Capitalism or Communism? (1 Viewer)

[aussiechica7]

i think capatlism responds better to our primary urges

+

communism doesn't have too good a track record (and yes i realise there r more communist countries than russia... such as china, north korea, cuba, other countries here and there from europe, south america, etc.).

its a great ideal, i'm just yet 2 see great evidence of how taking people's individual freedoms away for the sake of the collective has ever worked.

we need a balance of both. capatalism with a soul, i like to call it.

also, my issue is not so much with communism but with marxism. the guy had some pretty freaky ideas that i don't quite agree with.

so "its obvious capatalism is not working". could u pls give me some examples of this (just for the sake of discourse) so i can compare them to examples of communism not working? (i want 2 c which examples r worse, but also, how each of these examples relate to the "true spirit" of capatalism/communism)

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It's capitalism

 

[subjectiv]

i think capatlism responds better to our primary urges

+

communism doesn't have too good a track record (and yes i realise there r more communist countries than russia... such as china, north korea, cuba, other countries here and there from europe, south america, etc.).

None of those countries are truly communist because the theory has never been realised. I don't think marx's classless utopia will ever exist simply because human nature won't allow it.

Plus, china is "market socialist" now, with heaps of private enterprise and foreign investment. The funny thing is that although its current economic policies hardly reflect marxism, it's still ruled by a communist party plagued with corruption.. they'll probably never be replaced by a democratic government because the population is so divided.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

None of those countries are truly communist because the theory has never been realised. I don't think marx's classless utopia will ever exist simply because human nature won't allow it.

agreed. The idea of a classless utopia is all very well and good but it goes against the grain of human nature to try and achieve that sort of thing. I think the fact that, in every communist state I have ever heard about, the government has to take away personal freedoms and impose strict measures to maintain a hold on power, proves that this system, as good as it sounds in theory, doesnt work in practice. If it did, then the people would be perfectly happy to follow the ideals of communism/socialism and there wouldnt be a need to restrict the press or any other civil liberty, because there wouldnt be any opposition.

also, i dont think that any system which cracks down so severely on opposition to it is very healthy. not everyone can agree on everthing all the time. feel free to give me any examples of this happening in capitalist countries so i can compare. it might happen, i've just never noticed it.

 

[Evergreen]

There will be less communism and more capatalism as people grow smarter

 

[Valeu]

I think the closest the world has seen of a truly 'communist' society are the anarchist communities in Spain during the Civil War. They were crushed by the fascists and the Soviets, go figure.

 

[ilovecommunism]

回覆: Re: Capitalism or Communism?

My ID tells you everything about my opinion

don't even try to think of the image of a truly communist world before humanity disappears from the earth.

 

[ccc123]

To 'I love communism'

What you fail to realise is that communism is one of those things taht works in theory, but not in practice. Theoretically, yes, the communist ideology is a just one, and i personally agree with many of its founding principles, such as egalitarianism. However. the problem with communism is that it is inherently hypocritical. Throughout the course of history this has been demonstrated; as the communist ideology degenerates back into an equally repressive system. Thus, at the end of the day, communism is merely another form of inequality.

 

[xclo]

what's wrong with inequality, equal doesn't always mean fair. if someone works their ass off, i think they should deserve a little better than someone who just sits there and complains. in fact, all of the "more" successful economies have characteristics of it, it's needed to give ppl reason to innovate and strive for improvement. maybe their reasons for doing it are selfish, but at the end of the day, it benefits everyone in society e.g. someone who wants to be a doctor because of the pay can end up saving another person's life. that's why capitalism all the way

 

[ccc123]

what's wrong with inequality, equal doesn't always mean fair. if someone works their ass off, i think they should deserve a little better than someone who just sits there and complains. in fact, all of the "more" successful economies have characteristics of it, it's needed to give ppl reason to innovate and strive for improvement. maybe their reasons for doing it are selfish, but at the end of the day, it benefits everyone in society e.g. someone who wants to be a doctor because of the pay can end up saving another person's life. that's why capitalism all the way

Your right. inequalty isn't tantamount to injustice; this is nto what i meant; what i meant was that communism isn't equality.

 

[ccc123]

I’m intolerably bored, so I’ll just explore this topic a little more. Ok, to reiterate what I said before; communism works in theory NOT in practice. There is strong evidence for this statement throughout the course of history. Communist Russia, is a prime example, of where communism has failed dismally.

