Capitalism is better. Communism enslaves each individual to the community. Capitalism allows each individual to be free and independent. Communism never makes progress because individuals are not given a just reward for improving things, while capitalism constantly improves. Communism lacks the economic freedom of choice to the fullest extent possible, in Capitalism people are free to choose what they want. Communism gives the lazy as much as the hard working, while capitalism allows each individual to sell their labor, creating a result where the hardest working are rewarded in accordance to how hard they work. In capitalism each person is independent, in communism each person is interdependent, interdependence is a form of slavery. In communism people work where the central Government tells them to, while in capitalism they work where they want.
420 days ago | Side: Capitalism
First off, the objective of Communism is the freedom of the individual. Communism does not give the lazy as much as the hard-working, 8th Plank of the communist manifesto- Those who do NOT contribute to the collective good will not get the fruits of labor of the collective good. And you are free in a communist society because no longer will you have to live in poverty. And what do you mean by no economic freedom, there is no such thing as money in communism."In communism people work where the central Government tells them to" There is no state in a communist society and before the state disappears, everyone is the government, "Dictatorship Of The Proletariat"-A temporary dictatorship of the WORKING CLASS, until the state disappears.
420 days ago | Side: Communism
Its a delusional objective...because the centralization of industry elimates the freedom of choice to buy what one wants, and work where one wants. Added it may not reward anything to those who give no contribution, but it gives no reward for how much one contributes.
420 days ago | Side: Capitalism
No that does not happen. You can choose what you want to be according to your skills. You will get everything you want if you work. For example, if you are A builder, you get food from the farmer, healthcare from the doctor and education from the teacher, why? Because you made them a house or did something for them. If you did something for Steve Jobs, you will get an IPod if your worked enough. You can choose who you will work for or maybe you will work for everyone altogether but the people you serve must give you something in return. Obviously, people who don't work don't get anything. And this means you can get what you want depending on how much you work for.
420 days ago | Side: Communism
Without supply & demand to detemine wages, some industries would have a shortage of workers while others would be in surplus of workers...that would force some kind of central authority to tell people where to work...& that is why in every classless country ever created people were not able to choose where they wanted to work.
419 days ago | Side: Capitalism
That would probably not happen because it is easy to put a limit on how many workers can work in a factory. Even if it were true, it is very possible for people to switch jobs if their skills are suitable enough. There are always solutions. You could always open up a place where you fix things and then get ore workers to come in and help your work place become a factory. That sounds like capitalism except the Proletariat control the means of production. Communism can be broken down to different branches(in my opinion) And so long each version follows the 10 planks of the communist manifesto it can be considered as a type of Communism.
419 days ago | Side: Communism
Even if a central authority didn't tell people where they have to work they still would not be able to choose to work where they wanted to, because without supply & demand to detemine wages, some industries would have a shortage of workers while others would have a surplus of workers...A result of that would be that it would force many to work harder then others for the same amount. That is why people are payed different to begin with...its an incentive to work harder.
419 days ago | Side: Capitalism
there is supply and demand except we determine wages by the effort and there is no such thing as money.
418 days ago | Side: Communism
Why would there be no such thing as money? Money gives people choices...at least there could be some choice in your system...but, no...And supply and demand in capitalism does determine wages by effort...the rate people are payed is based on the incentive required to get them to do the job or learn the skills to do the job. And if you claim you support a system where people are payed different then you support socialism not communism...communism is classless socialism
417 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Money as a currency does not exist, things will be fairer this way, almost no poverty and no unemployment, and of course no economic crises, crises can end in two ways for sure, no money or same currency for every country. Actually you have more opportunity without money, because you can work and get something for your hard work. If you have no money you can starve. In communism you can so easily work for you food. Unlike Capitalism which does not guarantee employment.
412 days ago | Side: Communism
Even the suggestion of the idea no money should exist just pretty much sums what where this debate is going. Money is the fundamental element in an economy, and without it, no economy will ever see anything else than an PRIMITIVE ECONOMY shackled to a barter system. Please read this from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. "So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil? "When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil? "Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth. "But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made – before it can be looted or mooched – made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced. "To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss – the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery – that you must offer them values, not wounds – that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade – with reason, not force, as their final arbiter – it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability – and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil? "But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality – the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind. "Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil? "Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil? "Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money? "Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money? "Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money – and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it. "Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it. "Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun. "But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich – will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt – and of his life, as he deserves. "Then you will see the rise of the double standard – the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money – the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law – men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims – then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter. "Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot. "Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.' "When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are. "You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood – money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves – slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers – as industrialists. "To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money – and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being – the self-made man – the American industrialist. "If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose – because it contains all the others – the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money'. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity – to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality. "Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide – as, I think, he will. "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns – or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out." original source: Part II, Section 2, pages 387-391 of the paperback
417 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Why the hell would you want a collective good? Those who do NOT contribute to the collective good will not get the fruits of labor of the collective good. Next sentence you say And you are free in a communist society because no longer will you have to live in poverty. Then what the fuck happens to the lazy? Do they get exterminated? Deported? Jailed? Communism is a fat contradiction. Stalin and many others have already proved that Communism does not work.
409 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Nothing will happen to them they did not work and will not get rewarded because they did not represent any labor to be rewarded for. Unfortunately, you do not know that the USSR was not communist and what about the villages in Spain, and North America? They run by a communist economic system.
409 days ago | Side: Communism
And the ideology of your swastika? Did something better than communism?
408 days ago | Side: Communism
Yeah, because his avatar is a Swastika he MUST be a Nazi, right? Grow up.
340 days ago | Side: Capitalism
USA ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
385 days ago | Side: Communism
Capitalism is always distorted by the left into this selfish mentality that all you crave is money. Capitalism begins with the right of private property. It means the separation of state and the economy, in the same form that the state does not control religion. It is a system in which mans actions are voluntary, and not forced, they are free to comply or not, based upon their own convictions and values, not upon what the state believes is in the best interest of the "greater good"
233 days ago | Side: Capitalism
If capitalism is better than communism, then why did the major capitals (UK, U.S., USA) live on the economic crisis? Which is why there is this crisis depressing? Why capitalist countries are on the verge of bankrupt? Was it because the working class will don't want working or the monopoly guy want to take care of money? Capitalism living in money and exploiting the working class! This is the biggest flaw of capitalism. If capitalism is freedom, then freedom is just a theory. So it is better to say that the capitalist world live in a dictatorship and not a democracy!
418 days ago | Side: Communism
umm can you name one prosperous communist country, o wait me neither! you call this economic crises in the free world, i agree. but the last "successful" communist country russia collapsed in economic turmoil due to communism. also it would be suprising to you to know that much of our turmoil is government caused. for instance our deflating dollar and realestate bubble pop. caused by the wonderful FED printing money out of thin air with out any support value faster than i can pass go in monopoly after rolling double ones. the housing bubble pop, the cause of fannie mac and banks loaning credit to bad buyers from encouragement by our great government. i agree capitalism has many problems. but in a imperfect world i must pick the lesser of two evils, that is capitalism.
411 days ago | Side: Capitalism
There is no such thing as a communist country because communism is a stateless society. Russia, North Korea and Cuba are/were not communist. Name at least three facts that makes communism evil.
