TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- capitalism vs communism
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

capitalism vs communism

capitalism:

freedom
emphasis on personal acheivement
rewards innovation
Man was not created equal, but shall be given equal oppurtunity
survival of the fitest
Man is inherrently selfish and greedy, why deny it.


Communism:

conformity
one for the good of the community
weakest link is a broken leg for the whole community
desirable for countries ruined by war that need hope
why strive to be the best if there is no reward
Loss of individualism and self expression

Please add..

Communism is in theory evolved capitalism, its the next stage.

Biatch

communism will never work, it's a good thought though... full capitalism will never work either...

and i don't think you put them up in a fair way.

What's funny is that I fully expect the Europeans to show up and start arguing for communism, simply because an American has started a capitalist thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Cal Communism is in theory evolved capitalism, its the next stage. Biatch

You are somewhat true, but only because communism is an idealistic government for an idealistic human species that will never exist. You cannot deny human nature. Glad to see that you can come up with constructive replies, it's a good example of your mentality and maturity.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew and i don't think you put them up in a fair way.

That's why I said "please add".

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen That's why I said "please add".

sorry, misseed that...

You're the one whining in private msges and deleting your embarrasing threads buddy.

And it's not about arguing whats better becuase that is impossible to prove. All we have to go on is the work and theories of economists like Engels.

I guess you aren't capable of a discussion then. Again, your maturity shines through.

quote:

Originally posted by Cal Communism is in theory evolved capitalism, its the next stage. Biatch

True, but this assumes the economic structure can "evovle" to another stage.

Marx thought this was possible because the brougsie would rise up being the butt of capitilism. The truth turned out to be the exact opposite, capitilism does not intice the brougsie, but pacify them.

Thats why, according to his very own theory, we shouldn't really ever see a communist system evolving from a capitilist one.

Personally, I'm all up for socialism, you get the best of both worlds

Heh, about the lack of motivation, there was a saying in ex-Yugoslavia that went something like "They can't give me low enough amount of wage to compensate for my even lesser amount of work"

Bah, that one's a bitch to translate.

Call me brainwashed, but after reading "The Road to Serfdom" (as every good Libertarian should) by Hayek, I am very leary of any type of socialist state, be it European or the quasi-socialist state America finds itself in today. I don't want to spoil the book, but his thesis is that a socialist state (he calls collectivism), no matter how good the nature, eventually finds itself down the road of totalitarianism. Here is a good summary I found of the reasons he believes this to be the case.

quote:

(1) Collectivism represents the undoing of liberalism (in the classic sense). (2) Socialism necessitates that the efforts of the populace be directed towards a common goal, often called something like "the common good." The economic system must be centrally planned in order to achieve this goal. Such planning amounts to coercion, and individual liberty is sacrificed for the degree of security a socialist state provides. (3) A free society operates according to the Rule of Law, where the rules are known beforehand. The economy of a free society consists of the net sum of individual decisions made within the known legal framework. By contrast, a centrally planned society relies upon government decisions that must be made on the basis of current necessity, what Hayek calls "arbitrary government." (4) Money promotes economic liberty, acting as the medium to provide the individual with the freedom to use his compensation in whatever manner he chooses, rather than being dependent upon a compensation whose specific nature is determined by others. (5) Socialism is inherently nationalistic or ethnocentric, because the leading party often must rally the populace to focus against a threatening group in order to effectively promote its own agenda. A "one-world" socialism that unites across peoples, nations, and ethnic backgrounds is not workable. (6) True believers in a socialist society must hold the interests of the State as higher than their own. Those who will move up the ranks in a socialist society are often prepared to do anything on behalf of the state, no matter how much this opposes one's own moral principles. Those who are amoral are thus more likely to "succeed" in a socialist hierarchy. Hayek holds out little hope that a socialist utopia will work if only "good people" are put in charge.

"Man is inherently selfish and greedy"
the nut shell.

capitalism: free market economy which allows markets to naturally adjust to inflations and recessions given enough time.

communism: command market economy which government determined prices and output leading to surpluses or shortages. ex. Communist Russia


I prefer the middle with some key government controlled industries, such healthcare and education. But i think there should also be privatized hospitals and schools at the same time if people are willing to pay for above and beyond quality of care/education.

Re: capitalism vs communism

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen capitalism: freedom emphasis on personal acheivement rewards innovation Man was not created equal, but shall be given equal oppurtunity survival of the fitest Man is inherrently selfish and greedy, why deny it. Communism: conformity one for the good of the community weakest link is a broken leg for the whole community desirable for countries ruined by war that need hope why strive to be the best if there is no reward Loss of individualism and self expression Please add..

Seriously, is there any point trying to debate communism with Americans?

