CreateDebate


Debate Info

146
94
CCCP workers & peasants party capitalism
Debate Score:240
Arguments:126
Total Votes:305
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 CCCP workers & peasants party (74)
 
 capitalism (51)

Debate Creator

CHE guevara(16) pic



WHATS BETTER CAPITILISM OR COMMUNISM

just want to see if theres any communist still out there like me and to see which one  gets  the more  followers

CCCP workers & peasants party

Side Score: 146
VS.

capitalism

Side Score: 94
4 points

Whatever anybody says, communism is certainly better then whatever system the United States has now.

I just wish true communism wasn't a fairytale in the face of idiots who actually believe in this country's current system.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
2 points

How would it be better then? Its not much of a debate to say "my way is better and your all a bunch of idiots to think otherwise". So tell me how you imagine your communist country fantasy would play out and where are you in this fantasy? Are you Fidel sitting in your mansion smoking cigars eating full meals everyday drinking all the alcohol you want while your "workers and peasants" toil away in the sun so everyone can have a rice cooker and two hours of air conditioning a day?

Side: Capitalism
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
3 points

It would be better because perfect communism is, frankly, perfect.

Unfortunately, there has never been an example of perfect communism in history. Fidel Castro was a dictator, not a communist; neither has any other proclaimed communist in the history of proclaimed communists. There has never been a true communistic society in history, period.

Not in the way Karl Marx envisioned it. And since he was the first to put it on paper, his opinion is the only one that matters in relation to it.

You are, in fact, a fool. A fool if you believe that there have been real communists before in history. That's why it doesn't matter what you say or even what I say; real communism is perfect on paper, and so if it was possible to implement real communism, it would always be better then whatever system came before it.

Having perfect systems like real capitalism and real communism would be splendid if we didn't have extremists like Stalin (one side of the coin) and you (the opposite side of the coin) distorting the definition of communism and making it into something evil, when it fact, it's not even remotely evil; it's perfect.

And we'll never achieve a perfect system, whether real communism or real capitalism or something else, as long as there are people like you who apparently believe that communism is just a synonym for totalitarianism, or that other various perfect systems are synonyms for totally imperfect systems that they simply are not according to those that wrote them down on paper originally.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
monkeyboy142(76) Disputed
-3 points
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
3 points

Stop listening to that brainwashing horse shit. This country has never been anywhere near true communism; it is apparent that you have no knowledge of what true communism is even like.

If the United States is anything, it's Corporate Fascist.

The fact that our very lives are controlled by big business lends credit to this. We have no power and the government has no power... under big bucks.

True communism is quite far from this. In fact, true communism is damn near the opposite of this. Thank you yet again, monkeyboy142, for showing the depths of your idiocy in relation to politics. You know nothing about them; period.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
garry77777(1794) Disputed
3 points

Im not even sure how to argue with a statement as stupid as this, are you a 10 yr old child repeating things here that you pick up from your bigoted father at the dinner table?

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
2 points

communism is so munch better everybody is equal so theres no problem and its just a bunch of workers and peasants i want to help the poor. Stell from the rich and give 2 the poor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-comrade vladimir lenin C C C P

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
casper3912(1581) Disputed
2 points

Just a bunch of workers and peasants?

I think someone needs to read up on their theory.

Rather its just a bunch of owner-laborers.

Peasants are those who are under a lordship, and workers are similar.

Communist theory concerns itself with the relationship of production to individuals and people at large, but with a preference to granting each control over their own means of production, in most situations this is only possible in a collective fashion(ie a limited one) but with modern technology its becoming more and more possible individually. Wikipedia is actually pretty good on the providing well written accuracy on the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Side: Communism
1 point

will i put workers and peasants because in my country its just a bunch of workers and peasants joining the communist party so ya and am from guatemala

Side: Capitalism
robjohn(19) Disputed
2 points

Nobody is equal under communism and you have no freedom, just ask former Communists.

Side: Capitalism
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

No one has a voice in democracy, republics, or "people's" goverment, just ask the citizens of the North Korea Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the People's republic of china, the Lao People's Democratic Republic...

"what is in a name, is a rose by any other name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet."

Robjohn, apparently democracy has nothing to do with voting or does the above quote hold? I suppose if we call poop a rose and a rose poop they would take on each other's smell... The same as north Korea is a republic eh?

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
1 point

How the hell am I going to ask former communists if a communist society hasn't even existed? That no freedom thing is a complete LIE! North Korea is not communist!

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
1 point

In a communist system you have no choices. You work for someone els, you become what someone els wants you to be you cant choose what if any god you want to believe in unless its in secret. You live your life for "The common good" but it doesn't make anyone happy it makes all men slaves with no voice. Capitalism is the greatest idea thought up my man and only in this system can your true human potential and good be achieved.

