Forums → WEPR → Communism Vs. Capitalism
| 112 | 21502 |
Which one do you think is better?
I think that Communism is better because more people have jobs everyone gets food and shelter.
- 112 Replies
If only we could use both benefits from each and make... Commutalism
I'm waiting for VoteSocialist to jump on this one!
If only we could use both benefits from each and make... Commutalism
That is a bad idea, I would rather have pure of either extreme that have than have the worst of both.
Good people who have nothing to do with their plight despite trying their best... kinda do prove you wrong
Good and bad people who have everything to do with their current status in society (the vast majority of people in a capitalist system)... kinda do prove you wrong.
Anyone concerned about America's lower class ought to read this paper published by the good folks at The Heritage Foundation.
Here's the article
Okay dude, nice article.
I have a severely schizophrenic friend named Mike... He's homeless over in San Luis Obispo, Cali where I used to live. He used to always come into the store where I worked and spend literally hours reading all the magazines, memorizing their contents.
The man's a good guy, and is actually extremely intelligent, even if his brain doesn't work right, it's still very active.
He simply doesn't have the mental capacity to take care of himself. And you know what? The overwhelming majority of the human race doesn't give a crap about him. They don't give him the time of day, much less get to know him.
And his family? I once saw a man come through who turned out to be his brother. He was nicely and not too cheaply dressed, and of a very sound mind. Not only was he completely calloused with Mike for the duration of their conversation, but he actually had the nerve to ask MIKE for a dollar to buy him something from my store. And Mike gave it to him! I could tell Mike really had no developed way to handle how his brother treated him, but he just seemed to love his brother enough to give him a dollar even though he TOTALLY didn't need it, and Mike doesn't even have a place to live!
I am always always always going to support funding for the sick, the disabled, and otherwise unfortunate. I do not come from this mythological land where peoples' position in society is so completely in their own control. I come from the land of Mike and countless others like him who have been ABANDONED by their families and by society.
The private sector doesn't help these people. The private sector doesn't give a SHIT about them. I am a diehard capitalist, sir, but charity is not a function of the free market and never will be.
Okay, first of all capitalism is no utopia where it is easy to move up in the ranks like ninja keeps saying. There is no unlimited supply of jobs under capitalism because it would be unprofitable for private investors to give as many people as possible jobs. The government, as incredulous has many people are about them, has helped stimulate the economy many times. Socialism is not a welfare state nor is it a repressive bureaucracy; it's broad and hard to define but my ideal socialist nation would have welfare for the poor to a limited extent where they need to find a job, free health care for absolutely everyone, free for cheap education for everyone, everything big aside from a few retail stores belonging to the workers, and small private facilities such as Diners and Motels.
Is capitalism really all that great? Where is the success of capitalism in places like Asia, Africa and Latin America? Socialsim held Yugoslavia together for decades! And do you know how many socialist countries Africa had because they couldn't get anywhere under capitalism or because they were ruled by a foreign power? Mexico is filled with drug lords, crime, cases of rape it's aweful in some parts. Thank goodness the United States has some socialistic reforms so that their economy doesn't fall apart; otherwise the Mexicans would have no place to go! Where is your great triumph of capitalism in Russia? Their economy completely collapsed when they first tried letting factories make profit. Not only that, Russia's population is expected to be cut in half by 2050 because birth rates are lower than abortions and emigration. Sure, there are pockets in Russia that are really nice to live in such as Moscow. But it's so expensive to live in Moscow that the city holds more billionaires in one place than any other city. The rest of Russia, mainly to the far east, is a hell-hole.
America isn't a triumph of capitalism either; go to places like the Bronx, downtown New Haven, Detriot, Southern New York, pockets of LA infested with gangs, those are not exactly great places to live. Only wealthy, middle class families are safe from the horrors of crime and poverty. Capitalism has yet to have a great victory, my friends. But communism is not any better...or atleast how countries like Russia have tried to meet communism. What would be good is a mixture of communism and capitalism...socialism combines government funded programs for the poor and allows some free market.
I am always always always going to support funding for the sick, the disabled, and otherwise unfortunate. I do not come from this mythological land where peoples' position in society is so completely in their own control. I come from the land of Mike and countless others like him who have been ABANDONED by their families and by society.
The private sector doesn't help these people. The private sector doesn't give a **** about them. I am a diehard capitalist, sir, but charity is not a function of the free market and never will be.
You have some leftist leanings.
You have some leftist leanings.
