Capitalism vs. Communism

[Anarchists communists and other pinkos]

:idea: how about this. Lets has this debate after a communist society survives for more than 5 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_ ... Liberation

[Zweite Alaje]

Equitable distribution of resources is neither an absolute aspect of communism, a likely phenomenon, or even remotely desirable. Why would we have such collectivist nonsense as enforcing how much an individual could obtain?
Anarchy=/=lawless

Why would it not be desireable?(by resources I mean money, guarenteed a job, housing, etc. I don't mean taking one's property/possesions, I believe you have a right to own your own stuff)This would mean no more greedy capitalist scum waving their money, doing what they want while others scavenge on the bottom rung of a capitalist society. It is possible, although difficult to have equal distribution. To me, Communism IS the "everyone is equal" idea, I don't know what it means to you. By the way, what does the "Anarchy=/=lawless" mean?

Such a system would be just as bad as capitalism, stealing from those that put in and giving to those that don't. Absolute economic equality is impossible.

[Sociobiology]

source?
I have never heard this before so I really would like a source.

http://www.science20.com/positive_psychology_digest/happiness_and_wealth

sorry the source says nothing of the kind its not even a paper it is a blog with graphs made out of someones head, not actual data.

[Tairoth]

Communism simply cant work. now in a few years, maybe decades communism in China will fall and be replaced with Democracy

it is inevitable

China isn't and wasn't communist.


Democracy has no connection to economic systems.

It is

What a stupid thing to say

[North America and the Great Lakes]

Communism on paper is a much better form of government. The state slowly dissolves, leaving the people with a classless society where everyone shares and is the picture of utopia.

But in the real world, Capitalism is the better government. People don't exactly want to share their hard earned money with some vagrant who hasn't done a thing to earn his own living. People don't want to give up power, people don't want to live equally, and we can't even share our own planet without drawing lines in the sand and saying, "That's yours, this is mine."

There is not one instance of a communist/Marxists states that has ever achieved true communism to date.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics degraded into a dictatorship, and then a One-Party State, leaving hundredds in poverty and others in extreme wealth.

The People's Republic of China has a hybrid economy, and are more capitalist than communist, but still a one-party state.

In The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North) thousands live in poverty in the countryside so that their military can have the finer things in life.

The entire Eastern Bloc fell when the Iron Curtain was lifted.

The only two remotely successful communist societies would be the states of Cuba and Vietnam, but Cuba is also a one-party dictatorship, and I can't say about Vietnam as I really am not that knowledgable on the subject.

Point is, there was a Cold War between capitalism and communism. There's a reason the United States of America is still here, and the USSR collapsed like it did. Their economy failed, their citizens were unhappy, and they wanted a change. Simple as that.

[Sociobiology]

source?
I have never heard this before so I really would like a source.

Sources:

http://smu.edu.sg/perspectives/2012/06/ ... -happiness

first not a source but the source it uses actually say that can't concluded from the data, satisfaction does continue to increase with wealth, and they use a very round about way to establish happiness.
to quote the article dirrectly

"They do not imply that people will not be happy with a raise from $100,000 to $150,000, or that they will be indifferent to an equivalent drop in income.... What the data suggest is that above a certain level of stable income, individuals' emotional well-being is constrained by other factors in their temperament and life circumstances."

http://positivepsychologynews.com/news/bridget-grenville-cleave/20080826990

no it says income does increase happiness but it us only one of many factors

For further reasearch into happiness:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hed ... z2D60YjsbE
http://www.thehappymovie.com/

and a website that simple repeats the same claim without a source does nothing to help your credibility.

[The Land of the Red Rainbow]

Democracy has no connection to economic systems.

You can put economic decisions under democratic control or influence.

Having economic decisions controlled by a market or by a party outside people's control isn't very democratic.

I support communism.

[Divair]

China isn't and wasn't communist.


Democracy has no connection to economic systems.

It is

What a stupid thing to say

No, it isn't.

When was China classless, currencyless, and stateless?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

China isn't and wasn't communist.


Democracy has no connection to economic systems.

It is

What a stupid thing to say

How about you try and prove your point rather than saying "What a stupid thing to say"?

[Socialdemokraterne]

Communism on paper is a much better form of government. The state slowly dissolves, leaving the people with a classless society where everyone shares and is the picture of utopia.

I'm going to stick with Marxism as I go along because that's what I know most soundly.

