Capitalism vs Communism

[Wiseman_2]

Again, I stress that the money acquired by some person is HIS. No one else should have any claim to it.
That's what charities are for. They are for people to freely give money to the less fortunate. They should not be forced to violate their own right to property.

Rightly so. Guess what though? Governments take your money anyway. In the UK, the levels of Tax are extortionate. One company made £125,000 over 2 years, and £108,000 of that went to the government in Tax.

There is, though, the problem that some people make more money than they actually deserve, than what they are worth. Paticularly, Football (soccer) players in the UK make as much as £90,000 a week. Their skill is not worth that much money in any way whatsoever. In a capitalist culture, I could see reason that a businessman who has made his way in life and got himself a lot of money deserves to keep it.
In the culture of celebrity, however, they don't deserve that much cash. Not in a million years. They become idols to the poor, they are unable to see how unfair the system is.
Celebrities should not earn more than the common man on the street, because that is unfair.

 

[New_U.S.]

Rightly so. Guess what though? Governments take your money anyway. In the UK, the levels of Tax are extortionate. One company made £125,000 over 2 years, and £108,000 of that went to the government in Tax.

There is, though, the problem that some people make more money than they actually deserve, than what they are worth. Paticularly, Football (soccer) players in the UK make as much as £90,000 a week. Their skill is not worth that much money in any way whatsoever. In a capitalist culture, I could see reason that a businessman who has made his way in life and got himself a lot of money deserves to keep it.
In the culture of celebrity, however, they don't deserve that much cash. Not in a million years. They become idols to the poor, they are unable to see how unfair the system is.
Celebrities should not earn more than the common man on the street, because that is unfair.

Unfair? Wrong word. Extremly unnessesary. Celebrities and sports figures are payed privately. This means that its the companies desition to pay them millions. Nothing not fair about it. Just people pay rediculous amounts for them to kick around a ball. Soldiers don't get payed overly much, however they have one of the most difficult jobs on Earth (depending on what country they are from (ie- U.S. soldiers -vs- French soldiers).

Communism is just another way for the government to control people. You say capitalism is bad because of whos lucky and there are a very limited number of people on top? Communism makes the government leaders above everyone.

Any large scale communal or socialist system is bound for failure in one way or another. (That's a way of saying no to full scale Universal Healthcare (but thats a whole other story))

 

[Seb!]

Technically, money is a "token of exchange" and is not owned by the individual - the government owns and circulates all currency. (At-least in America..)

 

[New_U.S.]

The government doesn't own peoples money, I could switch all my money to Euros.

 

[Wiseman_2]

Communism is just another way for the government to control people. You say capitalism is bad because of whos lucky and there are a very limited number of people on top? Communism makes the government leaders above everyone.

I never said Capitalism was bad. Actually, I support it. Unfortunatly, the British government is currently f*&%ing the system up with dole money often being above what people would earn working otherwise. It's not really a Capitalist system anymore, because in Capitalism the hard worker and cunning businessman is at the top, with the work-shy at the bottom, not earning and living off the bare-minimum from the government.
In the UK, the cunning businessman with money is the drug-pusher and the hardworker is the lazy slob who lives off benefits and only has to get more kids to get more cash. The real hardworker gets taxed to f*&% by the government to support these weak, lazy members of society, not to mention the flood of immigrants, legal and illegal, from the European Union. The small businessman who tries to work an honest living and get to the top is taxed even more and is often crushed by long-established corporations thanks to the government's weakness.

As I said before, it takes a strong government to hold up Capitalism. Sadly, in the UK, that's not what we have.

Unfair? Wrong word. Extremly unnessesary. Celebrities and sports figures are payed privately. This means that its the companies desition to pay them millions.

That's true, but these companies often neglect their harder working to do this, and that's not necessarily related to the topic at hand... more a matter of opinion on how companies pay their working men. You are right to say extremely unnecessary, but I still think it's unfair as well, there should be some sort of limit on what can be payed to people for the skill offered, though I guess that's where the line that divides Capitalism and Communism blurs.