Side: Capitalism
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

Anarchy and communism are two sides too the same coin, other then some administrative functionality the state withers away and every one has control over their own productive capability. They main difference between a communist and anarchist are how to get to this communist or anarchistic state, one wants a intermediate socialist state(possibly top down, possibly not) while the other wants a bottom up, smaller scale immediate result.

If you actually read the various theories instead of buy into the unfounded propaganda made during the cold war you'll have a better understanding.

Also, capitalism without limits leads to vast income inequality, to the point where most of the population has just enough to survive, perhaps to also supply a family. Consider the times and places where capitalism has faced little regulation.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
1 point

You work for someone else? Ever heard of this thing called collective rule? Do you know that is why we become communists? To end classes and to overthrow the Bourgeoisie ?

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
Marina(10) Disputed
1 point

As you know, V.I.Lenin is "a grandfather of Russian Revolution and communism". But do you know this historically proved fact that Lenin when he was dieing, said that capitalism is a the best system world ever knew. You can argue, you can say that he was too old and ill to think and talk clearly. But ,another fact is New Economical Politics that took place in 1921 to improve country's tough economical situation. So, what was Lenin's action to make stability in USSR, to get out from crisis? He began to use commercial or capitalistic methods in economics! This politics existed for seven years and had a great consequences in people's life. So, although Lenin's ideology was communism, he used capitalistic manners in his practise. And, by the way "Stell from the rich and give 2 the poor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is a crime, isn't it?

Side: Capitalism
1 point

Yep, take everyone's money, give it to the government and let them decide how to redistribute it. That's what Obama wants. If you like that idea, and mostly if your African American....keep voting

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
monkeyboy142(76) Disputed
-3 points
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
7 points

Well stealing's wrong and the poor are poor because the don't work.

Right, because poor people just sit around all day, content to suffer until they day they die since it's so much easier then not starving to death as a result of looking for at least a simple job...

The fact that you think the poor are poor because they don't work makes you a pseudo-Nazi.

There is not a single poor and/or homeless person in existence that is lazy. Do you think it's possible for somebody to be so lazy that they just let themselves become poor? How much of a fucking idiot are you? Nobody weighs the choices of work and starvation chooses to starve! This does not require critical thinking!

The government has acknowledged this fact for nearly an entire century now, because their culmination of intelligence over an entire century has apparently be at least 100% smarter then your obvious banana-brain.

The poor do not steal from anyone; they reclaim through the government what was taken from them.

The only flaw in this is that when the government uses tax dollars from the Middle Class to pay the poor... they cannot pay back the Middle Class. This is because: 1. There is an entire political party bent on helping the rich, the only people in this country who don't need help, by letting them pay almost 0% of the country's taxes, taxes that the government could give back to the Middle Class in return for paying the poor and 2. The rich are rich... they have the most power in the country, so it doesn't matter how many entitlements you give to the poor if the rich continue to stop deciding to hire the poor just because they don't want to possibly loose some of that money they will never use... Therefore, the poor, despite help from the Middle Class, will never have a chance to join the Middle Class because the rich won't hire them out of greed and selfishness!

As you can see by that previous flow, you are full of shit. Go move to South America with all the other German war criminals, you pseudo-Nazi.

The only money being stolen from anybody is the money that the Upper Class stole from the Middle Class which created the Lower Class.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
garry77777(1794) Disputed
2 points

" poor are poor because the don't work"

Is this some kind a bad joke or are you actually serious?

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
borogoveLM Disputed
1 point

1.Stealing is not necessarily wrong.

2. in capitalism, not all are free to work

3. Workers are not punished, you have demonstrated lack of knowledge of communism.

4. How does Capitalism allow freedom in any way that communism does not?

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
2 points

Equal chance. People compete on merit and not their crude way of figuring out how to make more money. It's more human.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
2 points

You can't have either in their pure form. Communism (socialism in its purest form) does not work for the obvious reasons and ends in poverty. A laissez-faire economy is just as dangerous as communism though. Human beings are a greedy species and therefore must be governed through a series of checks and balances, like the U.S. government. In terms of the economy, these are regulations. Without regulations, corporations are free to do whatever they see fit in order to maximize profits such as: outsourcing or firing mass employees and putting the responsibilities left on those that they allow so graciously to remain (as we have seen recently with the loosening of regulations). Therefore, the only good economy is a delicate balance between socialism and capitalism, not unlike what existed in the 1950's.