409 days ago | Side: Communism
that is the first time i heard a communist say communist society is stateless, i believe you meant to say classless as communist believe in a no income class society since the laborers are supposed to receive their fruits equally. communist believe firmly in a state, hence the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is evil because last time i checked tyranny was not a favored government style. Second the violent overthrow of the merchant classes and capitalist through a "global revolution" is not a peaceful matter what so ever. And third, communist are fervently against diversity and freedom of religion, and also last time i checked, i enjoyed my personal liberties to be an individual person. Yes those three countries were communist, just not as you liked them to be, but they are an important lesson for us to learn here, where ever communism has been tried or implemented, it fails into a horrible humanitarian crisis. you may be the peaceful, hey shit should be shared type, and thats great for you, i would much rather prefer a peaceful more modern communist then a lets kill the richman and throw a coup kind of Marx's time period. finally, I hope one day you will see the futile effort of your crusade to rid the world of the exact capitalist that produce your jobs, innovate our society with advance technology, and help keep a free world democracy.
407 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Cuba is not communist, it is ruled by the commmunist party, and the living standrds there are not bad actually, commmunism as a stste never existed as a state but it did exist as villages. It is not against personal freedom, it actually aims for personal freedom.
407 days ago | Side: Communism
well, back in the USSR, during the 1930'… no economic crisis, but a fast economic growth thanks to industry. meanwhile in any other developped countries the economic crisis strikes : unemployment, bankruptcies etc. as you said, capitalism has many problems, and do not pretend that communism is the answer, but we could think to an alternate way of living, of producing, a "hybrid" model.
399 days ago | Side: Communism
Want to know why? Because no country has truly free Capitalism. Capitalist are in bed with the government or vice versa. Until a country can produce a true example of capitalism and absolutely free trade. Capitalism will always have a bad name.
409 days ago | Side: Capitalism
This is completely correct. It is the big government policies and regulations that restrict the economy. Big government wastes so many dollars of taxpayers money it is laughable really. And people forge that the rich people are the job creators, the wealth creators. The next 4 years will make or break the US of A. The debt will double if Obama stays in power, and the government will expand to an uncontrollable level. It is becoming quite Randian really.
233 days ago | Side: Capitalism
To the extreme either system of distribution is doomed to failure due to human nature. Some utopian change in human nature, or an over abundance of all necessities coupled with some end to the need for undesirable labor (labor people tend not to want to do, like dig ditches), would lead to communism as a more desirable system when we are speaking of the extremes. As it is, in order for the majority of humans to have a desire to contribute to their society, it requires incentive. Financial gain is the incentive that works best at this point it would seem.
420 days ago | Side: Capitalism
To the extreme either system of distribution is doomed to failure due to human nature. So the only way to fix this is to have non-humans make decisions for us. kkk.
420 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Not necessarily, you could always grow up in a different society-based on helping- it is almost a fact that your attitude is related to the type of society you live in. That is not the only way of course but it can help.
419 days ago | Side: Communism
To the extreme either system of distribution is doomed to failure due to human nature. Can you please clarify what you mean by “human nature?” I will say that I agree that either side of the communism vs. capitalism debate taken to the extreme is doomed to failure. But I think I would disagree with you on the cause of such a failure depending on how you view human nature. I believe that we are simply born into a corrupt system, and any attempt at adjusting to that corrupt system only makes someone corrupt. Not because it’s in our nature to be corrupt, but because it’s in our nature to react to stimuli in order to survive. Do you believe that it is in humans’ nature to be greedy or competitive or whatever? Or do you think it’s in our nature to react to a situation in order to survive. If the former, than I can see why you would think human nature is the cause of the systems failure. If the latter, I find it hard to see how that would be a cause to the failure but rather a symptom to something more fundamental within the system itself. Some utopian change in human nature I don’t think anyone is suggesting a “utopian” change to anything, just a more productive/ethical change to the system that is currently in effect. I don’t believe we will ever be perfect, but there’s no sense in trying to submit to a system that doesn’t work or that only benefits a select few when there are far better methods. an over abundance of all necessities coupled with some end to the need for undesirable labor Indeed, scarcity is the issue. And it’s even scarcity that creates some of those undesirable jobs. At any rate, and this is just my opinion, I believe technology is the method for bringing about such a change. That, and a drastic change in incentive and fellowship. As it is, in order for the majority of humans to have a desire to contribute to their society, it requires incentive. Financial gain is the incentive that works best at this point it would seem. Yes, as unfortunate as it is, I agree that financial gain is the fabricated incentive of our time. And even more unfortunate that a catastrophe is required to bring us together and see new incentives, namely the simple selfless incentive of the well being of our fellow human.
419 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Do you believe that it is in humans’ nature to be greedy or competitive or whatever? Or do you think it’s in our nature to react to a situation in order to survive. If the former, than I can see why you would think human nature is the cause of the systems failure. If the latter, I find it hard to see how that would be a cause to the failure but rather a symptom to something more fundamental within the system itself. Our nature is what causes societies, governments, etc. to function as they do. If our nature were different than our societies would be different. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution dictating which views/behaviors in society best survive trumps that, over the last few thousand years or so, a handful of humans (compared to total populations) have realized that by changing, or at least understanding and controlling, our nature could theoretically lead to better societies for the whole. The idea that governments and societies are somehow the driving force, and can so easily be changed in their nature, is an illusion. We collectively presently are bound by our loose pack/tribal nature. Bury in communism, democracy, feudilism, combined with any system for the exchanging of goods and services, and you have the same individualism clashing with pack instinct which makes us what we are. That is not to say some systems don't have better results for the whole. What it does mean, basically, is society is what it is because of us, we are not what we are because of society. I don’t think anyone is suggesting a “utopian” change to anything, just a more productive/ethical change to the system that is currently in effect. I don’t believe we will ever be perfect, but there’s no sense in trying to submit to a system that doesn’t work or that only benefits a select few when there are far better methods. So, say you are a caveman and basically it's a family unit where the strongest male rapes and steals whatever he likes, and since we're human and cannot survive on our own in the wild, what with mamoths and saber tooth tigers, we still stick around despite the inherent injustice of our lot in life (unless you should happen to be the biggest strongest male). If you are a lucky caveman tribe there are several "strongest" males so the power is somewhat balanced hopefully making things a little more fair, but it still likely sucks by todays standards for all but them. Okay, our society would seem utopian to that caveman. However, their nature deemed that utopian change in society impossible. It has been through our long development that the strongest male raping and pilaging has become less advantageous to our survival. I'd argue "Some utopian change in human nature" is not only possible, but our natural tendency. It's just that it takes hundreds of thousands of years for us to naturally develop in that direction. So, not sure what my point was. But I actually do argue for utopian change. I just feel it takes so long that the time we get there it does not seem so drastic or utopian. Indeed, scarcity is the issue. And it’s even scarcity that creates some of those undesirable jobs. At any rate, and this is just my opinion, I believe technology is the method for bringing about such a change. That, and a drastic change in incentive and fellowship. Agreed. And I think technology has accelerated the perceived change. Technolgoy is natural though, despite its designation otherwise. It was inevitable form the time the first caveman used a rock to break a nut, that some day if we survived we'd have airplanes, supercomputers, and smart phones. It is innevitable that if we survive, in a hundred thousand years we will have technologies that make smart phones, airplanes, and supercomputers look like a caveman using a rock to crack open a nut. And our societies will look just as primitive, brutal, and unfair to those future people as cavemen look to us today.
342 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Of course people will say we are greedy, but live and have been brought up in a society based on competition. But if we lived in a society based on helping, we would be naturally humanitarian.
420 days ago | Side: Communism
I get it so if you brainwash people not to reward themselves with self enjoyment they'll give all that they have worked hard for to someone else who hasn't earned it.
