Capitalism vs Communism

[U are a noob]

Capitalism vs Communism
Approved​

Capitalism generally refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly privately[1][2] owned and operated, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money (see finance and credit).

Capitalist economic practices became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, although some features of capitalist organization existed in the ancient world, and early forms of merchant capitalism flourished during the Middle Ages.[3][4] Capitalism has been dominant in the Western world since the end of feudalism,[5] It gradually spread from Europe, particularly from Britain, across political and cultural frontiers. In the 19th and 20th centuries, capitalism provided the main, but not exclusive, means of industrialization throughout much of the world.[6]

The concept of capitalism has limited analytic value, given the great variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture, and some feel that the term "mixed economies" more precisely describes most contemporary economies.[7][8] Some economists have specified a variety of different types of capitalism, depending on specifics of concentration of economic power and wealth, and methods of capital accumulation.[6] During the last century capitalism has been contrasted with centrally planned economies.

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.[citation needed] It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx.[citation needed] Opponents say that communism is an ideology, whereas promoters say that it is the only political system without ideology, because it is the consequence of historical materialism and the revolution of the proletariat.[citation needed]
“ The Communists... are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois State, conquest of political power by the proletariat. - Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, 1848
”

Although many forms of communism, such as Leninism, Trotskyism and Luxemburgism, are based on Marxism and Karl Marx is sometimes known as the "father of Communism", non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarchist communism) also exist.

What do you like Capitalism or Communism explain why.
Follow the rules.
Debate.

 

[Wiseman_2]

Hmmm. It's a tricky one to decide, this one.

On the one hand, Capitalism has given us a prosperous society, a free country. However, all too often has it descended into Corporatism - sort of the direct opposite of Communism; instead of state-owned corporations, it's a corporation-owned government. Even if it's not obvious, the leader is usually a puppet. Sometimes it's a 2-way system, with the government giving tax breaks to corporations and they in turn marketing goods which are obviously in favour of the current regime.
Capitalism usually means a country that has more freedom, as nobody worries about seeming superior and above everyone else; people can get rich (without seeming to go against the ideology of equality).
Unfortunatly, it has the tendancy to result in poverty in a dog-eat-dog world.

While capitalism is a good idea in theory, what with more freedoms, it is more fragile than some may realise; an example from English history is the case of over-mighty subjects, where nobles (in the present day, the corporation owners) had more money than the king, and hence more influence. In Capitalist society such power could be easily gained and only a strong leader and government would be able to hold up a Capitalist government.


Communism, on the other hand, is more of an ideology; it works in theory, but in practice, it means a government which restricts information and which controls what people see and hear in the media. Of course, it could be said that restriction of media is dependant of the government and not of the economic structure; to be precise, whether or not it is a democracy or a monarchy/dictatorship/etc.
However, a true Communist state has yet to be seen. This is because countries cannot, according to Marxist theory, transistion directly from Capitalism to Communism, or indeed from any other system. Instead, there must be a transitional period which Marx described as the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat". However, no country has yet emerged from this state. The Soviet Union collapsed and the reformed Russia is still in this temporary state. The People's Republic of China is prgressing, but has ironically adopted many Capitalist measures; Shanghai is rapidly becoming more Westernised in its economic state.


So, to conclude:
It would seem that Communism is an ideology, one that has not yet truely been seen in this world. It seems, from China for example, that it is inevitable that it will eventually adopt some Capitalist ways.
Capitalism would therefore seem to be the best option; however, it requires a strong government and leader, while not beng a tyrant, else it would descend into Corporatism. Too powerful a leader would result in a Dictatorship.

Capitalism, therefore, seems best, as Communism hasn't yet been seen to have worked. The only problem being that it produces some extreme ends in society; Homeless people living within walking distance of a posh residential district. Plus, it would require a precise balance in leadership to keep it so.

It's suprisingly difficult to distinguish between all the different economic structures, it's so easy for one to slip into the other, now I think about it.


And I see what Father_Yetti meant when he said it was easy to get carried away

 

[Seb!]

Well, for me, it's complicated.

