Capitalism Vs. Communism

Capitalism Vs. Communism
Andrax
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jul 25, 2012

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 42
#1 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 31, 2012 - 4:20 AM:
Subject: Capitalism Vs. Communism
In Capitalism the rift between the rich and the poor gets bigger and bigger. One can't blame the poor for being poor. Social status is not just about the effort that one puts in making money, one needs quality education to get into a well paying job these days. Quality education that is easily acquired by the rich but is out of reach for the poor. Luck always plays a big part in any venture. Rich people may just be lucky to be born in rich families or lucky enough that their ventures did not go down in flames, which can happen spontaneously at any moment.

Communism is aimed to create a classless society, no rich and no poor. However it is too easy for dictatorships to happen. Communism, in itself, is a very good kind of government but it's flaw is that it gives too much power to the government.

I think the most ideal form of government would be a center-left style of government following the basic aspects of Communism while still giving people power over the government. A Communist Democracy.
transfinite
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 25, 2010

Total Topics: 159
Total Posts: 1754
#2 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Jul 31, 2012 - 7:29 AM:

Comparing capitalism with communism is, I believe, like comparing a malignant tumor with a fungus infection. Capitalism has economic destruction built into its expanding inequality while communism has economic stagnation built into its despotic egalitarianism. Both systems are dystopian and can only be resuscitated by combining the best of each while excising the diseased parts, i.e., creating a social democracy.
Andrax
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jul 25, 2012

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 42
#3 - Quote - Permalink
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Jul 31, 2012 - 11:59 AM:

transfinite wrote:
Comparing capitalism with communism is, I believe, like comparing a malignant tumor with a fungus infection. Capitalism has economic destruction built into its expanding inequality while communism has economic stagnation built into its despotic egalitarianism. Both systems are dystopian and can only be resuscitated by combining the best of each while excising the diseased parts, i.e., creating a social democracy.

I'm sorry but I'm too lazy to learn new words right now so I'll just feel out the tone. In the beggining it seems like you were against me and in the end part it seems like you were with me. So in response to the first part, ! And in response to the last part, nod hehe.

Nihilistic Locomotive
Borgesian Eliza Clone
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 27, 2003

Total Topics: 59
Total Posts: 241
#4 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 2 people found this post helpful
Posted Jul 31, 2012 - 1:51 PM:

Be wary about how you go about using the word "government" without qualification. The political climate is so divisive that it rarely refers to the ideal and enforcement of checks and balances which both parties, in good sense, should agree on to avoid corruption and the excessive concentration of power in either a left or right direction.

I talk to a conservative sometimes who constantly vilifies the word, government. "Too much government!" This might be true in some respects as far it concerns the operations of small businesses. But what happens when there is a too much government and it is unduly influenced by Corporate pools of wealth.

This left-right polarity distorts and distracts from the ability of either side to govern well. It's quite fucked up.


Dantesco
Resident
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 17, 2010
Location: Brasil

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 464
#5 - Quote - Permalink
2 of 3 people found this post helpful
Posted Jul 31, 2012 - 3:25 PM:

Andrax wrote:
In Capitalism the rift between the rich and the poor gets bigger and bigger. One can't blame the poor for being poor. Social status is not just about the effort that one puts in making money, one needs quality education to get into a well paying job these days. Quality education that is easily acquired by the rich but is out of reach for the poor. Luck always plays a big part in any venture. Rich people may just be lucky to be born in rich families or lucky enough that their ventures did not go down in flames, which can happen spontaneously at any moment.

Communism is aimed to create a classless society, no rich and no poor. However it is too easy for dictatorships to happen. Communism, in itself, is a very good kind of government but it's flaw is that it gives too much power to the government.

I think the most ideal form of government would be a center-left style of government following the basic aspects of Communism while still giving people power over the government. A Communist Democracy.


What a bunch of flowerish puerile romantic talk.

Capitalism and communism are economical systems.

Economy is the science of allocation of scarce resources.

Capitalism is based on the premise that the best way to allocate scarce resources is grant the individuals the right of ownership and freely exchange it.

Communism is based on the premise that the best way to allocate scarce resources is deny the individuals the right of ownership and let a central government take all decisions concerning production.

Although there may be some social inequalities in societies under a capitalistic economy, the fact is its adoption usually enhance the quality of life, while communism produced only scarcity, famine and oppression anywhere it were adopted.
Wittman
Resident
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 22, 2010
Location: behind you

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 172
#6 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 31, 2012 - 4:58 PM:

Andrax wrote:
In Capitalism the rift between the rich and the poor gets bigger and bigger.