420 days ago | Side: Capitalism
As opposed to brainwashing people to think only for themselves and not the collective? What is wrong with a community that works hard for the well being of every individual instead of encouraging the individual to step on heads in order to scramble to the top of a collapsing pyramid?
420 days ago | Side: Communism
There are a lot of generous people in capitalistic countries...just because they want a reward for their labor does not mean they are not generous. And I guess in your ladder analogy you are referring to the race to the top, sometimes called "the rat race". Well it isn't really the Governments jobs to encourage people to do that.
419 days ago | Side: Capitalism
There is no point of putting that argument because even i Communism you get rewarded for contributing to the collective good.
419 days ago | Side: Communism
"in Communism you get rewarded for contributing to the collective good." But you don't get rewarded for your labor...A doctor gets paid the same as a burger flipper.
418 days ago | Side: Capitalism
no you don't I already argued against that look for my argument, and there is no money in communism by the way.
418 days ago | Side: Communism
NO, I am saying that people son't have to be naturally greedy.......And people do get rewarded in Communism.
420 days ago | Side: Communism
Communism is flawed. If everyone is equal- there cannot be a leader. without a leader a society cannot operate. Therefore a leader is needed and it contradicts itself.
395 days ago | Side: Capitalism
@deabteleader "communism ... no more wars over land" !! except the Chinese Civil War. "kids won't die for pointless reason ... mostly poverty related" !! except the Vietnamese famine. "kind of like Democracy" !! except the population don't get to vote.
420 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Those countries were not communist, communism has never existed, I hear the same arguments over and over again and they are flawed because they think those countries were communist when they were not. Heard of "Dictatorship Of The Proletariat"? That is when the working class takes over the state until the state disappears.
420 days ago | Side: Communism
At the end of the day, neither side is really 'free'. Both sides depend on people working, it's necessary to maintain any form of social or economic structure. But, in communism, you're not motivated at an individual level for the work that you do, whereas in capitalism, the ideal is that the harder/better you work, the more you receive from the community. Not only would I work better in this model, but I feel it is better at motivating the group, and developing society. One of the main issues I do have with Capitalism is the difference between self interest and collective interest: they're hardly the same in many cases. That's why a mixed economy is needed, and where I feel that government interest is justified.
420 days ago | Side: Capitalism
That is the same argument which states that you get paid the same, however, according to the 8th plank of the communist manifesto by Karl Marx, Those who do not contribute to the collective good will not receive their share from the fruit of labor from the collective good . So you see, those who work will get rewarded accordingly. and if you think that Capitalism gives more motivation than Socialism, then I would like to point out that Socialist countries like Cuba, have more doctors per capital, and the fact that Socialist countries have lower unemployment rates, in fact one of the world's lowest unemployment rates.
420 days ago | Side: Communism
What do you really know about Cuba? You have to bring your own blanket to a hospital so run down and nasty you are more likely to die of an infection acquired there than if they performed surgery in your own home. I know many Cubans who have family there. They will tell you the abject poverty those poor people live in. If Capitalism is primarily driven by greed, then Communism is driven by envy. As communist countries either go capitalist or fail time and again... it amazes me that people still believe in it with a damn near religious fervor. Actually... it IS religion to many people and we should treat it as such.
408 days ago | Side: Capitalism
I know a lot about Cuba. It guarantees free healthcare and education. I know so, I have been there, I am Cuban.
408 days ago | Side: Communism
And what you said is false. Cuban doctors are great and they have invented the lung cancer vaccine, what you know is false and is the type of arguments you expect from Fox news.
408 days ago | Side: Communism
Just because you have to work does not mean you are not free, if you don't work. If the farmer does not do his job then who will supply the builder with the strength to work? Life itself is about working, not all the time of course.
420 days ago | Side: Communism
If you have to do anything, you are not free to make your own decision. I don't think it's inherently bad, but I think it's true.
420 days ago | Side: Capitalism
stop spamming dude. Like seriously your just sad that your capitalist grandfather touched you gently .
416 days ago | Side: Capitalism
I don't have a capitalist grandfather. I am not spamming I am arguing.
416 days ago | Side: Communism
pffff yeah right your just spamming shit on the communism thing. oh lets see one of your posts. 2 spam posts?
415 days ago | Side: Capitalism
those are facts for your info. Looks like we know how to classify spam something which contradicts you opinion.
415 days ago | Side: Communism
not you. your :) and i can classify stuff :D :D :D hyong. its not my opinion it's a fact
414 days ago | Side: Capitalism
The fact that a man can work for his own food, and shelter is what makes him independent. The fact that he don't have to give to another who is unwilling to also makes him free.
420 days ago | Side: Communism
Exactly, he will work for his own food. The only thing different is the work place. And I told you already if you don't work you won't get anything if you work you will get something for your work.
420 days ago | Side: Capitalism
But what if you don't work, in a purely capitalist state? You'd die. To me, that makes you need to work.
420 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Then I guess if your interpretation is valid, nature enslaves us all to our needs. But it would be worse to have to fill anothers needs while having to work for your own.
420 days ago | Side: Capitalism
And that is why I support Capitalism over Communism, as I said.
420 days ago | Side: Capitalism
You don't work for others. You don't have to work for others because of the 8th plank. The more people work, the better the living standards for people that are WORKING will be, this will motivate others to join and help because their living standards will be better and they know nothing will happen to them if they don't work. So you see, those who don't work won't get anything.
420 days ago | Side: Communism
this shouldn't even be a debate. factual every other communist society besides the two we still have today have all failed. communism has factual led every country to poverty. communism is one of the most unmotivating systems ever. why would i go be a doctor when i could sweep floors and still live the same life? drive and motivation is what encourages people to work hard and better themselves. the reward you get from something determines how much effort you will put into it and communism just creates a lazy country. it sounds nice on the outside but it cannot work in a country like the USA. there's too many selfish people that want to be better than you.
419 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Those are not even communist societies. There has never been a communist society. Communism calls for a STATELESS society. Oh and by the way. You don't get paid the same. I am tired of saying this- 8th plank of the Communist Manifesto, those who do not contribute to the collective good will not receive the fruits of labor of the collective good, this is obviously stating that you need to work to survive. So all of your arguments are misconceptions. Oh and for that greed argument- If you live in a bad society where based on wants and competition, you will be greedy , if you live in a society based on helping you will be humanitarian.
419 days ago | Side: Communism
Communism is a form of government NOT a society. Stop trying to make comparisons with what is humans interacting with one another (society) and humans governing one another (government). Commies like to use wording to make it seem like the people run the show when it's a person running the show.
418 days ago | Side: Capitalism
there is no government in a communist system. And humans interact with one another very often because what you do benefits the people that are working with you. there is no one running the show, if you knew what communism is you would know that at first it is governed by EVERYONE until the state disappears. I case you mention dictators, let me remind you they were no good, real communist and the countries they ran were not communist either.
418 days ago | Side: Communism
415 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Communism may look great in paper, but there is not one instance of socialism that has worked in practice. The fundamental flaw to the "Marxist Theory" is that there is too much power in too few hands. This has and will always result in corruption as the few are made accountable to no one. Capitalism is flawed there is no denying that, but communism especially the ones practiced by Vietnam, Nepal, Cyprus, disguise themselves as being democratic while taking away the fundamental human rights of their people. This debate is important because it affects people, and while capitalism is flawed, communism in essence caters to the will of a favored few. This is simple matter of choosing the lesser of the two evils.