First of all, Communism v. Capitalism is an economic debate, an argument over how to allocate and apply available resources. Communism is concerned with economic class consciousness and pursues economic classlessness, and the reason is pretty straightforward: Marx believed that everything in history was driven by material and economic factors. Class conflict, that is conflict between socioeconomic classes, was what Marx saw as the vehicle driving history about. Not culture, not structure, these were both products of material conditions to Marx.

But in the real world, Capitalism is the better government. People don't exactly want to share their hard earned money with some vagrant who hasn't done a thing to earn his own living.

The only thing people really share in Communism is the means of production of things and an equal stake in available natural resources. They don't share the products, only the means of making them. The saws, blast furnaces, drill presses, metal ingots, all of these are shared. The houses, the televisions, the toys, these are not shared, so you've still got a reason to work. You don't just get things by default, you still have to earn them through labour.

People don't want to give up power, people don't want to live equally, and we can't even share our own planet without drawing lines in the sand and saying, "That's yours, this is mine."

So people resist changes in existing economic structures, this is somehow supposed to surprise me? Regardless of this fact, economic structures can and do change. Sometimes they're simply modified and tweaked (say, a shift in Capitalism from more classical thinking toward more Keynesian thinking), sometimes they're outright replaced. Capitalism as it exists today hasn't always been around, you know.

Increasingly global networks represent a crossroads akin to the formation of the Westphalian state. Expect changes. Big ones.

There is not one instance of a communist/Marxists states that has ever achieved true communism to date.

And there is not one instance of a free market in the entirety of human history. What's your point? It hasn't been done, ergo it cannot be done?

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics degraded into a dictatorship, and then a One-Party State, leaving hundredds in poverty and others in extreme wealth.

The People's Republic of China has a hybrid economy, and are more capitalist than communist, but still a one-party state.

In The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North) thousands live in poverty in the countryside so that their military can have the finer things in life.

Vanguardism, Leninism, and Marxism-Leninism lead to bad economic results and extraordinarily inequitable power structures. That's what you're supposed to take from this. The thing these three systems had/have in common was that they all tried Vanguardism guided by Marxism-Leninism. They all later revised their stances in different ways and at different times, but they were all Vanguard systems drawing their ideas from Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, and Vanguardism.

You're comparing three red liquids of somewhat different hues and extrapolating the results of experimentation with these red liquids upon experimentation with blue liquids of varying hues. Stop it. There are components of the Communist and Socialist movements which are substantively different from these systems and which have not yet had their ideas attempted in earnest. You cannot take the results of the CCCP and extrapolate these onto ideas which in no way resemble Vanguardism.

The only two remotely successful communist societies would be the states of Cuba and Vietnam, but Cuba is also a one-party dictatorship, and I can't say about Vietnam as I really am not that knowledgable on the subject.

First, those aren't Communist societies. Second, there is a massive difference between a system not collapsing and a system being successful. A successful system accomplishes the objectives it listed at the outset. If we are to consider Cuba and/or Vietnam to have been Communist systems, they failed miserably in spite of their survival.

Point is, there was a Cold War between capitalism and communism. There's a reason the United States of America is still here, and the USSR collapsed like it did. Their economy failed, their citizens were unhappy, and they wanted a change. Simple as that.

Your perspective is a massive oversimplification if you're going to try to extrapolate the results of Vanguardism onto the entirety of Communism and Socialism, and it's definitely an oversimplification if you're only going to look at the Cold War. "Simple as that" is anything but applicable here.

[Canis Rex]

But greed is unnatural! (in my imaginary fantasy world)

The argument for greed is basically this: "People don't like living in a pig sty, therefore greed exists."

Mixed economies won
so everyone won.

Until the economy collapses due to the idiotic handling of debt and multiple bubbles, and we go down a dangerous road that could've been averted if we had adopted a form of socialism in the early 1900's, communist or non.

If the leader(s)/government attempt to give themselves more resources/power,

That is pretty much inevitable. Power corrupts people, and people who seek power are generally corrupt.

The system of distribution would be difficult, as it would need constant and close monitoring, but not impossible and it is well worth working towards.

DID YOU JUST PROPOSE CENTRAL PLANNING!?!

They are not true Communist. They are leaders who use the guise of being Communist to retain and justify their power.

You ain't 'true Communist' either, bud.

If leaders try to become greedy, they will need to be replaced.
Not "central planning", only monitoring and distribution. Not "put a quota on all production" like USSR or anything.
Please explain a "true Communist" then.

[Canis Rex]

The system of distribution would be difficult, as it would need constant and close monitoring, but not impossible and it is well worth working towards.

