|
capitalism vs communism
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 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.. |
|
|
| Cal |
Communism is in theory evolved capitalism, its the next stage.
Biatch |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
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. |
|
|
| imokruok |
| 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. |
|
|
| FuzzyGreen |
| 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. |
|
|
| FuzzyGreen |
| 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". |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by FuzzyGreen
That's why I said "please add". |
sorry, misseed that... |
|
|
| Cal |
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. |
|
|
| FuzzyGreen |
| I guess you aren't capable of a discussion then. Again, your maturity shines through. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| 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. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
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. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