On one hand, I believe that communism is a better idea. On the other hand, it takes extreme amounts of totally honest and hard-working people to run it. The best part of communism, for me, is that humans equalize each other. Everyone is truly created equal. However, problems can form. The hardest workers are not rewarded at all, and the luck of how you were born no longer matters.

Capitalism, however, has flaws in that the unluckiest individuals can be left behind. But because I was born relatively well, this is the governmental system that I support.

 

[hi_im_bob]

Communism -> Good on paper bad in the real world
Captilism -> Not the greatest idea, but with restrictions and balence better than communism

 

[Viii.iiiV]

Capitalism, naturally.
But NO NATION is capitalist, in the same way the NO NATION is Communist.

Ultimate Capitalism is Anarchy - so of course a slight mixture of Socialism is needed, but tax should only pay for mutual benefit goods or required benefit goods. They're just names I call the following things:

Mutual Benefit Goods are things that benefit everyone more than it costs. For example, disease control is good, and so is hygiene.
Required Benefit Goods are things that everyone benefits from, and everyone directly uses, such as roads. Only the government can provide this since everyone must pay.

There is also Charitable Wealth Redistribution. For example, taking money from the top 10% of earners and giving to the bottom 20% of earners would be this. THIS SHOULD NEVER BE DONE!!!! Ever. If the top 10% of earners feel that the poor people should get money, then they can donate. If they don't, then they shouldn't be forced to.

If there were ten people, one of whom earned £100,000 a year, and the rest of whom earned £25,000 a year, would it be fair for the nine to "vote" that the tenth person should give them all money? Of course not, because it's his money, and they have no right to it.

It's the same concept with 900,000 people and 100,000 people - the 100,000 should have the right to keep their fair earnings, and the 900,000 shouldn't have the right to take it from them.

For more details, see my homepage.

 

[EatShrooms]

Most any government type can be good if done right. Communism hasn't proven itself to the world yet, or if ever. It's got too bad of an image to get anywhere in the future. I'm relying on world-changing-technology to revitalize governments. It's bound to happen I think.

 

[Lobster]

If logical AI computers took over the world, would they be bad leaders?

 

[TheDamien]

If logical AI computers took over the world, would they be bad leaders?

You haven't supplied enough information to make that a particularly meaningful question. No being of simple logic would be inclined to do anything - action requires will, which is arbitrary.

 

[Ghan]

Need I say any more?

Yes, I suppose.

In my opinion, Communism is one of the worst economic systems ever.
Check it out:

If you work hard and make lots of money in a Communist state, it makes no difference, as the government takes it all away from you and gives you what it thinks you need.

Remember what Marx said:

"From each, according to his ability, to each according to his need."
It essentially says this:
It doesn't matter how hard you work since the government will simply give you what it thinks you need.
Now, where does this go? Regular citizens think something like this:
"Hey. If the government is going to give me whatever I need, why work at all?"
So they don't. And so the economy slowly collapses like a flan in a cupboard.

A Communist government tells you what job you get, where you live, what you can buy, what you can sell, what you can say, what you can see, where you go to school, what you are taught, etc., etc.
All for the "greater good" as it were. Virtually no liberty there at all. Self-determination goes right out the window.

Now I'll talk about why Capitalism is good.
Under a Capitalist system, you are free to do pretty much whatever you want. Very very little if any government interference in the economic system. You want to start a new business? Go right ahead. You want to buy item X from business Y? Do that, too.

You make your own decisions under Capitalism. No government telling you what you can and cannot do.
Unlucky individuals can be left behind? Yes. It's true. However, anything is possible if that person is willing to step up to the plate and put forth the effort necessary to actually get somewhere. There's no government hand-holding, so it may indeed be tough. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.

It's John Stuart Mill's Marketplace of Ideas here, folks. Get EVERYTHING out there for everyone to consider, and the best ideas will rise to the top. That is the essence of the Capitalistic system. That is the maximization of individual liberty.

Corporations might end up running the government? And how would that make them more money? The government doesn't interfere/tax corporations in any way, so why would they want to?
If corporations try to take over the government and give themselves benefits, then the system is no longer capitalist, is it?
Perhaps it may even reach the tyrannical point. If that happens, this is where John Locke comes in:

Locke says that when a government becomes a tyranny and fails to do its job of protecting the people, the people are not only justified but REQUIRED to take up arms against that government. The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America said it well:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

And don't forget, the government has the army.