If you are talking about a perfect capitalist system, where everyone behaves rationally, this is not the case. Everyone's income in a perfect capitalist system is nearly equal (the discrepancy accounted for by differences in education) because competition will drive profit margins to zero.

Andrax wrote:
One can't blame the poor for being poor. Social status is not just about the effort that one puts in making money, one needs quality education to get into a well paying job these days. Quality education that is easily acquired by the rich but is out of reach for the poor. Luck always plays a big part in any venture. Rich people may just be lucky to be born in rich families or lucky enough that their ventures did not go down in flames, which can happen spontaneously at any moment.


I agree, the poor do need to be afforded greater educational opportunities. A weak educational background does put one at a great disadvantage in the workplace.


Andrax wrote:
Communism is aimed to create a classless society, no rich and no poor. However it is too easy for dictatorships to happen. Communism, in itself, is a very good kind of government but it's flaw is that it gives too much power to the government.


Your assertion that communism's largest flaw is that it is susceptible to dictatorship is nonsense. The communism that Marx described was very decentralized and lacked a state. You are probably conflating the kleptocratic dictatorships of the Soviet Union and China with real communism.

Andrax wrote:
I think the most ideal form of government would be a center-left style of government following the basic aspects of Communism while still giving people power over the government. A Communist Democracy.


Any government that does not enforce some wealth redistribution and provide some social services is probably not a good one. Of course we need a mixed economic system.
Landru Guide Us
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 30, 2010
Location: Austin, Texas

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 3220
#7 - Quote - Permalink
2 of 2 people found this post helpful
Posted Jul 31, 2012 - 7:03 PM:

Dantesco wrote:


What a bunch of flowerish puerile romantic talk.

Capitalism and communism are economical systems.

Economy is the science of allocation of scarce resources.

Capitalism is based on the premise that the best way to allocate scarce resources is grant the individuals the right of ownership and freely exchange it.

Communism is based on the premise that the best way to allocate scarce resources is deny the individuals the right of ownership and let a central government take all decisions concerning production.

Although there may be some social inequalities in societies under a capitalistic economy, the fact is its adoption usually enhance the quality of life, while communism produced only scarcity, famine and oppression anywhere it were adopted.


There are a lot of factual/historical inaccuracies here, no doubt the result of taking capitalism and communism out of historical context.

The Soviet Union went from a nation that was predominantly feudal, illiterate and unproductive to an industrial world power in the span of a few decades (despite a devasting invasion by the Nazis and a costly Cold War with the the US). It wasn't pretty but it worked. No impartial historian or economist can conclude that Soviet communism didn't "work" in modernizing Russia's economy. It did. It had a lot of bad side effects, but if that's the standard, communism outpaced capitalism by a long shot.

The same is true of China or Cuba. Capitalism brought Cuba nothing but illiteracy, serfdom and gang rule. Castro's socialism brought literacy, productivity and a modernization that would have never happened under Batista's gang rule.

There are lot of reasons for this -- communism's commitment to modernization, literacy, equal rights between men and women. These are things that a lot of capitalist societies not only don't foster, but sometimes undermine. I refer you to the economic history of the United States, which was horrifically bad at making its citizens' productive because of its racism, sexism and bias toward landed gentry. Nazism bascially relied on capitalism, and its economy was so bad it had to use slave labor and pillage conquered territories to feed its people.

My point is economic systems are always embedded in a political and cultural systems, and sometimes one system is better and other times not. It's a bit foolish to say capitalism is better than communism or vice versa. It all depends on where a nation is at any moment in time and where those people want to get.

As to the OP, I think social democracy is the only way a modern nation can go and remain productive, and I expect that in the not to distant future, when systems are set up for the sustained production of wealth without exploitation, capitalism will appear to be incredibly primitive and inhumane.

Edited by Landru Guide Us on Jul 31, 2012 - 7:10 PM
prothero
PF Addict

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 24, 2007
Location: Lake Tahoe Nevada USA

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1162
#8 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 31, 2012 - 7:54 PM:

Landru Guide Us wrote:
The Soviet Union went from a nation that was predominantly feudal, illiterate and unproductive to an industrial world power in the span of a few decades (despite a devasting invasion by the Nazis and a costly Cold War with the the US). It wasn't pretty but it worked. No impartial historian or economist can conclude that Soviet communism didn't "work" in modernizing Russia's economy. It did. It had a lot of bad side effects, but if that's the standard, communism outpaced capitalism by a long shot.

The same is true of China or Cuba. Capitalism brought Cuba nothing but illiteracy, serfdom and gang rule. Castro's socialism brought literacy, productivity and a modernization that would have never happened under Batista's gang rule. .


