Capitalism or Communism

Level 21
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
867
Well, perhaps not that extreme.

In light of the upcoming United States presidential elections, I'm searching for people's opinions on government.
What do you think a government's duties should be?
Is a Capitalistic society better, or one that leans more toward Socialism?

Should the government be limited, or should it have more power?

Opinions?
 
Level 21
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
867
Ah. My apologies.
I had intended to do so, just not right away.

Personally, I think that a capitalistic type government that practices laissez faire principles is far superior to one that prefers big government.
A non-interfering government allows for rights and liberties for individuals, and is the only system that has been proven to work where the opposite has failed. A competitive market that promotes personal effort and free choice is always better for an economy and a country as a whole.
 
Level 21
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
867
That could definitely be true.
Though, we have never seen a truly capitalist society to date, so there is no way to know for sure that those things would happen.
Though, for that matter, we've never seen a truly socialist or communist system yet either, though the USSR came pretty darn close. Some other nations are coming pretty close to socialism today, though.

If you like neither of those systems, how do you think a nation should govern itself? Something in between? A completely different system? I'd like to hear what you have to say.
 
Level 21
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
3,699
I don't really like either system.

With each system people are exploited and there is curruption.

Possibly on a small enough scale either one could work, but once a system reaches a certain size it starts to break down and not be as efficient.

Theoretically, with communism no people are "exploited".
Also, systems don't corrupt people. It's just that there will always be corrupt people, no matter what system you use.

My opinion is that without a mix of both, every government is doomed to fail at some point... But that's not because of the systems, it's because of corruption. A mix could bring some balance and fix some exploits here and there...
 
Level 21
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
867
I do think, though, that there come some governmental requirements with either system.
Capitalism necessitates that the government does NOT regulate ANYTHING. (Pure capitalism, that is.)
On the other hand, Socialism/Communism requires that the government maintain equality and provide for the citizens.

So, while they are both mainly economic systems, I think the governments have to have some boundaries with regard to either.
 
Level 21
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
3,699
The goal of communism (well... if you prefer to call the USSR a pure communistic nation, I consider "marxism" communism...) is to actually end up without a government at all...
I do understand where you're coming from though. And that's also why I said that a good mix of both economical systems (as well as political systems) sounds the best solution for most countries IMO. Based on cultural roots, one country would lean more towards communism than another, but I do think it's best to stay away from pure capitalism or pure communism.
 

TDR

TDR

Level 17
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
1,544
man I know what communism did to my country and I can tell you that anything could be better than that. It's nut just an economy system, it's a life control device. It's not all fun and games like in Marx's theories.
You could barely leave the country, all your phone calls were listened, your best friend could be a national security agent that reports everything you do to the goverment...almost everyone has a file with reports of anything they did, they're stored at some archive I forgot it's name. You had to sit in endless lines to get a bottle of milk and bread. You basically had no control over your life. And much more.

I don't know how communism goes nowadays, like in China, but I know what happened here and is more than enough for me to say NO to it. Anything but communism man.
 
Level 11
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
739
Well Let me just say neither of these lead to no government at all that would be anarchy, chaos, which I do long for but in this day of age it won't happen.

Like TDR said, communism(autocracy) is beyond control, they choose everything for everyone. Constantly spy on their own people and do anything they want. It does provide more stability than other types of government, but it does provide the freedoms a normal human being longs for.

Capitalism, basically a Democracy(which means power to the people) would be nice but in alot of ways it's still really bad. If it was a direct democracy, everyone in the country would vote for every single law, and everysingle decision the government made. Complete waste of time and resources.
Representative Democracy is similair except the poeple vote for representatives to vote for them, but this basically takes away power from the people. Of course it sounds good on paper, just like communism, most things sound great on paper. But people are corrupt, who you vote as a representative could have been a good person but power changes a person.

So I can't really choose because I don't see any government being a good government. Anarchy is the best in my opinion because it's basically everyone look out for themselves.

But if I had to choose between Capitalism or Communism, I'd have to say Capitalism because atleast then you have the little freedoms to enjoy, and be able to make something out of your self than "you baker, you farmer, you sewage inspector"awww", you gynecologist "SCORE!" "
 
Level 21
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
867
> Complete waste of time and resources.

That's certainly true in the past, but what about now?
As our technology increases, I see the possibility of having a true democracy with a minimum of hassle that you pointed out.
Whether that will happen, that's a completely different story, but I think it could be possible.
 
Level 21
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
867
> But a direct democracy would take so much time

Maybe not. If everyone had a computer in their home and there was an electronic voting system set up... I think it could be fairly efficient.

Now, obviously there would be problems. Security from fraud would be a huge issue, as would hacking the system and other such things. It might be difficult to make it efficient and safe, but I think it could still happen. Maybe not now, but sometime in the future.
 