And Seb!'s right, it's the case worldwide. The money represents a portion of the country's gold supply; e.g. a £20 note means you own £20 of gold in the country's treasury. The currency is owned by the government but is technically worthless, it's what it represents; that's why you can change currencies. Either way, it's not really relevant to this debate, it doesn't affect how the systems work.

 

[Seb!]

And Seb!'s right, it's the case worldwide. The money represents a portion of the country's gold supply; e.g. a £20 note means you own £20 of gold in the country's treasury. The currency is owned by the government but is technically worthless, it's what it represents; that's why you can change currencies. Either way, it's not really relevant to this debate, it doesn't affect how the systems work.

It is crucial to how the system works! If people owned their money, we wouldn't be having this debate because communism would not be possible. If money were property then the government couldn't redistribute it. Also, I don't think eminent domain applies to money.. does it?

Anyway, you wouldn't have people living off the system in a good communism because you'd be forced to work hard at a job, and in return you would get the necessities of life.

 

[New_U.S.]

Anyway, you wouldn't have people living off the system in a good communism because you'd be forced to work hard at a job, and in return you would get the necessities of life.

And why would ppl be forced to work hard?

 

[Seb!]

Other people would hate you if they knew you were taking advantage of the system.

 

[New_U.S.]

Really? I would think they would want easier jobs also....

 

[Seb!]

But they wouldn't be allowed to have an easier job because.. it's a communism.

 

[New_U.S.]

who says they wouldn't be allowed to have an easier job? I'm wondering why I would try in school if it didnt matter what would happen afterwords. Still at the same lvl of lifestyle.

 

[sqrage]

But they wouldn't be allowed to have an easier job because.. it's a communism.

Well someone has to take the easy jobs or they'll be left undone...

 

[SilverHawk]

If anyone has a lot of time, I'd recommend that they read Atlas Shrugged. It basically explains every possible reason why a society must be a meritocracy in order to survive.

 

[TheDamien]

Anyone who actually manages to read Atlas Shrugged in its entirety should be given an award of some kind.

 

[Seb!]

And if you want to see how ideas as presented in Atlas Shrugged go Bad.. play some BioShock.

 

[TheDamien]

And if you want to see how ideas as presented in Atlas Shrugged go Bad.. play some BioShock.

It has always been a strong belief of mine that video games provide the most compelling socio-political commentary.

 

[Seb!]

Amen.

 

[TheDamien]

Ah, sarcasm never works well on the internet.

 

[Lime]

And if you want to see how ideas as presented in Atlas Shrugged go Bad.. play some BioShock.

If you know anything of the philosophy of Ayn Rand you can see the inherent flaw in Bioshock's criticism of her ideas.

Ayn Rand denounces men like Ryan who would use government control as a club for their personal gain, yet Bioshock presents this as a potential under Rand's ideal world.

Ryan banned sales of religious material to uphold the philosophical integrity of Rapture, whereas Rand supported complete laissez-faire, and believed that the government could only intervene to protect rights.

Ryan wanted power, and simply hid behind Rand's ideals as a facade, yet Rand denounced such men as second-handers in The Fountainhead (i.e. Gail Wynand, Ellsworth Toohey)

Rand supported a highly limited (verging on weak) government, whereas Ryan had machine gun turrets in private residences (for security purposes), certainly something Rand would have hated.

Ryan allowed the Little Sisters to exist, who were abducted against their will and turned into monsters, whereas Rand viewed any form of coercion (this includes kidnapping) as wrong and the only grounds for government intervention.

Before you try to make a criticism of something, you should actually know something about that which you are criticizing.

 

[Wiseman_2]

Before you try to make a criticism of something, you should actually know something about that which you are criticizing.

I don't think he was criticsising directly, I think it was more of an off-hand comment