To summarize my point, it comes down to a difference between Freedom or not Freedom. Capitalism maximizes liberty in every way.

 

[Seb!]

Capitalism can take away freedom just as much as communism.

If you get unlucky, as a large portion of the world is, and are born into a situation where every social, educational, and economic opportunity is non-existent, then you are trapped into a job that society chooses for you (fast-food, the military, etc...). People always say, "Oh common! Just work harder and study a lot!" That's easy for you to say. Not so easy for someone who goes to a terrible school with no chance for college, a life, or even the CHOICE of a job. Choice is an illusion for many.

However, communism as it is executed in this world is obviously not ideal. As it works out, EVERYONE is trapped as opposed to a random unlucky portion. In a perfect world, though, such a system where every person is born equal would be perfect.

 

[Lime]

Capitalism, in the actual sense of the word can not take away any man's freedom. As a human being you have only the right to life, liberty, and property while not infringing on the rights of others.

This means that so long as no one is forcibly robbing you of your ability to act, robbing you of your possessions which you obtained by peaceful (non-coercive) means, and they do not infringe on your life then your rights have not been violated, and you are just as free as anyone else.
To say that the lower class in a capitalist society is not free because they are poor is the same as saying that they have a RIGHT to be rich. Claiming they are not free because they don't have the job they want implies that they have a RIGHT to that job.
Any such right as this necessarily infringes the rights of all others. The man who does not employ you in his company is not denying you a right, because the company is HIS. It is his property, and you have no claim to it.

Let us also address the claim that under a capitalistic society the poor have no chance to rise. The claim is always made that hard work will pay off, countered by the claim that they don't have enough opportunity, be it money, or no/bad education. Yet this completely ignores all empirical evidence. Let us look at Andrew Carnegie, the steel tycoon. He immigrated to the US as a part of a poor family (his parents were craftspeople, leather and handlooms). With no formal training he built up one of the most successful corporations in history.

Compare that to any Communist nation that supports itself as described by Marx (this excludes china, which thrives on capitalistic trade with the US), and you will see not only a disconcerting lack of upward mobility, but in fact a collective decrease in the standard of living.

So it becomes obvious that capitalism is both the only moral and the only practical system on Earth. Moral because it allows men to live as their ability can carry them and allows men freedom. A capitalistic society also permits you the freedom to endorse communism, as it does not infringe on anyone's rights. No one is forced to do anything, you can live or die as you choose.
It is the most practical because in a true capitalist society money is constantly recirculated. It does not benefit capitalists to keep the masses poor, who would they sell to? You will notice that many of the "captains of industry" are also the biggest philanthropists. Refer to Carnegie, Gates, Hershey.

Communism on the other hand is the greatest lie ever forced upon mankind. It involves the use of force, sacrificing some individuals in the name of the greater good. Why is it that some individuals are worth more than others? They aren't but communism assumes that the rich are automatically inferior in terms of rights to the poor ON THE BASIS OF THEIR WEALTH. This persecution for excellence and ability and basic denial of rights makes communism an oppressive, invasive, evil system. You have no freedom of speech in a communistic society. In every communist country you will find that dissenters don't exist- because they are suppressed.
Communism, in addition to lacking the moral backing lacks any shred of economic evidence in its favor.
Look at China, a nation that claims to be communist, yet has huge industry, massive trade with other nations, and a poor working class. China is a corporatistic state posing as a "friend of the people"

Communism lacks any form of practicality or morality.
Capitalism has empirical evidence to support its practicality, and allows you to exercise your rights, and is therefore moral.

 

[Seb!]

I must disagree.

This man's lucky case is 1 in billions, and was only caused by his huge amount of luck - do you think he earned his randomly uneducated business prowess?

For a large portion of the population, opportunities AND intellectual gifts are non-existent. Some of these people cannot AFFORD to leave their inner-city life. These boundaries are just as real as any brick wall.

Just an idea. Maybe you should be able to choose. You could just a capitalist system of your own luck, or you could be guaranteed a decent job with decent housing, health care, and the necessities of life.