Level 21
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
3,699
man I know what communism did to my country and I can tell you that anything could be better than that. It's nut just an economy system, it's a life control device. It's not all fun and games like in Marx's theories.
You could barely leave the country, all your phone calls were listened, your best friend could be a national security agent that reports everything you do to the goverment...almost everyone has a file with reports of anything they did, they're stored at some archive I forgot it's name. You had to sit in endless lines to get a bottle of milk and bread. You basically had no control over your life. And much more.

I don't know how communism goes nowadays, like in China, but I know what happened here and is more than enough for me to say NO to it. Anything but communism man.

Then again, communism didn't do that to your country. People did it in the name of communism. It's like saying it's God's fault that crusades started, because those were wars "in the name of the one God". I'm not defending communism or capitalism in any manner, but I think you should try to see that communism itself doesn't lead to things like that. It's the way people tried to implement communism in a state, such as a despotic government system, that lead to situations like you know them. The biggest problem is that communism is associated with lack of freedom where people are controlled by its government. So please try to stay away from what historically came along with communism as we know it now...

The whole situation of sitting in an endless line for a bottle of milk had many historical reasons. One of them being a large industrialisation (and mainly militarisation) in an agricultural country in a very short timespan. Another one is bad governing and corruption. In combination of a bad implementation of communistic idea's, this lead to such a bad situation. But too often I think people see communism as the big evil that is the reason of all misery. Combined with the other factors, communism probably only made things worse, yes, but that's in a non-ideal situation...

Again, let me stress that communism is an economical system, nothing more. Any association with communism that leads to bad memories is not to the point. In fact, saying that communism means constantly spying on your own people is idiot. Communism doesn't provide more stability. Despotism does. Those are 2 different things.
 
Level 36
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
7,947
I would gladly choose Communism since it is supposed to be a utopian paradise, where capitalism makes no such promise. But in reality, it would obviously never boil down that way, which is why, in all practicality, I believe in socialism.

Communism can never be a perfect society, because it would be pointless: you sacrifice your entire life to support everyone else's. You get no opportunity to live your own life, rather you are a slave to everyone else, just as everyone else is a slave to you. Then you would have leachers who would live entirely off of the support of others and not contribute anything back, and on top of that a corrupt government which would also reap the rewards of its working population and give little back.

So, with Communism: the theory is great to dream about, but in all reality, it will never work, and even if it did, it would never turn out the way you think, never as a utopia.

Now, capitalism can be no better, allowing private businesses total control over the economy is like shooting yourself in the foot. They can charge whatever they want for their goods and people will suffer: the rich get richer while the poor live in filth.

So, socialism is a balance. It keeps the private businesses in check while still allowing people to do what they do best: live their lives.
 
Level 12
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
730
Politics are ideals used as tools by the greedy in order to obtain money,power,and influence.

No matter what the base idea of a politic says,it will always be different.The few who try and fight for the true meaning of those ideals are pushed aside by the power-hungry ones.

So there isn't a right politic out there.There is only the wrong and the less wrong.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Ignoring things like crime, laziness and sheer impossibility, both a perfect capitalism and a perfect communism would most likely be paradises. In a true capitalism, people get what they work for, and in a true communism, everyone goes through the same hardships. Both of those sound pretty great to me, it's just that people mess up the formula; there's nothing wrong with either. Both create opportunities to be exploited for one's benefit at another's loss.

I am very much in agreement with brad.dude03.
 
Level 9
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
392
Communism is definitely not the answer, in my opinion. It requires a violent overthrow of the previous government, which means that the people who would be given powerful positions would not exactly be the most peaceful.

Socialism, on the other hand benefits absolutely everyone involved. Government corruption could cause the immediate downfall of Socialism, though.

Capitalism is a good system and it works, but it is slow, annoying, and in general somewhat difficult. All governments have their issues, but in the perfect world, I would want Socialism with perfect leaders.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Communism does not require any such thing. All it requires is for everyone to be willing to work for other people, which is admittedly a huge thing to ask. Also: NECROPOOOST.
 
Level 24
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
3,052
This all depends on what you're talking about: ideals or reality.
Ideally, if there was no such thing as corruption and all people in this world were good people, Communism/Socialism would be far superior.
TDR, what you experienced IS NOT communism. It is a dictatorship disguised as communism because the government wanted the people to think it was for the people. However, in the cases of many, many communistic governments before, it was just an excuse for people to gain power.
Capitalism is technically what's natural. Survival of the fittest, power to those who deserve it. However, this doesn't make it right. We are no longer in the age of doing whatever it takes to survive, our complex communities should be able to grow past that. Helping others and having universal equality would truly be a Utopia.
However, as with all Utopian societies, they require perfection, which nobody has.
--donut3.5--
 
Level 10
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
713
Communism is just basically a dictatorship under the parties rule. Their's alot of propaganda, that during when the U.S.S.R. was in power. That many people believed that it was great and dandy their. But that was only like 0.1% of the population was atleast high class. While 50-60% were slaves, and workers. It also pushes no better products. If you worked hard, and another person worked lazy. You would get the same pay, so why work hard? Many people choose this because it sounds great. But over history, they don't last to long.


