• Capatalism and Communism. (Which is best?)
    481 replies, posted
[QUOTE=elowin;34375269]They are both too extreme, go for the middle.[/QUOTE] Bah, golden mean. There isn't any middle anyway.
[QUOTE=Cree8ive;34375326]There will always be someone in charge and as long as the position of being in charge exists there will be a greed/lust for power. And the greed for power leads to malicious actions that ruins the foundation of communism as an ideology that'll work besides being an idea.[/QUOTE] I do believe it did work quite well in some small communities, however on a large scale it tends to get corrupted.
[QUOTE=Torjuz;34375021] USSR opened before it was ended. It was still communism, but they could be more open and not killed for their freedom of speech. This made the union split in 1991 though.[/QUOTE] Ok, are we talking communism, or Marxist-Leninism, which was the state ideology of the USSR? Because communism is a stateless for of government. Marxism-Leninism was a form of Marxist Socialism. Are we arguing that, or are we arguing about actual communism? And if we are arguing over the state ideologies in Vietnam, USSR, China, etc, etc, then we're arguing Marxist Socialism and not communism, and if we're trying to argue about both or assuming Marxism-Leninism is a legitimate form of Marxist Socialism, then we need to be arguing Marxism, not communism. So I'm confused as to what theory or ideology we're actually arguing here, because from that statement right there, it appears that you're trying to argue about Marxism-Leninism. Also, the Union split because Gorbachev gave more liberty and rights at a fast pace to the people, who were too eager to use them right away and did so, causing a lot of instability in government and economy, on top of an already unstable economy, due to a weakened government that couldn't oversee state enterprises or businesses and that lost alot of governmental power. Had Gorbachev applied Perestroika, followed by a 5 to 7 year gap, and then Glasnost, then it likely would have worked out for the better. The policies were great, and would have been amazing for the Union, but the timing and the way things worked out just caused a collapse and a dissolution. [editline]24th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;34375522]I do believe it did work quite well in some small communities, however on a large scale it tends to get corrupted.[/QUOTE] Not true. The Paris Commune, the Free Territory, parts of Spain during the Civil War, and arguably Soviet Hungary (pre-WWII) all applied communism or Marxist Socialism on a 'large scale'. The statement that it fails on a large scale is a fallacy and completely baseless, assumed by people who take one look at a series of failed pseudo-Marxist ideologies in power and take the entire 70-year history of that ideology and chalk it all up to the inability of that ideology to work on a large scale.
None of them are good or better
[QUOTE=Xperia;34373001]Alittle bit of both. It's called Socialism.[/QUOTE] Actually, it isn't. A mix of both is called a mixed market.
[QUOTE=DeveloperConsol;34374709]Hey OP, if you want to make a debate thread about capitalism and communism then it's preferred that you actually know what these things are. It's obvious that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about judging by your post and don't tell us to compare an economical policy to an ideology.[/QUOTE] This. Wish I could manage to find a debate thread as it's starting so I can whip out the big guns right from the start. I can't bring myself to trudge through the junk most people post. Not sure if you were attempting a definition through an analogy or not but it wasn't very good either way. OP is supposed to spur discussion, not just toss "Coke vs. Pepsi" at us and expect meaningful discussion to ensue. Also, lack of ratings makes the debate threads devoid of emotion since I can't toss boxes at people.
Ideally I'd want something in the middle of the two, a mixed economy (well, to be specific I would prefer an open market economy with decent social policy, such as free education and universal healthcare). However if the choice were to be made between either of the extremes, I'd go with Capitalism. I can't help but appreciate an economy so dynamic, so interesting and full of life, and have room for success if you're willing to push yourself to achieve it. ^ Mentioning that, I'm making an assumption that the Capitalist society is also leaning towards libertarianism, more of a proper opposite to communism. Capitalism by definition would be an opposite to socialism, not communism. Also, I'm additionally making an assumption that the capitalist society is in a state whereas there is at least a moderate amount of competition, rather than anywhere else towards the extreme of an oligopolic economy.