You're absolutely right, it's not impossible to establish a command economy. It is, however, generally considered to be a very undesirable economic structure. Command economies are less efficient at allocating labour and resources, and it was this inefficiency which led to shortages and inconsistent work in the former CCCP (see: quota storming). Another problem with command economies is that centrally set wages tend to produce bottlenecks in production (see: wage reform in the USSR). Yet another problem with command economic structures is that money flows cannot be perfectly controlled by the central planning apparatus, and so markets and investment departing from the planned economic structure are essentially impossible to completely destroy.

With all this in mind, I promised that I had some good things to say about command economics. Command economics, when used on a temporary basis, can be remarkably effective at accomplishing very specific national objectives. The most common example is fighting a war.

We see how well these help programs have done for the poor, don't we? The results: many still poor, the greedy still prospering and uncaring for them.

There comes an eventual point where chasing greater levels of income equality stops solving your problems. The fact that there is no paradise on Earth does not invalidate the fact that there are places on Earth with phenomenal income equality, low levels of corruption, and first-class standards of living. My favorite example is Denmark. It's not a paradise, but it's a nice place to live comparatively speaking.

I know the system of distribution/economy would be a very difficult thing to organize, support, and monitor for a long term but if achieved it would create a great and equal society.
I don't know much about Denmark, so I can't really comment on it.

[Canis Rex]

Why would it not be desireable?(by resources I mean money, guarenteed a job, housing, etc. I don't mean taking one's property/possesions, I believe you have a right to own your own stuff)This would mean no more greedy capitalist scum waving their money, doing what they want while others scavenge on the bottom rung of a capitalist society. It is possible, although difficult to have equal distribution. To me, Communism IS the "everyone is equal" idea, I don't know what it means to you. By the way, what does the "Anarchy=/=lawless" mean?

Such a system would be just as bad as capitalism, stealing from those that put in and giving to those that don't. Absolute economic equality is impossible.

All jobs/work would require monitoring to ensure that everyone is working. Those that don't work, but are able to, would get nothing.

[Blakk Metal]

The argument for greed is basically this: "People don't like living in a pig sty, therefore greed exists."

Until the economy collapses due to the idiotic handling of debt and multiple bubbles, and we go down a dangerous road that could've been averted if we had adopted a form of socialism in the early 1900's, communist or non.

That is pretty much inevitable. Power corrupts people, and people who seek power are generally corrupt.

DID YOU JUST PROPOSE CENTRAL PLANNING!?!

You ain't 'true Communist' either, bud.

If leaders try to become greedy, they will need to be replaced.
Not "central planning", only monitoring and distribution.

A.K.A. central planning.

Not "put a quota on all production" like USSR or anything.

Good luck getting anyone to deal with the quagmire of central planning then.

Please explain a "true Communist" then.

Someone who believes in communism.

You're absolutely right, it's not impossible to establish a command economy. It is, however, generally considered to be a very undesirable economic structure. Command economies are less efficient at allocating labour and resources, and it was this inefficiency which led to shortages and inconsistent work in the former CCCP (see: quota storming). Another problem with command economies is that centrally set wages tend to produce bottlenecks in production (see: wage reform in the USSR). Yet another problem with command economic structures is that money flows cannot be perfectly controlled by the central planning apparatus, and so markets and investment departing from the planned economic structure are essentially impossible to completely destroy.

With all this in mind, I promised that I had some good things to say about command economics. Command economics, when used on a temporary basis, can be remarkably effective at accomplishing very specific national objectives. The most common example is fighting a war.



There comes an eventual point where chasing greater levels of income equality stops solving your problems. The fact that there is no paradise on Earth does not invalidate the fact that there are places on Earth with phenomenal income equality, low levels of corruption, and first-class standards of living. My favorite example is Denmark. It's not a paradise, but it's a nice place to live comparatively speaking.

I know the system of distribution/economy central planning would be a very difficult thing to organize, support, and monitor for a long term but if achieved it would create a great shitty and inequal society.

Corrected.

[Blakk Metal]

Such a system would be just as bad as capitalism, stealing from those that put in and giving to those that don't. Absolute economic equality is impossible.

All jobs/work would require monitoring to ensure that everyone is working.

That's capitalist, my friend.

Those that don't work, but are able to, would get nothing.

Why do you have the obligation to the work of others?

[Radorn]

If leaders try to become greedy, they will need to be replaced.
Not "central planning", only monitoring and distribution.

A.K.A. central planning.

Not "put a quota on all production" like USSR or anything.

Good luck getting anyone to deal with the quagmire of central planning then.

Please explain a "true Communist" then.