In a Capitalism society. It's the hard workers who make it on top. It also pushes for lower costs, and innovation.

Example...
  1. You and another person were making computer parts.
  2. You both sell them for $100 a piece.
  3. You get the idea of selling yours for $90. But gain still a profit, but a lower one.
    1. As a consumer, what would you buy of the 2 items on the shelf... The lower or higher price one that both have the exact same stuff?
  4. So, if more people buy your stuff, the other guy would go out of bussiness. Of course he's not that stupid. So he lowers his prices to. $80 and makes his product much better.
    1. You (consumer) will buy the lower costing item, with the addition of a better product. So it appeals more to you.
  5. You notice this and change your prices to $75, and make it even faster and better.
  • Basically you have a chain reaction of who can get better. The one who wins is the one who tries the hardest. If your just a lazy ass bummer who dosen't give a shit. You will lose, or get fired.
    • This is like a small part of a Capitalism. But their are flaws, every system/thing on this planet has flaws. It's what makes innovation and humans. The population should get mad when something get's out of control.
      • Like a monopoly company, like Microsoft. It's way to powerfull, and simple stomps the other competitors. They have so much money, they can make their products free. But the other company can't, so they will go eventually bankrupt. If no one buys their products.
    • Biggest problem of our economic power, is China. They can produce products and half the cost, and sell them here... Why?
      • They don't have to follow regulations of pollution, safety, clean electricity, water, and others. While americans do, forcing them to make their products cost more. Americans also have to go through strict regulations of their products, like are they safe? While chinese don't, such as lead in those toys.
  • Many problems arise withen our government as well. Corruption has spread far with our past few presidents. Many people don't believe in a honor system, respect, the integrity of the U.S. It's just alot of bullshit that no one cares about. The people of a country is much more dangerous of that of the country or it's military.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
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.
 
Level 9
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
392
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."
 
Level 7
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
431
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...
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
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.
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,869
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.
 
Level 24
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
3,052
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--
 
Level 24
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
3,052
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--
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,869
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.
 
Level 36
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
7,947
Ah. My apologies.
I had intended to do so, just not right away.

Personally, I think that a capitalistic type government that practices laissez faire principles is far superior to one that prefers big government.
A non-interfering government allows for rights and liberties for individuals, and is the only system that has been proven to work where the opposite has failed. A competitive market that promotes personal effort and free choice is always better for an economy and a country as a whole.

Here I must disagree. The US tried Laissez-Faire and now the Subprime Crisis and your 11 trillion dollars of debt is the price you paid for it. Laissez-Faire is certainly not the right thing at the moment, there MUST be restrictions placed on the market, and this is precisely why.

As for Capitalism or Communism, I choose neither. Both have Utopian dreams but neither work out the way they should.

Yes gaspshockmahgahd Capitalism actually DOES have a noble goal: Adam Smith thought that if there was more money for individuals then everyone would also have more as a result. So, the Capitalism that we see today, where the rich get richer and the poor live in slums, was not exactly what he had in mind.

As for Communism, Karl Marx created the concept with the vision of reducing everyone to the Proletariat or the base-structure, removing the Bourgeoise or super-structure from the equasion. In a normal democratic society the Proletariat do all the work while the Bourgeoise have all the power. He saught to reduce men down to equals. Of course it was never put into practical use, what with the Soviet Union being State Capitalism and all. And on top of that, in reality, it would turn out to be more like a forced-enslavement camp, where everybody is working for everyone else's bread and butter.

I'm sorry, but if I'm working for 36 hours to get my 'bread and butter' I don't necessarily want to share it with the rest of my unemployed neighbourhood. I want to keep what I have earned to do with it as I wish. I'd gladly show others how they too can earn their own, but I have no cause to give up what is mine.

Libertarianism ftw.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
Bureaucracy is the most terrible invention in the entire world.

Because of this, I choose anarchy as a government, and capitalism naturally follows. Currently, bureaucracy serves to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. All it takes to spread the wealth around is for someone to realize they can get a whole lot of money by competing with large, rich, corporations.
 
Level 7
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
431
Here I must disagree. The US tried Laissez-Faire and now the Subprime Crisis and your 11 trillion dollars of debt is the price you paid for it. Laissez-Faire is certainly not the right thing at the moment, there MUST be restrictions placed on the market, and this is precisely why.
Libertarianism ftw.

Lol? Libertarianism basically IS laissez-faire economically, unless of course you are referring to left-libertarianism and egalitarian distribution of resources. And America's debt is not the result of laissez-faire economics, either, as we haven't really practiced them for like 200 years. Little by little, America has abandoned its true capitalist tendencies and replaced them with the pseudo-capitalistic socialism that we have today: welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security. These are the banes of American economy; these are the causes of our debt.
 
Top