[QUOTE=Someoneuduno;34375358]This. Both in their extremities are massively flawed. If everyone was equal no-one would work because there would be nothing to strive for. But in capitalist societies the poor often stay poor because it's all they can do. An ideal would be a balance between egalitarianism and meritocracy, but that might be too much to hope for.[/QUOTE] why does everyone in the whole world seem to have this silly idea that socialism/communism entails wage equality, etc. there's literally nothing in any good communist literature about that. nothing.
A lie told often enough becomes truth. I've been arguing marx was against wage equality (as he was in critique of the gotha programme) for years. It makes no difference.
[QUOTE=Torjuz;34372379]Capitalism takes money for medical help and schools = Bad The schools and medical help is much better since they earn money by people using them = Good [/QUOTE] Well if we are saying someone actually managed to make a good communist country this really wouldn't be an issue. If they managed to get people actually willing to be doctors and teachers they would probably work far harder then someone who is simply doing it for money (and probably wont get you to take an operation simply because the doctor makes more money).
I get so tired of these debates. Socialism with democracies seems like the better end of the scale to compare to capitalism. Plenty of countries practice socialism and they work really well. Then again, some have it and don't work well. Same with capitalism. Socialism=/=communism.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34379668]why does everyone in the whole world seem to have this silly idea that socialism/communism entails wage equality, etc. there's literally nothing in any good communist literature about that. nothing.[/QUOTE] Right. In fact there's opposite. While perfect communism wouldn't have wages, everything up to that would. The "iron law of wages" requires that people be paid differently for different services. Marx himself even wrote about how not all labor is equal, and not all people are equal in ability, so it would be harmful to pay all equally, although he was a strong critic of the law of wages. He argues directly against wage equality in calling such a system "crude communism", saying that it comes about from envy and anger of the oppressed once they have power over the oppressors, and who look to tear down existing society to their previous minimum, where they were in society, and that it has no real benefit and acts to destroy personality and individuality.
communism doesn't work.
[QUOTE=coolsteve;34383622]communism doesn't work.[/QUOTE] and how do you know that? communism has never existed.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34383751]and how do you know that? communism has never existed.[/QUOTE] It's never existed because it can't.
[QUOTE=coolsteve;34384124]It's never existed because it can't.[/QUOTE] Really. So just because something doesn't exist now, it means it will never exist?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34384145]Really. So just because something doesn't exist now, it means it will never exist?[/QUOTE] Humans don't work like that.
[QUOTE=coolsteve;34384324]Humans don't work like that.[/QUOTE] work like what? explain your logic.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34384351]work like what? explain your logic.[/QUOTE] Communism goes against human nature.
True Communism doesn't work, the "modified" communism doesn't work, name a nation that is better off than any of the capitalist countries. the Debate should be Socailism vs Capitalism
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;34384478]True Communism doesn't work, the "modified" communism doesn't work, name a nation that is better off than any of the capitalist countries. the Debate should be Socailism vs Capitalism[/QUOTE] 'True' Communism has never been properly implemented so you can't say it doesn't work. Capitalism has never been properly implemented either - there has never been a fully Capitalist economy. Also human nature is not inherently greedy - Liberalism promotes this idea but other ideologies offer a different definition.
[QUOTE=coolsteve;34384364]Communism goes against human nature.[/QUOTE] That's a wonderfull explanation right there coolsteve. It's very apparent that you have read all the posts in this thread, yes. Now leave, please.