419 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Just a reminder, don't jump between communism and Socialism because we are talking about socialism. Cuban doctors invented the lung cancer vaccine and there are doctors in Cuba per capital. That is a fact I put up in case you are going to talk about Socialism.
417 days ago | Side: Communism
Communism is pure hell on earth. I talk to people who are from communist countries. That's the only argument you need. If these countries aren't communist then why do they say they are? Just because the p.o.s who got into power didn't want to give it up doesn't mean it's not a communist country. It's the indicator of why communism is fundamentally flawed...humans aren't machines!! Take off the Rosey Glasses and wake up to the atrocities of the last century imposed on innocents by commies. If you want communism, go fix N.Korea.
418 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Let me remind you those countries were not communist if you want to know what commuism is supposed to be like then read 'The Communist Manifesto" before you go around claiming that there was a communist regime. Oh and communism calls for no countries and the borders to be removed.
418 days ago | Side: Communism
Those countries never said they are communist, they said they were socialist republics and even if they did call themselves communist, then by your logic, East Germany was great for the people because it called itself, The German DEMOCRATIC Republic. And it is an absolute fact that communism as a great nation never existed but it did exist as small communes or villages. There are some in the valleys of Spain and North America.
418 days ago | Side: Communism
The USSR stood for Union Of Soviet SOCIALIST REPUBLICS. And DPRK stood for Democratic People's Republic Of Korea, the name sounds nice but North Korea democratic? No. But by you logic it is because they called themselves democratic. North Korea is not communist, get over it. And if you are going to call Cuba communist, I would just like you to know that people happy living there and it is not hell as you would describe it. And the majority of Cubans like Fidel Castro. You can't argue with me on that one because I am Cuban-Syrian.
418 days ago | Side: Communism
Communism, socialism fascism are all differences without distinction. All having killed so many of their own people I don't see how there is even an argument. Like I said before, you are also arguing between an economic structure and a political structure.
415 days ago | Side: Capitalism
No, Communism is an economic structure. Communism- A stateless and classless society in which goods are shared as a collective and where the Proletariat control the means of production Socialism- A society in which the Proletariarr conrol the means of production and the value equal to the labor power is kept to buy luxuries and the surplus value is given to the Government in order to guarantee free education, healthcare, food and shelter. Fascism- An extreme right ideology in which society is ruled by one and no opposition exists. Communism is both a social and economic structure. You have no evidence but I gave you a source.
415 days ago | Side: Communism
No, that's is not my logic. My logic is no matter what u call it it's communism and always leads to the spending of all the wealth in the country and collapsing in on it's self. They are all communists.
415 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Their party is communist and but the system the country rules by is not communist.
415 days ago | Side: Communism
I would also like to point out that this argument is between an economic structure (capitalism) and a form of government (communism). It should be between either Federal Republic and Communism or Capitalism and Command and Controlled Economy. To compare an economy structure to a form of government is like apples to oranges. Whatever though.
418 days ago | Side: Capitalism
I would like to point out that communism is also an economic system and there is no ruler if not the ruler is everyone. Now I know you don't know what communism is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism also read the manifesto if you can or a summary of it.
418 days ago | Side: Communism
I don't care what anyone says about Communism, Marxism, or any other kind of Socialist system. Karl Marx had a good idea as far as a base of understanding for a Socialist society, however I do not think that this type of system could be implemented into our capitalist society today. Marx common phrase “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” actually sounds somewhat appealing, however, we live in a current society that would take advantage of such an idea. People would begin having many more “needs” and much less “ability,” which wouldn't fix anything in the long run. Communism is nothing more than disguised tyranny. Redistribution and "sharing" of wealth completely eliminates the incentive to do anything worthwhile. Not to mention a Communist system is generally one which brainwashes all of it's civilians into actually believing its for their own good. Anytime the government is given that much power you will see an inevitable fail from either the economy or the people will eventually overthrow their pathetic leaders whom they think is acting out of their best interest. I think arguing Capitalism vs Communism is sort of a broad range for argument seeing as both ideologies are interconnected to so many others. The pendulum generally swings in two different directions. One side is of freedom, independence, and backbone regulation (Don't kill, commit fraud, ect). The other side is a complete totalitarian authority (Communist dictatorship). We control everything because you're too inferior to know for your own good. Communism might be a more efficient system in times of hardship but it's only because everyone is basically sacrificing their existence to co-exist... We aren't even experiencing ACTUAL Capitalism in the USA today. People think and call this Capitalism but it's nothing more than a generic off brand, more like corporatism. The kicker with a Communist system is that it tries to say its "Egalitarian" yet the majority of the population suffer in poverty while the small minuscule elite parade around and enjoy vast amounts of wealth for themselves. This is why ANY and ALL Communist/Socialist systems are nothing more than disguised tyranny...
418 days ago | Side: Capitalism
A quick look at history proves that, while communism looks great on paper, it ALWAYS degenerates into a crushing of the masses in favor of the elite. There is absolutely no exception that you can point to. Yes, capitalism has problems in that it is always a reflection of people and their selfishness, but so does communism, and that without any of the benefits of capitalism.
417 days ago | Side: Capitalism
What history? Communism has never existed! And if you want to see how a communist society is actually supposed to function, you could go visit those communist communes and villages. It is Impossible for communism to favor the elite because a communist society is supposed to be classless and stateless. Look up "Dictatorship Of The Proletariat". USSR was not communist, Cuba is not communist (Cuba is not a bad place actually) and North Korea is not communist. So those countries will never prove that communism is bad.
417 days ago | Side: Communism
Have you read any of the stories of the many communes which sprang up during the 'Hippie' days? There were a few i visited north of San Francisco, and many others up and down the west coast, and probably in Europe too. They qualify as history. None of them survived beyond a decade or so. Why? Human nature. Eventually someone or some group discovers that they can run the show and take a bigger slice of the pie. Or some decide that they can't work as hard, and it is unfair that they are shorted at distribution time. How exactly do you determine fair distribution? For every 10 people you ask, you are likely to get 11 different answers. And there will always be the slug who does not work. Can the group really just cut him off? Sorry. Great theory, but reality does not back it up. Never has, never will. That's why you can find countless versions of capitalism in history (and many of them did very well) , but no examples of communism that last long enough to be called successful.
416 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Can you explain to me what is that capitalism has done better than communism?
415 days ago | Side: Communism
First, there has never truly been a communistic society, by the definition of communism. But if you are comparing any of the self proclaimed communist societies with capitalism the differences are many. No 'communist' country allows its citizens the personal freedom allowed in a capitalistic one. And the personal wealth of even the poorest citizen in a capitalist society is far above the level of wealth in communist countries.
414 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Yeah! The poor level of capitalism has a much higher wealth that the poor countries of the Communists. But you are forgetting that there is poverty in Brazil? Do not forget that Brazil is a capitalist country, even in time of military dictatorship has always been. And Angola and Guinea-Bissau? Do you think it does not have the poor starve? That's what you say, does not mean anything! Even if you do not like the communist countries, not to say that the poor are totally poor! And besides, there was never any freedom in the system. The only ideology that gives freedom is anarchy.
413 days ago | Side: Communism
there has never been a truly capitalistic society either................ Pure Pure capitalism means no government.