Re: Re: capitalism vs communism

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Seriously, is there any point trying to debate communism with Americans?

why is it different from other westerners

communism = faulty economics

capitalism = sound economics

simple as that

quote:

Originally posted by mps242 communism = faulty economics capitalism = sound economics simple as that

ummm...ok. whatever you say.

both forms of organization can and *ARE* perversed in their practiced forms. capitalism has its problems, just as Soviet Russia and CCCP China had\have.

does the US practice -pure- capitalism? not at all.

did the Soviets practice pure communism, hell no, as Lenin tried to induce the revolution to speed things up.

does that make one more sound, or one less sound? hardly.

i agree with dmatrox in saying that somewhere between is preferable. Canada follows that course, just as Sweden and increasingly China. Sweden and Canada consistently rank higher on quality of life than even the US - but that isnt only dependent on economics. China is looking to catch the US in many areas. that being said China is not, and was never a utopian socialist state. her success is creating a more and more unequal distribution as well. the US professes the ideals of capitalism, yet neo-classical liberalization is undermining the logic of pure free market economy. state run businesses are looked upon as 'Communist' in the US, yet there are strict capital and labor controls that undermine complete free trade.

how does that make either solution perfect?

Re: Re: capitalism vs communism

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Seriously, is there any point trying to debate communism with Americans?

so u support communism and not the form of your own government?

quote:

Originally posted by biznology ummm...ok. whatever you say. both forms of organization can and *ARE* perversed in their practiced forms. capitalism has its problems, just as Soviet Russia and CCCP China had\have. does the US practice -pure- capitalism? not at all. did the Soviets practice pure communism, hell no, as Lenin tried to induce the revolution to speed things up. does that make one more sound, or one less sound? hardly. i agree with dmatrox in saying that somewhere between is preferable. Canada follows that course, just as Sweden and increasingly China. Sweden and Canada consistently rank higher on quality of life than even the US - but that isnt only dependent on economics. China is looking to catch the US in many areas. that being said China is not, and was never a utopian socialist state. her success is creating a more and more unequal distribution as well. the US professes the ideals of capitalism, yet neo-classical liberalization is undermining the logic of pure free market economy. state run businesses are looked upon as 'Communist' in the US, yet there are strict capital and labor controls that undermine complete free trade. how does that make either solution perfect?

Dude, you got to slow it down for fuzzy. Next time, use shorter words and don't spell right ok?

quote:

Originally posted by mps242 communism = faulty economics capitalism = sound economics simple as that

From a capitalist's point of view.

Each one has its benefits and disadvantages. Every government is a combination of each. Just depends on proportions.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology ummm...ok. whatever you say. both forms of organization can and *ARE* perversed in their practiced forms. capitalism has its problems, just as Soviet Russia and CCCP China had\have. does the US practice -pure- capitalism? not at all. did the Soviets practice pure communism, hell no, as Lenin tried to induce the revolution to speed things up. does that make one more sound, or one less sound? hardly. i agree with dmatrox in saying that somewhere between is preferable. Canada follows that course, just as Sweden and increasingly China. Sweden and Canada consistently rank higher on quality of life than even the US - but that isnt only dependent on economics. China is looking to catch the US in many areas. that being said China is not, and was never a utopian socialist state. her success is creating a more and more unequal distribution as well. the US professes the ideals of capitalism, yet neo-classical liberalization is undermining the logic of pure free market economy. state run businesses are looked upon as 'Communist' in the US, yet there are strict capital and labor controls that undermine complete free trade. how does that make either solution perfect?

The US actually surpassed canada this past year . Ultimately I refuese to get into capatlism vs. "communism" (nobody advocates "communism" anymore however) discussions. When it comes down to it, socialist states can be as equally well off as more capitalist states ... it simply comes down to the lifestyle one prefers. Some prefer greater economic freedoms and some prefer greater social benefits. They bear many equal tradeoffs that some value more and others value less but ultimately it's a matter of perspective. It's undeniable that the US is an economic powerhouse surpassed by none in the world ... the question is whether the sacrifices it makes to acheive that is worth it. My own opinion is yes ... but that's different for everyone.

Even though Linus has said linux!=communism, people always throw it out.

linux > windows

communism > capitalism

hehe

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo "Man is inherently selfish and greedy" the nut shell.

I am personally a liberal - and hence, far removed from the ideals of communism - but do not think that this quote in any way can justify capitalism as it is being debated in this thread. Even if the individual is controlled by specific urges, that does not necessarily entails that the interacting lump called society as a whole demonstrates the same behaviour - nor that it would thrive under conditions which only suits the individuals.

On another level: In this thread capitalism is seemingly used as a monicker for economic liberalism. Shouldn't capitalism mean "power should be entrusted to those with big financial means"? Why is this? When someone like FuzzyGreen advocates capitalism - does he mean that he wants to be ruled by Murdoch and Gates - or does he mean that he wants to live in a system where he can decide for himself what to do with his own money?

Re: capitalism vs communism

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen capitalism: freedom emphasis on personal acheivement rewards innovation Man was not created equal, but shall be given equal oppurtunity survival of the fitest Man is inherrently selfish and greedy, why deny it. Communism: conformity one for the good of the community weakest link is a broken leg for the whole community desirable for countries ruined by war that need hope why strive to be the best if there is no reward Loss of individualism and self expression Please add..

Mircosoft Windows has no freedom

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.