Capitalism vs. Communism

[Renegade Island]

economise - spend sparingly, avoid the waste of.

How is the economy doing this?

By taking scarce resources and allocating them? That's the answer in a nutshell, really.

We can sit here and argue 'till the cows come home about how the market is inefficiently allocating resources, and many economists spend their lives doing so. But the fact of the matter is that the combination of government intervention (for social motives) and market allocations (for economic motives) has produced a reasonably efficient system; one which has not yet been rivalled.

As I said, aggregate, long-term growth rates for most, if not all, developed economies over the last one hundred years show a steady, monotonic increase in income per capita and factor productivity. That's economising.

And the cause of this recession, rather, was a deviation from an efficient allocation of resources. That isn't a failing of the system, but rather of the economic actors therein.

So how do you explain cyclical consumption, planned obsolescence, the advertising and marketing industries, etc?

[Alowwvia]

The fact that this many people think Communism is a good economic system in any way startles and frightens me deeply.


Protip:

There isn't any free enterprise in Communism. Everything that is manufactured is manufactured by the state, for the purposes of advancing the state. You really think that governments have any interest in producing quality products? Hell no. Kiss your Apple laptop goodbye, hippe; Boss Comrade says you gotta spend the next 8 hours making shoes, and you don't need a computer for that, asshole. If you really want one, hope you can do well on the IT aptitude test, dickwad.

Have an idea? Well, unless you're about ready to get as loaded as the guy who invented Tetris (hint: he never got shit for his beloved game), you might as well forget it because you get nothing. You cannot advance.

It's like if you play Monopoly, but you aren't allowed to move past the first square. There's no incentive to work hard or succeed; you'll never be self-made. You'll always rely on the government.

Communist states are not free states. The government has 100% of the power in these states; political and economic. They're generally shitty places to live if you're not born into the family/favor of a politician.

Communism and socialism are in every sense inferior to Capitalism. Unless you're lazy and are OK with mooching off the system, but whatevs.

[Blakk Metal]

The fact that this many people think Communism is a good economic system in any way startles and frightens me deeply.


Protip:

There isn't any free enterprise in Communism. Everything that is manufactured is manufactured by the state, for the purposes of advancing the state. You really think that governments have any interest in producing quality products? Hell no. Kiss your Apple laptop goodbye, hippe; Boss Comrade says you gotta spend the next 8 hours making shoes, and you don't need a computer for that, asshole. If you really want one, hope you can do well on the IT aptitude test, dickwad.

Have an idea? Well, unless you're about ready to get as loaded as the guy who invented Tetris (hint: he never got shit for his beloved game), you might as well forget it because you get nothing. You cannot advance.

It's like if you play Monopoly, but you aren't allowed to move past the first square. There's no incentive to work hard or succeed; you'll never be self-made. You'll always rely on the government.

Communist states are not free states. The government has 100% of the power in these states; political and economic. They're generally shitty places to live if you're not born into the family/favor of a politician.

Communism and socialism are in every sense inferior to Capitalism. Unless you're lazy and are OK with mooching off the system, but whatevs.

1. Communism is stateless.
2. Not all socialism has a state.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

By taking scarce resources and allocating them? That's the answer in a nutshell, really.

We can sit here and argue 'till the cows come home about how the market is inefficiently allocating resources, and many economists spend their lives doing so. But the fact of the matter is that the combination of government intervention (for social motives) and market allocations (for economic motives) has produced a reasonably efficient system; one which has not yet been rivalled.

As I said, aggregate, long-term growth rates for most, if not all, developed economies over the last one hundred years show a steady, monotonic increase in income per capita and factor productivity. That's economising.

And the cause of this recession, rather, was a deviation from an efficient allocation of resources. That isn't a failing of the system, but rather of the economic actors therein.

So how do you explain cyclical consumption, planned obsolescence, the advertising and marketing industries, etc?

Just mechanisms that have developed within the system. You might view them as having a negative social impact relative to their commercial merit, and perhaps that is the case. There's no reason why that negative impact can't be mitigated within the system itself, though.

[Vazdania]

Minarchist Capitalism is the way to go. It respects the Producer, Consumer, and Government. Whereas Communism respects only the government.

[Blakk Metal]

So how do you explain cyclical consumption, planned obsolescence, the advertising and marketing industries, etc?

Just mechanisms that have developed within the system. You might view them as having a negative social impact relative to their commercial merit, and perhaps that is the case. There's no reason why that negative impact can't be mitigated within the system itself, though.

The flaw is inherent in the system. If you create a deathmatch, people ain't gonna show good sportsmanship.

[Blakk Metal]

Minarchist Capitalism is the way to go. It respects the Producer, Consumer, and Government. Whereas Communism respects only the government.

Communism is stateless.

[Alowwvia]

Minarchist Capitalism is the way to go. It respects the Producer, Consumer, and Government. Whereas Communism respects only the government.

Communism is stateless.

You can keep saying that as much as you want.

A state can be socialist, whether you want it to be or not.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Minarchist Capitalism is the way to go. It respects the Producer, Consumer, and Government. Whereas Communism respects only the government.

I agree with you on everything except that last part.

Communism is classless, stateless, moneyless. But yet we find that every country that as tried has either become Fascist/State Capitalist, or were quickly taken over by Fascist/State Capitalist. Yet the lemmings still advocate it...