413 days ago | Side: Communism
No those communes. I mean the villages which have a communist system. You still have twin oaks. And some of the native Americans before they were killed off. and people are going to develop greed if they live in a society based on competition and where greed can easily develop. I f you live in a society based helping we would be naturally Humanitarian. Chimpanzees have the ability to share, saying we are naturally greedy is like degrading ourselves. And why would greed ruin everything? It is not like you get paid the same as everyone else. In fact, the more people work, the higher the living standards will be for everyone which is great for motivation. So why has not communism existed as a nation? Simply because Communism calls for a STATELESS society. Which is the reason it has best existed with the Native American tribe and some villages. So even if my rebuttal for human nature does not work, it still won't matter because they can get more people to work to make their living standards higher. Those who do not contribute to the collective good will not get the fruits of labor of the collective good.
416 days ago | Side: Communism
I totally agree with you that all of history tells us that then system that you describe would be ideal. But history also tells us that i can and will not happen. Native Indian societies were highly competitive between the tribes and often between themselves. Chimpanzees share, and also kill each other over the food they share. Your suggestion that those who do not contribute will not get the fruits of labor.... How does that work? And how about those who work, but are slouches? Final question. Did Marx call for a "Stateless Society", or is that your idea? I've never heard that suggested.
416 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Marx put it as a stateless, classless society. Not all Native Americans had a communist society, just some. That is not my suggestion, Those who do not contribute will not get the fruits of labor, by definition that would mean things are not just free. It is disproving the argument that in communism you will get paid the same even if you do not work, i said that to prove that that argument against communism is false. What I was trying to say is that if you did not work for the collective good, you won't get what the collective good produced because you did not work for it. just like capitalism, you work to get money and buy stuff but in Communism money does not exist so you work and contribute to the collective good and people see that you worked so you will get what the collective good produced according to how much you worked. That is what I meant.
416 days ago | Side: Communism
I'm curious about this discussion. If this is purely an academic question that you are answering, I have to agree with what are saying; that communism would be better than capitalism. But if you are suggesting that pure communism can work in this world of ours on other than a small scale, I think history shows that human nature will not let it happen. For instance, you say that "people see that you worked so you will get what the collective good produced according to how much you worked." Experience tells me that this is not what happens. Favoritism, cronyism, and trying to 'score points' (for a thousand reasons) will inevitable enter the equation. A side question. How do you insert the bold quotes you used in earlier discussion?
415 days ago | Side: Capitalism
The human nature argument- The idea that someone will be greedy enough to ruin everything. In communism, it is very hard to be greedy and even if you are greedy that does not ruin everything because greed would be a side motivation to work for the collective and the more people work the better the living standards would be for everyone, so your greed is not going to help you get a higher living standard because there is a limit as to how hard the human body can work, so the only way greed will get you more stuff is if everybody is greedy and everybody works really hard, because as I mentioned, the more people work and the harder they work, the better the living standards will be for the workers. This better living standard is a very good motivator. So greed, does not go against communism in a way. However, the problem is not greed, the problem is the power of the upper class, they will not come to agreements with other countries, and this way, society gets more divided and therefore making it harder for global communism to be achieved. Maybe, communism can exist as one nation, but it will definitely not be exactly the same as Marx put it. I am not sure, but I think Marx predicted that capitalism will fall unless they resort to imperialism which is what is happening now. Countries continue to try to get more land and resources to stimulate the economy but history tells us that imperialism never works.
411 days ago | Side: Communism
Communism violates human rights .
413 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Whether true or false, this is a statement, not an argument. Please add something to the debate.
412 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Communism violates human rights .
413 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Capitalism violates human rights too. United Stades, United Kindom and European Union destroyed the Iraqi people.
411 days ago | Side: Communism
that was not capitalsim, that was war. thats like me saying russia destroyed afghan, all the eastern european countries and germany because of communism. after russia conquered these countires and tried to implement communism yes they became even more destroyed.but the direct takeover of these countries was not communist's doing, so it was after conquest did these countires fail, the difference between east and west berlin after the soviet collapse is the perfect stark image of two economic ideals at work. and i think we all know which one did better.
411 days ago | Side: Capitalism
In fact, when I advocate communism, does not advocate communism that the world knows. I argue the real communism is born first-time (Marxism). I understand what you say, but I never supported the Soviet Union and China, because it spoiled the Marxist theory. I always I will love the great communist revolutionary, the Marx. But in practice will always be an anarchist, because unfortunately I have no confidence to any bandit who is in power. So far, the only system that said and practiced freedom, was the anarchist system.
410 days ago | Side: Capitalism
oh you mean like the ussr did when they invaded Afghanistan and imprisoned there own people in Siberian prison camps and what about pol-pot remember that genocidal ass hole and Che Guevara killed over 100 gays, intellectuals, capitalists, and religious leaders each the Nazis only killed over 60000 people communists have killed over 100,0000 over the years conclustion commies are even worse than Nazis
341 days ago | Side: Capitalism
oh you mean like the ussr did when they invaded Afghanistan and imprisoned there own people in Siberian prison camps and what about pol-pot remember that genocidal ass hole and Che Guevara killed over 100 gays, intellectuals, capitalists, and religious leaders each the Nazis only killed over 60000 people communists have killed over 100,0000 over the years conclustion commies are even worse than Nazis
341 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Please explain how a classless society in which the working class control the means of production violate human rights.
411 days ago | Side: Communism
Communist manifisto has three parts, revolt of the proletariat, dictatorship of the proletariat, then finally pure communism. the first two steps are very violent actions cause to create turmoil and destory the merhcants of our society, followed by a totalitarian state of controle of the proletariat by a dictator, does not sound very fun imho, and finally, pure communism, whith btw has never been reached where we all share these "fruits" of the labor we produce. communism is an ideal that cant be reached. capitalism has many faults, but i would rather live by the ideals of freedom of cosummerism and the "invisable hand" that also allows finacial freedom then the directed unfree stages of communism.
411 days ago | Side: Capitalism
411 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Capitalism is better. Communism enslaves each individual to the community. Capitalism allows each individual to be free and independent. Communism never makes progress because individuals are not given a just reward for improving things, while capitalism constantly improves. Communism lacks the economic freedom of choice to the fullest extent possible, in Capitalism people are free to choose what they want. Communism gives the lazy as much as the hard working, while capitalism allows each individual to sell their labor, creating a result where the hardest working are rewarded in accordance to how hard they work. In capitalism each person is independent, in communism each person is interdependent, interdependence is a form of slavery. In communism people work where the central Government tells them to, while in capitalism they work where they want.
400 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Is it just me or did you copy down everything steve said?????????
399 days ago | Side: Communism
Capitalism has been proven to work farther better than communism. In communism an individual cannot be motivated to work because they will recieve the same amount of money and medical care if they did the minimum amount of work. No matter what field you're in, in a communist system, all people recieve the same amount of money no matter what. Capitalism increases the amount of money for the amount of work you do for that specific job(whether it be in education or labor).
397 days ago | Side: Capitalism
They are both bad, Communism enslaves and the Capitalist mess things up. US is democratic and it is not Capitalism or communism but capitalism vs Socialism. US us in between both, i side with my country.
381 days ago | Side: Capitalism
There's one simple reason communism can't work, simple human nature. Humans, like all animals, seek to amass influence and resources for themselves and no matter what system we use, someone will always use their postition to acquire them, the difference is that under capitalism, it's the businessmen, under communism, it's the government. People will always do this and changes the system will only change who succeeds and how.