Haha, I merely prefer to think of myself as a realist. I'm not going to cling to any idealogy when it conflicts with what I've seen with my own eyes.
Above all I believe in the supremacy of the individual. And while I do think capitalism champions the individual far more often than not, no system is perfect. Some individuals wind up oppressed through no fault of their own, and it degrades all of us to simply do nothing about it.
What's the difference between me killing a man, and me doing nothing while I watch him slowly die?
Okay, first of all capitalism is no utopia where it is easy to move up in the ranks like ninja keeps saying. There is no unlimited supply of jobs under capitalism because it would be unprofitable for private investors to give as many people as possible jobs. The government, as incredulous has many people are about them, has helped stimulate the economy many times. Socialism is not a welfare state nor is it a repressive bureaucracy; it's broad and hard to define but my ideal socialist nation would have welfare for the poor to a limited extent where they need to find a job, free health care for absolutely everyone, free for cheap education for everyone, everything big aside from a few retail stores belonging to the workers, and small private facilities such as Diners and Motels.
Okay, capitalism is no utopia, but I'm saying its a hell of a lot better than communism. And, as it may not be profitable for one entity to give as many people jobs as there are people (*cough* the gov't), it can be profitable for thousands of private entities to give jobs to as many people as they think is profitable. Small businesses create 70% of the jobs in America. (Which by the way, I don't use America as my perfect standard for capitalism.) My ideal capitalist nation would be where government intervenes into no private business whatsoever, with the possible exceptions of hospitals where peoples lives could be concerned.
Is capitalism really all that great? Where is the success of capitalism in places like Asia, Africa and Latin America? Socialsim held Yugoslavia together for decades! And do you know how many socialist countries Africa had because they couldn't get anywhere under capitalism or because they were ruled by a foreign power? Mexico is filled with drug lords, crime, cases of **** it's aweful in some parts. Thank goodness the United States has some socialistic reforms so that their economy doesn't fall apart; otherwise the Mexicans would have no place to go! Where is your great triumph of capitalism in Russia? Their economy completely collapsed when they first tried letting factories make profit. Not only that, Russia's population is expected to be cut in half by 2050 because birth rates are lower than abortions and emigration. Sure, there are pockets in Russia that are really nice to live in such as Moscow. But it's so expensive to live in Moscow that the city holds more billionaires in one place than any other city. The rest of Russia, mainly to the far east, is a hell-hole.
I try my best to keep the arguments ideological and not empirical because it just turns into a debate where we yell at each other "No, thats not communism, the reason it didn't work is because they did it wrong." or whatever. I don't hold any country to my standard of pure capitalism. Socialist reforms in America are what cause economies like America's to fall apart. The deficit is setting up America for disaster. The 'stimulus' bill was a complete waste. 1 trillion dollars for barely any 'stimulus' at all. Instead of giving the money to the people that make the economy run, he just made the government bigger. And our deficit bigger. 1 trillion dollars bigger. An interview with many a small business owner on the heritage foundation website showed that on average, 1 million dollars could create 225 jobs if given to small businesses in the private sector. The administration could've given 1 million small businesses 1 million dollars! Thats 225 million jobs. I don't even know what we'd do with that many.
I kinda got off subject there >.<
I have a question for you.
Who is the middle class?
I hear a lot of socialists and other lefties talk about the middle class and other terms such as class warfare. Who is the middle class? Am I the middle class? Are you?
I try my best to keep the arguments ideological and not empirical
Um, if that's really the case, how do you ascertain if a given ideology actually *works* or not?
My humble opinion: words like capitalism, socialism, and communism function much better as descriptive terms than rigid ideologies. Emphasis on FUNCTION.
I agree that socialist reforms to regulating the economy have rigged our economy towards our current state. I don't believe in it because I haven't seen much good come out of the principles (or arguably lack thereof) our modern economy is founded on. A lot of the tricks the government plays with money aren't done in a financially responsible household. America would be in utter ruin by now if people managed money like the government does. Hence why it's the American people bailing out the GOVERNMENT and their buddies right now. Grr.
Tangent.
All that to say, I wouldn't cite the Heritage Foundation as any kind of definitive source as they quite openly have an agenda - as I do, I wouldn't recommend myself as any kind of authority either.
Most relevant information - that is to say, facts - is a matter of public record and anyone is free to get their hands on the actual meat and digest it for themselves. Google is quite possibly your best friend ever.
Communism in itsself is not a bad form of government. Only when the power is abused, which it always will be by human nature, is it a problem.