Side: Neither

Update: Look at my other reply. I forgot I already replied here so look at my newest one.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
2 points

There is a reason Communism has been tried many times, and each of these countries became "third world countries." If you look back in history, many countries, such as Russia as one example, have become absolute shit due to communism. No matter how hard we try, communism can't be achieved; making it impossible to be better than capitalism. I mean, if there was one million dollars on a table, you were a police officer(equivalent to being a Government officer in those countries,) and you had the choice between sharing the money or not, you wouldn't would you? Well that's what eventually happens in those countries. History has shown time and time again that communism doesn't work, and no matter how many times we try, it really won't become better than capitalism- "survival of the fittest, the way nature was intended"

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party

Communism is better but not the type you are talking about. Your talking about the dictator type, and though I love the Soviet flag, I'm not really for the Stalinist type Communism. I lean more towered the core of true Communism. If your for true Communism like I am. That puts you like one step up from being a complete anarchist. I still think we need laws, and some form of control, so that's what separates me from being an anarchist.

Update: Forgot I already replied to this topic. There is no delete option.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
1 point

I have always been a bit argumentative regarding this cuz I admire the communistic ideals and I appreciate their thought process. I do not condemn Capitalism either cuz a lot of country's success relies on it. But, a communistic attitude for various things is essential today. Especially in mine.

Capitalism as of a matter must be used appropriately which lacks in certain areas. Mixed economy as it is said is the Best of all is one of the ways to tackle capitalism.

Hence, I believe that a communist attitude is required.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
1 point

I wasn't sure which side to post this, but in the end you have to wonder if this argument even works? Communism is a form of government, wither it's good or bad is in the eyes of the person doing the talking. Capitalism is a form of market system, which is really just about the root of all problems going on right now, since the way capitalism is being allowed to run nothing good is coming from it. Innovation, Freedom, peoples right to live are all being destroyed because a few think the have a "Right" to billions of dollars.

Side: Capitalism
borogoveLM Disputed
1 point

No, communism is an economic system, however it is often associated with totalitarianism and dictatorship.

Side: Communism
1 point

a mix of both capitalism and communism is better. this would keep the country without much a class and in one single one

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party

i believe in social power and equality. Capitalism is good for the rich, but what about the millions of poor people in places like America, Russia and Mexico.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
0 points

Capitalism is based on distributing pleasure (wealth) by ability in business. Ability in business is not a valid way to determine those best suited to experience pleasure. By equalizing the pleasure (wealth) of all people, we value all conscious sensations rather than just those experienced by those who are lucky.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party

FUCK ALL YOU COMMUNISTS. GO MOVE TO CHINA. Oh, WAIT, probably impossible to move there considering it strict immigration policy.

Side: Capitalism
garry77777(1794) Disputed
5 points

China isn't comunist, in fact it never really was in the stricitest sense of the word, but it definitely isn't now with its large private sector, market based economy, and its open border policy with regard to FDI and trade. China has been slowly implementing reforms for decades that have made their system more capitalsit than communist, albeit an authoritarian capitalist system. China today is at best a semi-capitalist/semi-communist society, and thats being generous to what little communist ideals have survived in the countries political system.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
robjohn(19) Disputed
3 points

China doesn't have a private sector. Everything is either owned or controlled by the National Government. If anything they are Fascists and Communists, just siblings from the same collectivist family of tyranny.

Side: Capitalism
2 points

China isn't comunist, in fact it never really was in the stricitest sense of the word, but it definitely isn't now with its large private sector, market based economy, and its open border policy with regard to FDI and trade.

Really, China isn't communist. Then, why is the ruling party the Communist Party? Is it because it makes them feel good? Maybe, they are just stupid and confused.

The Communist Party, though allowing some economic movements in response to market forces, still maintains ultimate authority over virtually all economic decision-making. The state-controlled financial sector often allocates credit based on political criteria, undermining economic efficiency and productivity. Beyond sporadic attempts to facilitate nominal openness to foreign investment or to imply currency market liberalization, recent years have seen the virtual cessation of economic reform and an absence of political will to undertake more fundamental restructuring. Heritage

Side: Capitalism
casper3912(1581) Disputed
4 points

Why would communists want to move to a minimally progressive non-communist society?

I need to read more of Lenin, but what I have read of him tends to be countered by Marx in some fashion.

Its why I have started to considered Marxist-Leninism as an oxymoron, at least when applied in certain manners and a good number of American communist have done likewise, often rejecting things like vanguardism and the like, or in other words they may be described as classical Marxists, and if they are marxist-lenists, they tend to be trotskyists.

Marx is one of the most misrepresented people of history, he even wrote to his son-in-law who was advocating some ideology that was claimed to be based on Marxist principles that "if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist." I think he could say the same to numerous other so called "marxists", such as stalin, mao zedong, etc.

Side: Communism
monkeyboy142(76) Disputed
0 points

Well move to cuba .