381 days ago | Side: Capitalism
communisam may be the poler oppiit to facisam in pollitical theroy but in practice its the exact same thing one man controlls every thing and if you speek out agenst the state your anre exicuted for treeson capitalisam requires a free society inorder to funtion whereas comunisam requires a totalitarin nanie state use your head communisam = the destruction of freedom how can you possiblly support that
342 days ago | Side: Capitalism
One man controls everything??????? Executed for treason?????? Destruction of freedom???????? Try and read Marx.
338 days ago | Side: Communism
i love how all the capitalists are actually presenting actual arguments backed up by historical facts and the commies arguments are just the equivalent of "no i right i win"
341 days ago | Side: Capitalism
i mean seriously how are these delusional dumb fucks actually winning it makes no logical sence there are more arguments from our side and ours make actual sense
341 days ago | Side: Capitalism
what i chose the capitalist side why dose it keep saying side:communism on my comments i don't get it
341 days ago | Side: Capitalism
what the "communist" supporters are probably thinking of is socialism you can have a free democratic and pluralistic society with a socialist economy how ever that would be extremely difficult to maintain that is why most socialist society's turn to communism which as history has shown us repeatedly is oppressive, totalitarian, and highly unstable and virtually unsustainable
340 days ago | Side: Capitalism
WOW128 to 141? peaple on the internet are frecken dilutionel
340 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Capitalism is better. I and everyone should be selfish. I would 100% rather buy that new BMW than give money to poor people. Call me evil I dont care. It's just how people should think.
411 days ago | Side: Capitalism
I have four things to say: -You are selfish and moronic -You could just be trolling/spamming -That side of capitalism works for the Bourgeoisie, you can never agree on your own post unless you are a Bourgeois. - In communism you don't have to give to the poor, that just happens in the system.
407 days ago | Side: Communism
|
Communism is the perfect form of Government as everyone is equal. there is no working class or middle class. Everyone gains an equal share of everything money food and housing, which would end poverty. However there is too many people in this world, who only care about themselves and how much money they have compared to the next one idiot, like it is some kind of game, of who has the most wins. of which the winner hopes for power, which only corrupts and changes peoples opinion of you for the worst, no matter what they say. Because they are jealous of you want your position and wealth.
391 days ago | Side: Communism
then no one has any insentive what so ever to get there lazey asses out of bed echmorning exept for the secret polieses boot on there door ready at any moment to kick it down and haul them of to a labor camp if they dont do there "patrieotic duty" so everyoe is motivated by fear insted of ambition and that is no way to live
342 days ago | Side: Capitalism
"Everyone gains an equal share of everything money food and housing, which would end poverty." I wonder why so many people in the defunct USSR starved to death, if not for poverty.
158 days ago | Side: Capitalism
For a classless, stateless society where people work for society and themselves. Where if you contribute to the collective good you will get your share and if you don't you went get anything because you don't deserve the product of labor from the collective good. And no more wars over land because there won't be anymore borders. The objective of communism is the freedom of the individual. And the proletariat shall be free from exploitation. And kids won't die for pointless reasons which is mostly poverty-related. Where everyone will rule as one. Kind of like Democracy but safer and more secure.
420 days ago | Side: Communism
From each according to ability, to each according to need(not ability). It is always good to see young comrades, especially ones that are mostly correct in their understanding. I envision communism like a large scale open source community, or gift economy, or even resource based economy.
416 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Greed is not created by competition, it is created by want, stateless communism dissolves as soon as individuals realize they can trade their own product for a profit to purchase their desires. There is nothing wrong with that, so they would have no guilt in it, and therefor not refrain from it. The same thing would divide the income of labor as soon as individuals realized the value of their labor. Added kids in America have plenty of access to food. Even in pure capitalism, a kid still has an opportunity to work for their food...so they would be able to avoid dying at the hands of their worthless parents.
420 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Yes, greed is created by want. A want for more than one needs in order to survive. Competition is created out of a combination of scarcity in resources and the individual will to survive when dependant on those resources. Profit requires scarcity in order to have value. When scarcity (instead of abundance) is promoted and even encouraged in a profit based system such as capitalism, it becomes flawed and unsustainable. Without scarcity, capitalism could not exist as there would be no profit. Capitalism requires scarcity, requires there to be an amount of resources that cannot equally support the entire population. It's like a game of musical chairs, only benefitting the "winners" while at the same time actually creating the unavoidable loss of the losers.
419 days ago | Side: Communism
Nonsense...everyone is rewarded in accordance to the value of their labor...there is no "musicle chairs" game.
418 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Capitalism is a profit based system. Profit requires scarcity in order to have value. The more scarce the resource, the more valuable it is. Musical chairs is a game where the chairs represent a resource that is scarce. Everyone has a fair advantage in the game, but not everyone will win. Not everyone will be rewarded in accordance with their labor (scrambling to get a chair). Not everyone gets a trophy.
418 days ago | Side: Communism
"Capitalism is a profit based system. Profit requires scarcity in order to have value. The more scarce the resource, the more valuable it is. Musical chairs is a game where the chairs represent a resource that is scarce. Everyone has a fair advantage in the game, but not everyone will win. Not everyone will be rewarded in accordance with their labor (scrambling to get a chair)." That's all nonsense.
416 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Well that was a well thought out counter argument, great job steve789! /sarcasm
414 days ago | Side: Communism
Double post __________________________ __________________________
414 days ago | Side: Communism
Your arguments are foolish. Greed is obviously caused by selfish want, and selfish want happens in any system. Competition is not at all based on scarcity, it is based on market needs and availability. There is no scarcity of any number of products and services (gardeners, computers, accountants, crafts, etc., etc.) but there is robust competition. To say that scarcity is being promoted is nonsense, and to suggest that scarcity equals capitalism shows a complete lack of understanding. You have been reading fifth grade level propaganda. Capitalism created the wealthiest nation and the wealthiest population in human history. Unbridled greed may take it down, but nothing that communism offers could accomplish even half of what capitalism has for the well being of the masses. History alone makes that argument.
417 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Your arguments are foolish… You have been reading fifth grade level propaganda. Here come the insults. Can we please discuss this like grown folks and refrain from the personal insults? Besides, I wish they taught the fundamentals of economics starting in fifth grade, maybe people would understand why we’re in the condition we’re in. Greed is obviously caused by selfish want, and selfish want happens in any system. Any system where there are social-economic classes and resources that are scarce, yes. Competition is not at all based on scarcity If resources aren’t scarce, what are you competing over? Scarcity is exactly what competition is based on. What do you think it is based on? it is based on market needs and availability. How is this any different from when I said “Competition is created out of a combination of scarcity in resources and the individual will to survive when dependant on those resources.” Market needs = individual will to survive when dependant on resources Availability = scarcity (or abundance) in resources There is no scarcity of any number of products and services (gardeners, computers, accountants, crafts, etc., etc.) but there is robust competition. Why do you think that is? To say that scarcity is being promoted is nonsense, and to suggest that scarcity equals capitalism shows a complete lack of understanding. It’s a fundamental truth that capitalism requires real or imagined scarcity in order to function. Its a profit based system; abundance is its enemy. And scarcity is promoted or encouraged all the time by companies that want to increase their profits. Capitalism created the wealthiest nation and the wealthiest population in human history. Wealthy in terms of the amount of consumption maybe. True wealth is counted by the things money can’t buy in my opinion. BTW, the US is also the most wasteful nation in human history.
417 days ago | Side: Communism
Ok Coldfire; so you are convinced that capitalism is bad. I disagree, but that is just a difference of opinion. Lets talk fact and forget opinion for a minute. You seem to agree that the US has created a great deal of individual wealth. Yes, the mega wealthy make you and i look like less than paupers, but we are still far wealthier than most of the world. that's fact one. No communist society compares in either wealth or personal freedom. None. Fact two. Response?