25 or 30 million dead in the Soviet Union and a probably not disimilar number in China, yes it seems like a bad side effect. The almost universal economic prescription for improving the standard of living in Cuba is the introduction of markets and market reforms to attract capital investment and encourage innovation and industry. More people lifted out of poverty in China and in India since both countires decided to adopt market reforms and relax beauractic restricitions and controls than in their entire communist and socialist eras. An almost universal acknowledgement that countries with substantial market driven sectors to their economies enjoy overall higher standards of living and greater wealth.

The universal refrain from the communist side is nobody does it right, not China, not Cuba, not North Korea, not the Soviet Union. The truth is communism is based on a false premise about man. Men work harder for personal gain than they do for the common. good. We are a competitive, acquisitive lot and any social and economic system which seeks to deny this fundamental aspect of human nature is bound to fail and be out performed by those systems which do.

Having said this, I am not a fan of unregulated markets, nor do I reject the use of taxation and other governmental measures to better distribute wealth but no centrally planned and excessively regulated over taxed economy will ever outperform the innovation, industry and performance of market driven economics. The experiment has been performed over and over again with ever the same result.
Landru Guide Us
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 30, 2010
Location: Austin, Texas

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 3220
#9 - Quote - Permalink
3 of 3 people found this post helpful
Posted Jul 31, 2012 - 8:48 PM:

prothero wrote:


25 or 30 million dead in the Soviet Union and a probably not disimilar number in China, yes it seems like a bad side effect.


15-25 million dead due to the slave trade. Millions raped tortured and deprived of the fruits of their labor. 5 millions native Americans killed. 15 millions blacks denied oppurtunity under Jim Crow for 100 years.

See how easy that is?

If you don't want to stay on topic, just say so. The claim was the capitalism produced wealth and communism didn't. That's empirically false. Both systems produce wealth. Both systems killed millions. But that's another topic. Modernization is ugly and deadly.

When you want to grow up and discuss one issue at a time, let me know.
Dantesco
Resident
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 17, 2010
Location: Brasil

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 464
#10 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 4 people found this post helpful
Posted Jul 31, 2012 - 10:03 PM:

Landru Guide Us wrote:


There are a lot of factual/historical inaccuracies here, no doubt the result of taking capitalism and communism out of historical context.

The Soviet Union went from a nation that was predominantly feudal, illiterate and unproductive to an industrial world power in the span of a few decades (despite a devasting invasion by the Nazis and a costly Cold War with the the US). It wasn't pretty but it worked.


"It wasn't pretty" is a sick euphemism to "genocide" and "totalitarianism".

Surely those things weren't pretty:







Landru Guide Us wrote:

No impartial historian or economist can conclude that Soviet communism didn't "work" in modernizing Russia's economy. It did. It had a lot of bad side effects, but if that's the standard, communism outpaced capitalism by a long shot.


Irrelevant. Surely a centralized government with total control of a entire nation resources may have some success in industrial, military or scientific enterprises. But, is it worth the price? The price is lack of freedom, scarcity, famine and genocide.

Landru Guide Us wrote:

There are lot of reasons for this -- communism's commitment to modernization, literacy, equal rights between men and women. These are things that a lot of capitalist societies not only don't foster, but sometimes undermine. I refer you to the economic history of the United States, which was horrifically bad at making its citizens' productive because of its racism, sexism and bias toward landed gentry. Nazism bascially relied on capitalism, and its economy was so bad it had to use slave labor and pillage conquered territories to feed its people.


Capitalism is just a economical system based in the right of ownership and freedom to exchange it. Capitalism has nothing to do with racism, xenophobia, sexism or any kind of bias. Actually, having a bias is capitalistic counter-productive. Pointing out that some cultures which happen to be biased also happen to be capitalistic is irrelevant. Typical case of left-wing sophistry.


locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Recent Internal Replies
On Dec 10, 2012 - 2:58 AM, coolazice replied internally to OhayKikkod's A few things. Fi....
On Dec 10, 2012 - 2:20 AM, Benkei replied internally to John Creighton's I may write more....
On Dec 6, 2012 - 2:02 PM, Benkei replied internally to Maw's What an incredib....
On Aug 7, 2012 - 6:34 AM, Benkei replied internally to PeterControl's I'm guessing tho....
On Aug 2, 2012 - 12:25 AM, Maw replied internally to Maw's I despise this o....
On Aug 1, 2012 - 11:56 PM, prothero replied internally to Maw's I despise this o....

This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.