Now, the principles of communism are undoubtedly fair, just; I don’t deny that. Egalitarianism, as I said before, is a great principle. But, unfortunately, it is nothing more then that, a principle that cannot work when put into practice. Why? Because as human beings we have a natural proclivity, a predisposition if you like, to maintain some sense of order in our society. We have a tendency towards class stratification; which is why egalitarianism will only ever exist in theory.

Now conclusively, supporters of communism and Marxism are naïve, as they clearly don’t understand that human beings, by their very nature, are not capable of adhering to such principles that the communist ideology asserts.

 

[ccc123]

agreed. The idea of a classless utopia is all very well and good but it goes against the grain of human nature to try and achieve that sort of thing..

Precisely what i have been attempting to articulate myself. Totally agree, well put.

 

[ccc123]

With capitalism people are always going to exploited. The top of the pyramid

This is true. However, do you really believe that exploitation doesn't exist in countries governed by a communist dictatorship? It does; in fact there is more exploitation and corruption in countries governed by communists then those governed by capitalists. Sorry to bring History back into this again, but take a look at communist Russia; even though they were striving to create a egalitatian utopia, those who were entrusted to pursue the true ideals of communism, betrayed them , and thus the people of Russia were forced back the a life of oppression; back to the life they were ironically trying to escape from. Basically, Russia became a paradox of its ideals, if that makes any sense. And i am starting to ramble so yeah..

 

[ilovecommunism]

回覆: Re: Capitalism or Communism?

Throughout the course of history this has been demonstrated; as the communist ideology degenerates back into an equally repressive system. Thus, at the end of the day, communism is merely another form of inequality.

the current inequality and repression which exist among all those "so-called" communist countries, are actually caused by capitalist ideology. so it's not the problem of communism.

and the foundation of communism is democracy

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

 

[Bendent]

ummmm i prefer none. taking out the good points of each system and then combining them if ever possible is what i want, and then make a new name for the new system. i think china is trying to do this.

 

[ccc123]

Re: 回覆: Re: Capitalism or Communism?

the current inequality and repression which exist among all those "so-called" communist countries, are actually caused by capitalist ideology. so it's not the problem of communism.
and the foundation of communism is democracy

While i do not deny that the communism ideology has some good principles (i'm all for egalitarianism and halting exploitation of the proletariat), i reiterate, the problem with such an ideology is that it goes against the grain of human nature. It doesn't work. Sure, we can all be naive and pretend that we can create some classless, peaceful utopia. But it will not work.

Furthermore, by mentioning the current inequality and repression that exists in countries that allegedly adher to the communist ideology, you have just proved my point. My point being, that even if there is nothing wrong with the ideology itself, once put into practice it can and will not work because it goes against human natures natural proclivities, or predispositions.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

It doesn't have any good principles. Its principles are theft and slavery to the state. People should stop saying "communism is good in theory" or "communism has some good ideas". It's no less evil than conceding that Hitler had some good ideas.

 

[ccc123]

It doesn't have any good principles. Its principles are theft and slavery to the state. People should stop saying "communism is good in theory" or "communism has some good ideas". It's no less evil than conceding that Hitler had some good ideas.

No, you are wrong. The foundations that constitute the Communism ideology are NOT bad; its just that when put into practice they become corrupt and thus the communist regime degenerates back into an equally, if not more, repressive system.

 

[volition]

No, you are wrong. The foundations that constitute the Communism ideology are NOT bad; its just that when put into practice they become corrupt and thus the communist regime degenerates back into an equally, if not more, repressive system.

Not entirely. It depends on what you judge as good, because by definition the lack of a market for capital goods(the government owns all capital goods) makes the system less effective. Prices are distorted and this inescapably leads to wasted resources.

So I would say that even in theory, communism is a bad system.

 

[The Brucemaster]

It doesn't have any good principles. Its principles are theft and slavery to the state. People should stop saying "communism is good in theory" or "communism has some good ideas". It's no less evil than conceding that Hitler had some good ideas.

No, Communism's principles are egalitarianism, democracy and emancipation and, just like capitalism, it is only in its implementation that these principles become corrupted.
John Howard's capitalism is meant to promote at least the principles of egalitarianism and democracy aswell but something gives me the impression that this is not always the case.

As for Hitler, if you actually bothered to read a bit about the man you would know that he did, in fact, have some good ideas.