416 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Ok Coldfire; so you are convinced that capitalism is bad. Or rather, I see that it is detrimental to the progression of the species and nothing thus far has convinced me otherwise. I disagree, but that is just a difference of opinion. Lets talk fact and forget opinion for a minute. So you think that my position is based solely on opinion? Here are the “facts” I’ve already mentioned, which you seem to be overlooking. 1. Capitalism is profit based. It is an economic system that advocates private ownership over production for a profit. 2. Profit requires scarcity. Very simple, if products were abundant to the point of surplus (meaning your resources exceed your demand), then there would be little to no profit made. The scarcer something is in accordance with supply and demand, the more profit; the less scarce, the less profit. 3. When profit is based on scarcity, and the economy is based on profit, there exists a need to either maintain or create real or imagined scarcity in order to function. Abundance is a negative thing in that sense. 4. Where scarcity exists, there will be competition. 5. Where scarcity exists, somebody will lose. Contrary to what most of us are indoctrinated into, competition is not an entirely ‘good’ thing. It can be good fun such as in sports and games, but when it comes to survival it is unethical because it doesn’t promote an honest or selfless relationship between people. Unethical can often be thrown out the window when it comes to survival, but when there are methods to make resources abundant instead of scarce and those methods are being hindered by the very system that requires scarcity, it becomes a problem. Yes, the mega wealthy make you and i look like less than paupers, but we are still far wealthier than most of the world. Well I wouldn’t say paupers, but certainly peasants. It’s not about perception, the middle and lower classes are essentially peasants. It’s no different from the Middle Ages where the peasants gathered all the resources and manufactured all the products while those of noble blood lived the high life. And what do you mean by “far wealthier than most of the world?” No communist society compares in either wealth or personal freedom. None. For one, there has yet to be a country which implements the ideology well enough to actually call it communist. Communism promotes the idea of the working class; the majority, having control over the economy and the state. So far ‘communist’ nations have always given the power to the state over the people. Two, what do you mean by wealth? And three, are you sure your ‘free?’ How so?
414 days ago | Side: Communism
It doesn't produce a unavoidable loss, it is voluntary exchange, there is no loser in voluntary exchange...Added, that incentive drives growth and produces a continual gain for everyone.
419 days ago | Side: Capitalism
I'm not surprised that that is the only thing you challenged in my entire statement. And it does produce an unavoidable loss. Where resources are scarce, and encouragement exists to make them scarcer instead of more abundant in order to increase profit, there will be people that do not profit from such a system. It is unavoidable. Are you telling me that in a competition both people win? Sorry, but I don’t agree with that new age “everyone gets a trophy” mentality. A voluntary exchange may not in itself have a loss, but it requires a person to have something to give in exchange. So before you reach the point of even being able to perform a voluntary exchange you are originally at a loss. Yes, we may be able to exchange our time and labor, but as long as you owe more than you have in available resources, you are at a loss. And how do you see that it produces a continual gain for everyone? That’s ludicrous. Capitalism favors the competition over resources under a real form of or false notion of scarcity, often times fabricated by the very idea that it will increase profits. Capitalism creates an economic social structure and class system based on scarcity, and where there is scarcity there will be losers guaranteed. The only incentive in that type of economy is to not be that loser. There is no incentive for helping one another because that would be detrimental to your own success. If a person walks into my shop and says I like your craftsmanship on these chairs, and I said "yea they look nice, but the guy next door makes them sturdier and they last longer," I'm not going to do too well. Honesty and selflessness do not exist in a capital based economy. Instead of helping one another succeed, we are taught or naturally adapt to realize that stepping on one another is the only sure way to not only succeed, but to survive.
419 days ago | Side: Communism
To clarify, the continual gain I was referring to is economic growth...which is something that doesn't exist in communism because in communism people are given no incentive to improve things. That's why in over 80 years of existence the USSR produced no economic growth.
418 days ago | Side: Capitalism
To clarify, the continual gain I was referring to is economic growth I'm not arguing that capitalism doesn't cause growth, but it’s blatantly obvious who benefits from that growth, that’s what I’m arguing. You said that it’s a “continual gain for everyone” but the people that benefit from economic growth in capitalism are those with the most resources to begin with, not the ones doing the work; the benefit of growth is funneled towards the rich. Capitalism creates a plutocracy which only leads to further and more powerful totalitarian control of the wealthy over the other classes. which is something that doesn't exist in communism because in communism people are given no incentive to improve things. When the incentive to beat your neighbor in order to survive is no longer present as with capitalism, new incentives are born. This idea that communism means people would just sit around on their ass all day is as dumb as the people who feed it to you on corporate media. Its unfounded and irrelevant rhetoric. That's why in over 80 years of existence the USSR produced no economic growth. So in summation: ‘Economic growth doesn’t exist in communism because people aren’t given any incentive to improve things; no incentive to improve things is why in over 80 years the USSR produced no economic growth?’ That’s circular reasoning. Trust me; there was plenty of incentive in people to improve things towards the end of the Soviet Union considering how bad the quality of life was, the problem was that the people had no say in the matter. The reason their economy failed was because the Soviet Union implemented totalitarian control over the economy and used much of the country's resources for military instead of improving the quality of life. Communism, as it is described in Leninism is a democratic control over the economy where the working class has power over the state. Not an elite group of individuals as with capitalism. With communism, it is the worker that reaps what he sows, the worker that benefits from the growth of the economy. If you say the USSR is a good example of communism, then you open up the door to me saying that the US is a good example of capitalism.
418 days ago | Side: Communism
"I'm not arguing that capitalism doesn't cause growth, but it’s blatantly obvious who benefits from that growth, that’s what I’m arguing. You said that it’s a “continual gain for everyone” but the people that benefit from economic growth in capitalism are those with the most resources to begin with, not the ones doing the work; the benefit of growth is funneled towards the rich. Capitalism creates a plutocracy which only leads to further and more powerful totalitarian control of the wealthy over the other classes." That is not what almost every history book ever written says "Communism, as it is described in Leninism is a democratic control over the economy where the working class has power over the state. Not an elite group of individuals as with capitalism. With communism, it is the worker that reaps what he sows, the worker that benefits from the growth of the economy" Communism is classless, efficiecy cannot be improved in communism, because without reward, there is absolutely NO point in improving it. Just why would anyone care to improve it without an incentive?? Think about it...its totally illogical.
417 days ago | Side: Capitalism
"That is not what almost every history book ever written says." So its in a book so it must be true, huh? Humor me, what does it say in these history books you speak of? "Communism is classless, efficiecy cannot be improved in communism, because without reward, there is absolutely NO point in improving it" Yes communism is classless. You say it as if it’s a bad thing. Efficiency can be improved in communism as long as there is no totalitarian control over the economy by the state or bourgeoisie and the working class has the power as suggested by Leninism. Are you equating 'being in a higher class' as the 'reward' in capitalism, and that communism doesn't offer that? While it’s true that communism doesn’t offer that, that is not the only reward there is. Communism focuses on benefitting all who contribute to the collective, not individual rewards. I’m sorry that you feel that there’s no point in improving something unless you get a prize, but contrary to what you believe, there are humble people out there that don't need any reward for the things they do that benefit the community. The problem with capitalism is that that type of selfless behavior towards our neighbors is actually detrimental to your own success. I can understand that you think getting a reward is the only incentive people have to improve things given the current state of things, but its nonetheless a sorry and misguided notion. "Just why would anyone care to improve it without an incentive?? Think about it...its totally illogical." It’s not illogical just because you cannot wrap your mind around it. 'Gaining rewards' and 'beating the other guy' are not the only incentives that exist.
