Capitalism or Communism

I'm not even reading your post because you don't know what a true communism is. A real communism would by definition also be a true democracy. True democracies tend to suck in execution, but we're talking idealist theories, not real life.

No one seems to know what either term means these days...

Originally Posted by Teh_Ephy

I'm not even reading your post because you don't know what a true communism is. A real communism would by definition also be a true democracy. True democracies tend to suck in execution, but we're talking idealist theories, not real life.

I quote from dictionary.com "Communism: The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat."

Really, I'm for either, as long as they are in their pure forms. It seems that we have somewhat of a tainted view of both, though Communism seems to have departed most from it's true values. Communism and Capitalism are founded on two directly opposing principles: absolute denial of the self and absolute deification of the self.

In contrast to what was said earlier in the thread, I think both systems lead to absolute anarchy (another term that has gotten a bad wrap over the past few decades).

In true Communism, contrasting with the pseudo-Communist oligarchies of Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, etc., all individuals must be entirely equal. There can be no administration or 'higher power', because undoubtedly, when one man is placed above another, he will regard himself as superior. All individuals work toward the maintainment of everyone but their own personal self, and by the collective effort of those around that individual, he too is in turn cared for.

In Capitalism, there can be no government either. Governments levy taxes to maintain themselves, and the collection of taxes is a violation of the tenets of true Capitalism: the idea that a man deserves every bit that he earns. One might argue that a Capitalist government could work if administrators worked on a volunteer basis, but that would serve others' needs and would therefor compromise yet another tenet of Capitalism: one must work for his own gain and for that alone. Where Communist worry themselves with the welfare of others, Capitalists deny the need to care for others, focusing their attention on personal gain.

In either case, societal progression takes place based solely on the primary tenets of either self annihilation or self interest. Unfortunately though, neither system can be implemented on Earth. Capitalism works a little bit better because greed, the primary motivator, is innate and incorruptible (after all, it's already corrupt by modern standards), but underlying human goodness gets in the way in most cases. Communism is destroyed by greed and by egotism, the unwillingness to annihilate one's own perception of self.

In real-world situation though, there's no contest for me. Communism, while noble in cause, cannot be properly maintained. Socialism, which has become what I refer to as the ugly baby of Communism and Capitalism, tries to embrace two opposing principles and ultimately fails. Capitalism, in conjunction with minimal government involvement, takes the cake for me. Despite its apparently innumerable flaws, falls closest to its core values and provides the greatest happiness and opportunity for those under its influence.

And now for the disclaimer: Obviously, there is much more to be heard of both systems than what I have put forth, and some of the views that I have emphasized are neither widely recognized nor readily supported. In reference to my comments on Socialism, I mean no offense to my dear Canadian, British, etc. fellow members and have only my own myopic and ignorant views upon which to base my opinions. As far as I know, that should do it for now...

Originally Posted by Dalaran_Guard

Really, I'm for either, as long as they are in their pure forms. It seems that we have somewhat of a tainted view of both, though Communism seems to have departed most from it's true values. Communism and Capitalism are founded on two directly opposing principles: absolute denial of the self and absolute deification of the self.

In contrast to what was said earlier in the thread, I think both systems lead to absolute anarchy (another term that has gotten a bad wrap over the past few decades).

In true Communism, contrasting with the pseudo-Communist oligarchies of Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, etc., all individuals must be entirely equal. There can be no administration or 'higher power', because undoubtedly, when one man is placed above another, he will regard himself as superior. All individuals work toward the maintainment of everyone but their own personal self, and by the collective effort of those around that individual, he too is in turn cared for.

In Capitalism, there can be no government either. Governments levy taxes to maintain themselves, and the collection of taxes is a violation of the tenets of true Capitalism: the idea that a man deserves every bit that he earns. One might argue that a Capitalist government could work if administrators worked on a volunteer basis, but that would serve others' needs and would therefor compromise yet another tenet of Capitalism: one must work for his own gain and for that alone. Where Communist worry themselves with the welfare of others, Capitalists deny the need to care for others, focusing their attention on personal gain.

In either case, societal progression takes place based solely on the primary tenets of either self annihilation or self interest. Unfortunately though, neither system can be implemented on Earth. Capitalism works a little bit better because greed, the primary motivator, is innate and incorruptible (after all, it's already corrupt by modern standards), but underlying human goodness gets in the way in most cases. Communism is destroyed by greed and by egotism, the unwillingness to annihilate one's own perception of self.

In real-world situation though, there's no contest for me. Communism, while noble in cause, cannot be properly maintained. Socialism, which has become what I refer to as the ugly baby of Communism and Capitalism, tries to embrace two opposing principles and ultimately fails. Capitalism, in conjunction with minimal government involvement, takes the cake for me. Despite its apparently innumerable flaws, falls closest to its core values and provides the greatest happiness and opportunity for those under its influence.

And now for the disclaimer: Obviously, there is much more to be heard of both systems than what I have put forth, and some of the views that I have emphasized are neither widely recognized nor readily supported. In reference to my comments on Socialism, I mean no offense to my dear Canadian, British, etc. fellow members and have only my own myopic and ignorant views upon which to base my opinions. As far as I know, that should do it for now...

Quoted for heroic post. All I have to say is that that post shouldn't really offend Canadians, Brits, etc. because varying degrees of socialism have been shown to have varying degrees of success.

I'm not offended as a Canadian at all. Libertarianism suits my just dandy.

Why would I be offended? It's not as if I chose the form of Government we use. I can vote now, so I guess in theory I choose, but not really.

Originally Posted by Verhalthur

I quote from dictionary.com "Communism: The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat."

Communism is a society based on communes, or groups of people working together, to make everyone equal. According to Marx, the proletariat did have to overthrow capitalism, since you cannot have a capitalist-communist society (or at least if they actually use their true meaning).
--donut3.5--

Originally Posted by donut3.5

you cannot have a capitalist-communist society (or at least if they actually use their true meaning).

Socialism?

Socialism is pretty much government controlled communism, since people are pretty much too retarded to run communism themselves. It still lacks the concept of wealth and property.
--donut3.5--

Socialism in almost any form I can think of is just capitalism with some crutches for those who are worse off/those who are lazy.

something not controlled by a governement is an anarchy

im personally in for confuciism, or the thoughts from the 18th century in europe. I think a society should be based on morals and not of laws.

Originally Posted by Mor)L(unE

something not controlled by a governement is an anarchy

im personally in for confuciism, or the thoughts from the 18th century in europe. I think a society should be based on morals and not of laws.

A set of morals is an individual opinion. Give that decision to the person in charge, and hey, look, you get laws.
--donut3.5--

Balance is the key to life, and so balance is the key to government for me. Pure right doesn't work, and pure left doesn't work, you need balance. That is why the west has done so well.

Originally Posted by donut3.5

A set of morals is an individual opinion. Give that decision to the person in charge, and hey, look, you get laws.
--donut3.5--

General morals are more likely to be obbeyed then laws. The problem is to teach every stubborn moron proper morals. And yes laws are based on morals