My humble opinion: words like capitalism, socialism, and communism function much better as descriptive terms than rigid ideologies. Emphasis on FUNCTION.
Not to mention the irony in doing so when you consider that Marx himself despised 'ideologies' and saw his ideas as a set of quasi-scientific theories.
Okay, capitalism is no utopia, but I'm saying its a hell of a lot better than communism. And, as it may not be profitable for one entity to give as many people jobs as there are people (*cough* the gov't), it can be profitable for thousands of private entities to give jobs to as many people as they think is profitable
Gee, no wonder why Mexico is a terrible place to work in in about 80% of the entire nation.
Small businesses create 70% of the jobs in America. (Which by the way, I don't use America as my perfect standard for capitalism.) My ideal capitalist nation would be where government intervenes into no private business whatsoever, with the possible exceptions of hospitals where peoples lives could be concerned.
A good socialist promotes smaller private businesses while cracking down on the larger, possibly more corrupt ones.
Socialist reforms in America are what cause economies like America's to fall apart.
No paved roads? No public schools? No Medicare? No socialized medicine for veterans? No nationalized military? No labor unions? No government-supported college loans? No government regulations on tobacco and alcoholic drinks? No regulations of false advertisement?
I have a question for you.
Who is the middle class?
I hear a lot of socialists and other lefties talk about the middle class and other terms such as class warfare. Who is the middle class? Am I the middle class? Are you?
The middle class is broad, there's a lower and upper middle class and the difference between them get's bigger as capitalism developes.
No paved roads? No public schools? No Medicare? No socialized medicine for veterans? No nationalized military? No labor unions? No government-supported college loans? No government regulations on tobacco and alcoholic drinks? No regulations of false advertisement?
I don't have time for a full response so here's a little cherry-picking *snicker*
I will point out that pretty much every level headed libertarian around is in favor of the government building the transportation infrastructure and military force. I wouldn't call these desires in and of themselves to be socialist. There is however much disagreement on how their oversight is implemented.
In my case I also say the same for underprivileged health care, although again the *implementation* is of real concern. Medicare and vets' care aren't exactly the shining stars of socialism's accomplishments, at least not here in the USA.
Public education? I'm in favor of the underprivileged having access. But I think if people can afford to make their own independent education decision, they should - rather than being forced to pay into a system "for themselves" whether they actually use it or not. Why should anyone sending their kids to private school continue to pay tax money that is supposedly for their own children? I say tax to cover for the underprivileged and leave it at that. And for the underprivileged themselves, the charter system appeals to me. But it remains to be seen how many kinks they're gonna work out of the charter approach. Again, it comes down to how they implement the idea. It's entirely possible that they could harness the responsiveness and innovation of the free market within the ethical concerns of treating human life with respect.
As far as the state of the economy is concerned, what is actually going on right now is very diabolical. People in power are currently saying that capitalism has failed and socialism is here to save the day. The actual reality is that some very wealthy, powerful men have been capitalizing gains, but now they want to socialize losses.
And that to me is the whole problem with socialism, is what it allows these greedy bastards to get away with.
Here's a bit of an irrational appeal, something which requires more heuristics than straight up logic to appreciate: Consider for a moment all the antagonists and villains in stories you've read. What are some awfully common characteristics you see in them? A lust for power... or put another way, a pressing psychological need to have more *control*.
America's founding fathers seemed to think it was really bad for one person or one group of people to have too much control, and I agree. It's the tenets this country was founded on, and I love living in my country very much. I don't believe in regulating morality or responsibility beyond the bare minimum necessary to preserve the rights of the individual - in short, to be free and pursue happiness.
Any more meddling in society than that, and government jobs start to look attractive to people with control issues. My 2 cents.
Communism does not work. It is a nice idea, but is really just a theory.
Capitalism on the other hand is functional, our world economy is based on it.
However both use the weak and poor to keep the top 1% rich. Both exploit smaller countries for their own benefit. One good thing about both is they promote the advance of science and technology, one to be stronger and the other to make more money.
I have to say that in every single (ex) communist country you will notice that the citizens now are poorer, maybe with communism they had less stuff and maybe less freedom to travel etc. But now the 2% has now so many more money than before and the citizens have so many stuff to buy, though their resources are not enough to have a good and happy life.
listen commies vs caps...hum..WE SAW THAT ALREADY THE COLD WAR and how did it end? with america wining duh.america won becuse russa canged govs not america.P.S i am american
You must be logged in to post a reply!