm so sorry, normally I wouldn't even bother to reply to Internet chat, yet alone register, but the sheer stupidity of people here is incredible. Your devotion for Socialism shows that most of you live in rich Western European countries. It makes the whole situation almost as funny as intellectual Marx praising workers lol.

Eye opener - I live in Poland, and although I was born in 1984 I remember NOTHING in stores. Meat was rationed. If you wanted to get Western goods you had to go and pay in USD. This is your socialism at work.

For more modern example go France. I spent a year doing my MA there and this country is pure rubbish - I never saw a bigger bunch of lazy bums in my entire life. Nobody works, everyone is on strike, people deny responsibility all the time.

I also lived in Hong Kong - efficiency, simple laws, simple rules. Yes, everyone is crazy about making money and spending it, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?!?


Because you cannot keep up with competition doesn't mean that competition is bad. Kinda reminds me of psychological dilemma where people would take credit for their successes but blame outside factors for their misfortune. Don't want to work hard and long hours? Fine, BUT LET SOMEONE ELSE DO THAT. They try harder than you, they should be compensated more.

I'm surprised that someone might have voted for Socialism (ppl voting for Communism are so much morons it's not even funny) - don't you read any books to know better?

In countries where extreme capitalism is allowed to flourish, you get the exact same equalities. People left to die of cancer, waiting months, maybe years for operations while rich get theirs done the day after diagnosis. You have families condemned to living in poverty, sending their children to run down and useless schools while the more affluent effectively buy their children futures by paying for a better education. You have the super rich (in some cases literally) getting away with murder and serious crimes because they can afford top class lawyers and are not relying on public defenders.

Wealth, or the lack of it, should not be used to allow someone to break the law, influence entitlment to a decent future, or decide if someone lives or dies. This is why I am a socialist. You are welcome to your views but I am welcome to mine.

 

[T'Generalissimo]

I feel the need to define Communism, since it has been thrown around a little bit in this discussion.

I think I'll let Marx field this one as he is the co-author of the Communist Manifesto.

"Communism is the final stage of society; classless and stateless with small, maybe village-sized societies working together, with each member giving what they can and taking what they need. It is NOT anything like what the Soviet system was, that was Socialism, which they should have eventually have evolved out of and into Communism. Idiots." (Possibly not a direct quote)

Thanks Marx. I think it's important we know what we're dealing with. Lenin was not Communist. Stalin was definetly not Communist. There has never actually been a Communist society put into practice.

Now that I've done that, I would quite like to take this oppurtunity to tear into Communism. Simply put, it promotes need and burdens ability. When you have a system in which the weak are allowed to take the products of the strong, it simply encourages weakness and discourages strength. Not something that I would particularly like.

I forgive Marx for his indiscretions because of that mighty beard though. I mean, check it out!

 

[Castor Krieg]

I feel the need to define Communism, since it has been thrown around a little bit in this discussion.

I think I'll let Marx field this one as he is the co-author of the Communist Manifesto.

"Communism is the final stage of society; classless and stateless with small, maybe village-sized societies working together, with each member giving what they can and taking what they need. It is NOT anything like what the Soviet system was, that was Socialism, which they should have eventually have evolved out of and into Communism. Idiots." (Possibly not a direct quote)

Thanks Marx. I think it's important we know what we're dealing with. Lenin was not Communist. Stalin was definetly not Communist. There has never actually been a Communist society put into practice.

Now that I've done that, I would quite like to take this oppurtunity to tear into Communism. Simply put, it promotes need and burdens ability. When you have a system in which the weak are allowed to take the products of the strong, it simply encourages weakness and discourages strength. Not something that I would particularly like.

I forgive Marx for his indiscretions because of that mighty beard though. I mean, check it out!

Wow, I'm surprised someone can see the difference between Socialism and Communism, because my country didn't learn that after 20 years. Chinese came pretty close to communism society with farmers not owning land - we all know how it ended.

To poster above you - why the assumption that rich have to evade justice? The state can allow people to become rich and yet punish those who break the law. Systems of checks and balances will prevent corruption - this is the case of Singapore, a capitalist state, where you cannot bribe ANYONE.

I agree the state should help poor people by providing everyone with equal opportunities. However poor people are not interested in equal opportunities - they want ADDED benefits over others (the "rich") to off-set the existing inequality. That is wrong. Rich people got to where they are by work, why poor people should have it easier?