417 days ago | Side: Communism
You know why there is no point...Its simple. People adapt to their environment...therefore how much they have becomes normal to them...with them feeling that everything is fine and normal for everyone else, and their being no incentive for improving the efficiency of things, there becomes no point. Now, Russia's food problems were not the product of this, they were the product of a centrally planned economy by the CP...so you are probably right about them wanting to help, but not being able to. Also, the only history books that say capitalism doesn't work for the overall economic progress of society is those written by beaurocrats hired by high up leaders in the old USSR, and the other "communist" countries How do I know people adapt...when I was young I was "poor", and how much I had was normal to me, and tribal people, the poorest people in the world, are very content with their situations too.
416 days ago | Side: Capitalism
People adapt to their environment...therefore how much they have becomes normal to them...with them feeling that everything is fine and normal for everyone else, and their being no incentive for improving the efficiency of things, there becomes no point. I can kind of see where your coming from with this, though I disagree that there is “no point” in improving the situation. I know that people are very much influenced by their environment and they adapt to it in order to survive. But just because people adapt to it and think its fine doesn’t mean it is, it just means that that is all they know and its natural for them to be scared of new things… it might be worse than what we have now. How do I know people adapt...when I was young I was "poor", and how much I had was normal to me, and tribal people, the poorest people in the world, are very content with their situations too. “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” - J. Krishnamurti Sometimes it takes a revolutionary to speak out against the status quo. We need to slap people good and hard in the face and shake them vigorously so that they may wake up from the dream that the Owners have lulled them into.
414 days ago | Side: Communism
"And kids won't die for pointless reasons which is mostly poverty-related." Explain why men women and children are starving in north korea, explain the deaths of the refugees who to tried to cross the border due to hunger, explain why the US had to donate large sums of money for food to provide for the north korean people.
413 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Saying that is like trying to compare an apple with an orange, N. Korea is not communist.
413 days ago | Side: Communism
dude do your historry there is no way u can sereously say that the NORKS arnt commies
342 days ago | Side: Capitalism
north koriea is little nore than chinas pet look at its history since 1940 kim ill sung=commie kim jong ill= commie kim jong un= you gessed it commie
342 days ago | Side: Capitalism
north koriea is little nore than chinas pet look at its history since 1940 kim ill sung=commie kim jong ill= commie kim jong un= you gessed it commie
342 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Norht Korea... communist government?.... lololololololololol do you know what communism actualy is or are you blinded by the media?
347 days ago | Side: Communism
Communism is an ideology that is separated by several theories and practices (Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Leninism, etc..). On the one hand, their theories have failed because of corruption Stalinist, but after the fall of the Soviet Union, communism has been changing gradually to become a democratic ideology. There are many countries such as Nepal, Cyprus, Uruguay, Vietnam, are ruled by communist parties, but with the democratic system and a Marxist. In my opinion, communism is currently dominating capitalism because communism advocates the working class, while capitalism, unfortunately defends the bourgeoisie.
419 days ago | Side: Communism
The reason I support communism, is not by beauty is by the side communism defend. Most people prefer capitalism even because of money and feel freedom. For me money is bullshit. Money enslaves society. There are thousands of people in Africa who are starving, not only because of armed conflict but also because there is support in the economy of these countries. And I also think that capitalism works like a mafia!
416 days ago | Side: Communism
ur right we shuld just do awat with money all together then insted of stors we can just have big ware houses where peaple go and fight echother over all the free shit itll be like black frieday all year wouldent that just be wounder full of we can just have the government give us every thing then we could all expereince the great joy of wateing in line for houers at a thime for a single slice of bread yaeh that sounds like utopia dosest it
342 days ago | Side: Capitalism
i am not supporting the commies i am being sarcastic i am a starch Conservative capitalist
341 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Please don't swear on my debates or I will turn into the Hulk, thank you.
340 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Money enslaves society? More like communism enslaves society. Where do you think communist countries get support from? don't they use money to gain resources? capitalism works like a mafia???? support your claim.
413 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Money enslaves society? Yes. "Slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers. While the European plan… Is that capital shall control labor by controlling the wages. This can be done by controlling the money. It will not due to allow the greenback (the debt free currency suggested by president Lincoln) as we cannot control that." - The hazzard circular. July 1862. "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe More like communism enslaves society. How so? Where do you think communist countries get support from? don't they use money to gain resources? They get support from everybody working to benefit the whole instead of everyone competing to survive. Essentially, communism doesn't need money in order to function. It just requires different incentives.
412 days ago | Side: Communism
exactly the totaitariin communist utopiea relies on all its little worthless lemming and peons doing there part to suporrt the great and gloryous leader and it elimilates class by puting all its cittizens safly under the party's boot heel
342 days ago | Side: Capitalism
I would like to know what communist countries are there, after all you did say they exist. Capitalism supports The Bourgeoisie because it allows the surplus value to go to them, not The Proletariat.
412 days ago | Side: Communism
Communism never existed. In fact, it is about impossible to make it come true.
380 days ago | Side: Capitalism
If money does not enslave the society, then why do people have to pay the rents? How many people have committed suicide because they could not pay the rents and debts? The money actually served to exchange not to enslave the people. Do not you think that money makes people become greedy? Why there is gangs wars and mafia wars? It is because they are different groups? No! ... It is because of money! Look at the third world countries and you're think why there hunger. And also you have to think why I say that capitalism looks like a mafia.
412 days ago | Side: Communism
your right then we can just steel shit from gient where houses and fight echother for them like black friyday evry day or have the government give us all our shit so we can all enjoy the plesuire of wating in line for houres for a single slice of bred that sounds like utopia right?
341 days ago | Side: Communism
The way communism was meant to be, where everyone is equal, and not one group that's a bit more equal than another. Capitalism encourages greed and selfishness. However, I think a resource-based economy would be much better than capitalism or communism.
385 days ago | Side: Communism
I think that we should have peaceful revolution like Gandhi did to win his country's independence from UK. And then, we should have a neo-communist government that take wealth from 1% and redistrubed to 99% while keeping the freedom and equality of 99%.
381 days ago | Side: Communism
Communism? It's a good idea, unfortunately when it was first introduced, people like Lenin introduced it wrongly, hence its bad reputation! Also, far too many people have far too much to loose. It would never work, mankind's nature wouldn't allow it.
360 days ago | Side: Communism
None of them works. What we need is a new system. The capitalism is too much individual and always will have someone there winning and all the other losing or even dying. Communism doesn't works too. A new system maybe works, but we have to have people that understand about it, but the poor part of the population is a problem...
345 days ago | Side: Communism
communism is ideal in theory but in practice it is extremely difficult to perform, yet i believe that with slow modifications it can be performed easily
347 days ago | Side: Communism
I support communism because in a communistic system every person is worth the same.
140 days ago | Side: Communism
i say we should we have to pick communism is more a type of goverment and capitalism is an economic setup you could in theory have both
101 days ago | Side: Communism
415 days ago | Side: Communism
415 days ago | Side: Communism
Is this creating false points for your side of the argument?
415 days ago | Side: Capitalism
Nope I was testing a glitch and to make for it I will make it on the other side.
411 days ago | Side: Communism
|