[QUOTE=coolsteve;34384364]Communism goes against human nature.[/QUOTE] worst political theory argument ever
[QUOTE=coolsteve;34383622]communism doesn't work.[/QUOTE] Disagree. [QUOTE=coolsteve;34384124]It's never existed because it can't.[/QUOTE] Yes it did, read thread. [QUOTE=coolsteve;34384324]Humans don't work like that.[/QUOTE] Sure we do. [QUOTE=coolsteve;34384364]Communism goes against human nature.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. Human nature does not exist beyond our survival needs. Any other form of human nature has been more or less trained into us by thousands of years of societal norms, and is not human nature, and is changed depending on the society and social norms. [QUOTE=JohnFisher89;34384478]True Communism doesn't work, the "modified" communism doesn't work, name a nation that is better off than any of the capitalist countries. the Debate should be Socailism vs Capitalism[/QUOTE] Communist: Paris Commune, Free Territory (somewhat), Anarchist Spain and Communist Spain in Civil War Marxist Socialist: Soviet Hungary, arguably Russian Republic (between February 1917 and October 1917) Various socialist: Venezuela today is alot better off than some capitalist nations, even though it's still shit. Social Democracies in Europe (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) and partial social democracies (Germany, France, UK), which are modified socialist, modified again from Marxism.
In their purest form, they both suck. There needs to be a mix of both, with varying levels depending on society and current affairs.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;34386346]In their purest form, they both suck. There needs to be a mix of both, with varying levels depending on society and current affairs.[/QUOTE] Argument to moderation if I've ever seen one. Just because the two are opposed, doesn't mean that the right answer must be a compromise of the two.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34386206'] No it doesn't. Human nature does not exist beyond our survival needs. Any other form of human nature has been more or less trained into us by thousands of years of societal norms, and is not human nature, and is changed depending on the society and social norms.[/QUOTE] The "human nature" argument never works anyway. That's already a theory. It can be an argument as much as a counter argument. Nobody holds any real truth onto that. Freud believed that the humans were what animals are; greedy, lazy, and slaves of their desires (of any kind.) He liked to compare the humans to any wild animals; Before there was any society, there weren't any morals; not a single sense of good and bad. The humans were pretty much raping each other, killing each other, eating each other and stealing food from each other, just like animals do. Now Freud says that society itself goes against human nature. It forces you to work and limit your natural desires. The human nature always lies inside of us; it's all the things we consider bad; they're not actually bad, our morals just want them to be bad so we don't destroy society, for it is supposed to protect and help all who are part of it. It's pretty interesting because Freud had his own opinion on that. For him, communism (in its purest form; not socialism, not marxism) would work when humans would "grow up". He considered that in his days (He lived through the beginning of the 20th), USSR would not last more than a century, as humans aren't mature enough yet. He thought we still needed centuries of education within society and culture to almost eliminate the barbaric desires that lie inside of all of us. His theory is pretty interesting because it seems to have true aspects; for example, nowadays, it's really rare to stumble upon one who has a desire of incest. All in all, it seems like something pretty natural, animals do it. As some realized it wasn't really great to create intelligent beings and expand society, somebody thought it would be a good thing to forbid it. If there was the need to forbid it in the first place, it means it was something that existed and that was a problem. But nowadays, who really has this desire anymore? A few people there and there. A few cultures where it has always been okay. In cultures where it's been forbidden, people think it's gross thanks to centuries and centuries of education and morals. Many philosophers think that humans still need to go through long stages of education for things like communism to work efficiently. To many philosophers, human nature can't be changed, society and education just add new chances for humans to express their desires. (Easier to steal stuff nowadays than it was in the wild.) On the other hand, philosophers like Rousseau believe that humans in the wilds are sociable and good, just like some animals are (A lot of birds act this way for example), hencing why we live in a structured society nowadays. Humans were reasonable enough to form an alliance and start cooperating. So yeah, if you are going to criticize a political/economical/social/moral system based on what you think human nature is, get a fucking clue coolsteve. Don't randomly throw senseless shit and make your point a little valid instead of assuming what you think is true is the truth.
You're a moron to not want Communism, but you're just as much as a moron to think it'd properly work.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;34387769]You're a moron to not want Communism, but you're just as much as a moron to think it'd properly work.[/QUOTE] Sounds to me like you're just paraphrasing Putin. “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.”
Neither, social democracy is the best, just look over here at Scandinavia.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.