Someone who believes in communism.

I know the system of distribution/economy central planning would be a very difficult thing to organize, support, and monitor for a long term but if achieved it would create a great shitty and inequal society.

Corrected.

Call it what you want, not my problem.
Again, I realize the system would be difficult and require dedication, but also again, would be well worth it.
Please explain what you believe Communism is then.
Explain how this society would be "shitty" and "inequal".

(I am also Canis Rex, just happened to be on my other nation)

[Libertarian California]

Capitalism

[Indira]

Capitalism vs. Communism.The question is what is better?I think Communism is.Both are Industrial governments.So tell me what is better or worse and why. What do you think??

The evidence of history suggests that communism is unworkable on a large scale, so capitalism by default

[Ukrussiaine]

Communism wins.

Both are in actuality capitalist systems, but communist states have communist end-goals for the greater good whereas capitalist states have self-serving, self-devouring interests of the bourgeoisie.

Communist state is an oxymoron

Which is why it's capitalist in actuality.

[Radorn]

All jobs/work would require monitoring to ensure that everyone is working.

That's capitalist, my friend.

Those that don't work, but are able to, would get nothing.

Why do you have the obligation to the work of others?

How is that capitalist?
To distinguish those who contribute from those who don't.

[The walkers]

Capitalism. It uses the most basic aspects of human nature to create strong supports for society and its economy.

Communism is idealism, or at least the aspect of it that people seem to love. The real thing does work, it just tends to leave quite a few people dissapointed in the end.

[Socialdemokraterne]

I know the system of distribution/economy would be a very difficult thing to organize, support, and monitor for a long term but if achieved it would create a great and equal society.

I honestly don't think it would create all that equal a society. The central bureaucracy is at a huge advantage in a centrally planned system, especially the members of its upper management.

I don't know much about Denmark, so I can't really comment on it.

You don't know what you're missing.

[Threlizdun]

How is that capitalist?
To distinguish those who contribute from those who don't.

Slavery is slavery regardless of what form it takes. Communism maintains that the means of production do not belong to individuals or select groups, but to everyone. Capitalism is based on the collectivist mentality that one must work for "the greater good" in order to have what has been stolen from them returned to them. If they do not do this, they starve. Stating that individuals must work in order to survive indicates that the means of production are privately owned and that violence is being used against them.

Capitalism. It uses the most basic aspects of human nature to create strong supports for society and its economy.

It does this by combating individualist and egoist principles associated with human nature, building a system based on slavery, and encouraging inefficiency?

Communism is idealism, or at least the aspect of it that people seem to love. The real thing does work, it just tends to leave quite a few people dissapointed in the end.

In what way does it leave people dissapointed?

[Canis Rex]

I know the system of distribution/economy would be a very difficult thing to organize, support, and monitor for a long term but if achieved it would create a great and equal society.

I honestly don't think it would create all that equal a society. The central bureaucracy is at a huge advantage in a centrally planned system, especially the members of its upper management.

I don't know much about Denmark, so I can't really comment on it.

You don't know what you're missing.

The major problem Communism has always had is finding leaders that won't become greedy and take more power/resources. I believe this is the main reason for pure Communism never being sucessfully implemented.(That and outside attacks)
I've been hearing good things about Denmark, seems like a nice place.

[Canis Rex]

How is that capitalist?
To distinguish those who contribute from those who don't.

Slavery is slavery regardless of what form it takes. Communism maintains that the means of production do not belong to individuals or select groups, but to everyone. Capitalism is based on the collectivist mentality that one must work for "the greater good" in order to have what has been stolen from them returned to them. If they do not do this, they starve. Stating that individuals must work in order to survive indicates that the means of production are privately owned and that violence is being used against them.

Capitalism. It uses the most basic aspects of human nature to create strong supports for society and its economy.

It does this by combating individualist and egoist principles associated with human nature, building a system based on slavery, and encouraging inefficiency?

Communism is idealism, or at least the aspect of it that people seem to love. The real thing does work, it just tends to leave quite a few people dissapointed in the end.

In what way does it leave people dissapointed?

There is a big difference between having a job/contributing and slavery(which is forced work in often inhumane conditions, you have no rights, and you work but get nothing or inadequate pay/supplies)
Capitalism is not "working for the greater good" it's "make as much money as possible any way possible and don't worry about the less fortunate". It also means "if you're rich, do want you want, you run the country."
If people received resources for doing nothing, how many would simply do nothing? The idea of "contribute or get nothing" is to avoid freeloaders/lazy people profiting from those who actually work while they do nothing.