So basically communism LEADS TO Fascist/State Capitalist, but communism itself is Classless stateless moneyless *wink wink*

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Just mechanisms that have developed within the system. You might view them as having a negative social impact relative to their commercial merit, and perhaps that is the case. There's no reason why that negative impact can't be mitigated within the system itself, though.

The flaw is inherent in the system. If you create a deathmatch, people ain't gonna show good sportsmanship.

What a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I've been describing.

[Vazdania]

Minarchist Capitalism is the way to go. It respects the Producer, Consumer, and Government. Whereas Communism respects only the government.

I agree with you on everything except that last part.

Communism is classless, stateless, moneyless. But yet we find that every country that as tried has either become Fascist/State Capitalist, or were quickly taken over by Fascist/State Capitalist. Yet the lemmings still advocate it...

So basically communism LEADS TO Fascist/State Capitalist, but communism itself is Classless stateless moneyless *wink wink*

I'm sorry, but so far with all the 'communist' states that have popped up, there is still a government. China, the soviet Union and North Korea, etc all have (or had) governments. Whether or not communists choose to admit it, there is always a 'government'

[Mavorpen]

Communism is classless, stateless, moneyless. But yet we find that every country that as tried has either become Fascist/State Capitalist, or were quickly taken over by Fascist/State Capitalist. Yet the lemmings still advocate it...

So basically communism LEADS TO Fascist/State Capitalist, but communism itself is Classless stateless moneyless *wink wink*

How many times has a revolution in an economically poor country led to a representative democracy throughout history?

[Vazdania]

Communism is classless, stateless, moneyless. But yet we find that every country that as tried has either become Fascist/State Capitalist, or were quickly taken over by Fascist/State Capitalist. Yet the lemmings still advocate it...

So basically communism LEADS TO Fascist/State Capitalist, but communism itself is Classless stateless moneyless *wink wink*

How many times has a revolution in an economically poor country led to a representative democracy throughout history?

well...in Egypt it happened.....until a few days ago xD

[Renegade Island]

I agree with you on everything except that last part.

Communism is classless, stateless, moneyless. But yet we find that every country that as tried has either become Fascist/State Capitalist, or were quickly taken over by Fascist/State Capitalist. Yet the lemmings still advocate it...

So basically communism LEADS TO Fascist/State Capitalist, but communism itself is Classless stateless moneyless *wink wink*

I'm sorry, but so far with all the 'communist' states that have popped up, there is still a government. China, the soviet Union and North Korea, etc all have (or had) governments. Whether or not communists choose to admit it, there is always a 'government'

They weren't communist states, any more than the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is a democratic republic.

[Mavorpen]

How many times has a revolution in an economically poor country led to a representative democracy throughout history?

well...in Egypt it happened.....until a few days ago xD

That's one out of how many?

[Renegade Island]

Communism is stateless.

You can keep saying that as much as you want.

A state can be socialist, whether you want it to be or not.

socialist and communist are not interchangable terms.

[Vazdania]

I'm sorry, but so far with all the 'communist' states that have popped up, there is still a government. China, the soviet Union and North Korea, etc all have (or had) governments. Whether or not communists choose to admit it, there is always a 'government'

They weren't communist states, any more than the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is a democratic republic.

They still take from Communist Ideologies. Whether or not they were truly communist has nothing to do with it. That is the effect of what happens when you attempt to implement communism into a country.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Communism is classless, stateless, moneyless. But yet we find that every country that as tried has either become Fascist/State Capitalist, or were quickly taken over by Fascist/State Capitalist. Yet the lemmings still advocate it...

So basically communism LEADS TO Fascist/State Capitalist, but communism itself is Classless stateless moneyless *wink wink*

How many times has a revolution in an economically poor country led to a representative democracy throughout history?

Only once. But that was only because...well...

[Vazdania]

well...in Egypt it happened.....until a few days ago xD

That's one out of how many?

24 *pokerface* *hopes he cant sense my unknowing*

[Mavorpen]

That is the effect of what happens when you attempt to implement communism into a country.

No it isn't. It's the effect when you take an economically poor and isolated country, instigate a revolution, rely on an international revolution, and the international revolution fails.

In other words, has shit to do with communism.

[Namabia]

When did Capitalism become a form of government?

Last I checked it was a form of an economic system that is categorized under "Free-Market."

[Renegade Island]

So how do you explain cyclical consumption, planned obsolescence, the advertising and marketing industries, etc?

Just mechanisms that have developed within the system. You might view them as having a negative social impact relative to their commercial merit, and perhaps that is the case. There's no reason why that negative impact can't be mitigated within the system itself, though.

Dogma. Belief in the system even when the system has been shown to be broken.

[Vazdania]

When did Capitalism become a form of government?

Last I checked it was a form of an economic system that is categorized under "Free-Market."

nope! xD its definitely a form of government *sarcasm*

Well Its sort of a government stance i guess ._. wherein the state has little if anything to do with the market...

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Just mechanisms that have developed within the system. You might view them as having a negative social impact relative to their commercial merit, and perhaps that is the case. There's no reason why that negative impact can't be mitigated within the system itself, though.

Dogma. Belief in the system even when the system has been shown to be broken.

Except you haven't shown anything. Like, literally nothing.

[Threlizdun]

nope! xD its definitely a form of government *sarcasm*

Well Its sort of a government stance i guess ._. wherein the state has little if anything to do with the market...

Capitalism requires the state to exist.