 

[New_U.S.]

This is a cold war debate.

Capitalism > Communism. Even in a perfect world.

In capitalism, some people get far ahead of others, while others sit around live in digusting poverty. Birth, wits, and initiative are some of the main factors in this system. This means that some ppl will be recieving a good job, based off there parents. They might not make to be shit, but they will still be living. Wits gives low class people a chance at the system. You can become big in the normal world, but only if your smart. Initiative sorts out the ppl in the system. Your economy bases the classes of people. You try to shoot for a comfertable middle class. The world has run like this for a long time. Its not pretty but it works.

Now on to communism. Sound great right? Every one is equal. To bad the world doesnt work like this. Communism quickly turns to total socialism. What does this mean? The government is in control. They become in charge of everything. The economic system declines and then a collapse.

In a perfect world doesnt change anything. Communism would work in a perfect world. But also so would capitalism. In a perfect world no one would be poor or be mentally weaker then another. Everyone would be working just as hard. With capitalism's cut throat attributes compitition would build on itself. Since the worlds perfect noone can lose. Human competitiveness just made the world work faster.

With all of this in mind, capitalism is better not just in the real world but also works just as nicely in a "perfect" world. Capitalism wins!

Comments, questions, arguements, and whatever happily accepted.


Just as a side note. There have only been two countries in the history of the world who have done no direct damage to each other, and only had a angry staring contest for 50 years. Then when its over say it was a "war". Stand up U.S. and Russia, take a bow.

 

[Seb!]

Define "works out."

Works out well - for you. You will never have a major economic problem because you got lucky. Yes, I understand that modern communisms are not working out, but this is not a debate about how they have been executed. Communism was originally designed to leave every human with a sold income, shelter, clothing, food, and health care. If this was guaranteed to everyone, the world would be a MUCH better place. I am sure that those who haven't been so lucky as you would love to argue about how "nicely" capitalism works. But they can't reach a computer right now.

If someone lives in a 35 million dollar house and has a heated towel rack, and another HUMAN BEING has to eat dirt to stay alive, there is something very wrong with the economic system. Luck should not be such a large factor in deciding one's future.

 

[New_U.S.]

So we should all not have the ability to get ahead in life? Were all stuck in this one spot, no better, no worse?

 

[SilverHawk]

Communism was originally designed to leave every human with a sold income, shelter, clothing, food, and health care.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. America tries to provide those things as best they can, though it's not always successful - but that's just welfare. Communism means equality not all, but not necessarily justice. It means that the neurosurgeon gets paid just as much as the trash collector, based only on what they need. Communism fails because not everyone's needs are equal - but, since they are treated as such, and resources are still distributed improperly, communism, as a policy based on equality, fails, as it is a paradoxical system.

 

[Seb!]

Fine, I admit that maybe communism may be a slightly extreme. But anything is better than what we have today - billions of people eating dirt.

I read somewhere that the richest 500 people in the world's wealth is greater than the rest of the world combined. That is ridiculous. The distribution of wealth is way off key, and if communism can't fix it fairly, something has to. Everyone should be guaranteed a decent life.

 

[Ghan]

But there's the issue that the government has no right to those peoples' money.
A government's singular purpose should be to protect its people. No more.

To forcefully redistribute wealth is a blatant violation of a person's natural rights to property. A government should not be able to control someone's money because it is HIS. No one else's. A government has no claim to it.

 

[Seb!]

Yeah, that's another problem - people won't part with there money. So I think that you should be able to have the choice..

Live in a capitalist country where you fend for yourself economically..

Or be guaranteed a decent living, health care, and shelter... which everybody deserves.

 

[Ghan]

No one has the RIGHT to a certain way of life. If this were the case, it would justify action on the part of a government to maintain it. However, this causes more harm to the person whose money would be taken.
Now I'm not saying that that person would suddenly become destitute or something like that. I'm saying that the person is harmed because his rights were violated.

If you are poor, neither your life, liberty, or property are being directly harmed by another entity. Therefore, the government has no right to step in to correct this "problem" that supposedly exists. And the reason for this is that there are no rights being violated.

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.