Side: Capitalism
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
4 points

Considering China isn't communist, why would we believers of communism move there? That's like telling every hyper-liberal in this country to move to Texas; it makes little to no sense.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party

because it is socialist and the closest county to communism.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
1 point

Preach it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: capitalism

Whether you believe it or not a capitalistic society is run by consumers "the people". If the people want local organic food and that is what they buy then the corporations and businesses provide it for the people. If the people don't want gas then they stop buying it and companies provide something els or they all go out of business. America is what we have made it and we can make it anything we want thanks to capitalism. I you want to go live in a commune and grow your own food and run around naked=) then you can if you want to make tons of money and live in a mansion you can. Capitalism is awesome.

Side: Capitalism
casper3912(1581) Disputed
2 points

Actually, whether or not local organic food is available depends on a large number of factors, demand is just one of them. Consider climate, technology, economies of scale, political institutions, etc.

Wealth is also not a function of one variable(effort or desire), but actually has a lot to do with your ancestors. After all, if it was just a function of desire, wouldn't we all be rich?

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
2 points

You are nit picking those are examples of my argument. Everywhere in America you can grow something you have water you have soil you have seeds then you can grow something local and organic.

I know wealth is not a function of one variable but basically if you don't want money you wont get it and if you do then you'll do whatever you can to get it and if you want it but don't want to do anything to get it then you blame your ancestors and hope that someday your country turns communist so other people have to work to get YOU something.

Side: Capitalism

well its been fun guys but I've got to go to work now. Ill be back though this is a lot of fun even though I'm varsity out numbered in this Communist favored debate. I wont take it personally that you all think I'm an idiot. I know I'm right and thats what matters to me, oh and of the majority opinion in America =) Have a good day.

Side: capitalism
casper3912(1581) Disputed
3 points

The truth of a matter is not a popularity contest, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Although, it is understandable how having the agreement of most peers and elders may raise your esteem.

Its createdebate, it is usually fun :) come back!

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party

What people don't realize is that the private sector is very able. Bo

Allow me to present you with this situation (my father is the head of neuro at Mercy Hospital in Chicago):

He often see's women, in their early 20's, with 4 tattoos, 2 packs of cigarettes, an iPhone 4, and they have 5 kids.

WHAT?! There is NO damn reason for these people to have all of that! Oh yeah, and they "hurt" their ankle on the job, so they're collecting disability. And they're on welfare.

I totally believe in helping 65 year old war veterans, but NOT 20 year olds who think that they're too good for McDonald's.

Side: Capitalism
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
4 points

Culture doesn't always lend itself a helping hand to those in need of one.

If somebody is smoking cigarettes, especially more then two packs a day, it's because they're unimaginably stressed and need some sort of legal fix that's not as expensive as anti-depressants.

If somebody has 5 children, then it's because they are constantly in emotional need of a devoted lover for them to function in the world, often leading them to be desperate in this area. Since they can't afford contraception, this often also leads them to having children.

Now... do you truly think that a person chooses this situation because they want to? Do you truly think they choose to suffer because they're 'too good for McDonald's'? I'm sure there are one or two people in the Lower Class whom think they have it good and don't need to work...

But you cannot tell me that most people, no matter their age, are poor because they choose to be poor. That makes no sense and is a breach in empathy; it's an avoidance excuse so you don't have to think about why they got in such a horrible situation in the first place!

But I can tell you the truth as to why they are in that situation. It's because this country and it's systems are not tailored for the average manual laborer. And if you're apart of an ethnic minority, you're in twice as much trouble. To think that your white skin does not protect you in comparison to a different color of skin, then that is obnoxiously naive.

I'll explain to you now then why the rich are responsible for this and all of this: Since the beginning of the first robber barons, companies have always had the most power in this country. If they horde money to indulge their greed, and never use this money, the value of the American dollar goes down. If they spend almost all of this money expanding their business, the value of the American dollar goes up, and then goes down again once the rich being receiving twice as much money.

The truth is that the rich do not work; they are the only ones who don't have to. Even if they aren't extremely wealthy, they don't have to work. It only requires about 5 million dollars to live a convenient life the rest of your days without ever working, and yet all people in the Upper Class are, frankly, millionares.

Once the robber barons came into existence and proved that this country cares more about supposed 'freedom' in relation to the government then it does about letting everything be run by greed and only greed.

So now you ask, how did this poor person with 5 children end up in this situation? Well, they didn't choose to, but the reason why is simple...

They were born into that situation.

People have been born into the Lower Class since the birth of the Upper Class. And since the Upper Class controls the market and, therefore, the entire country... they don't need to hire poor people to labor for them. Why should they? Why should they hire a poor person who might be a liability to this and that aspect of this single establishment? Blah... blah... blah...

When you take more then you will ever use from the market, from the country, you will always take from what somebody, somewhere, needs. People do not choose to be poor, they are forced to be poor. Entitlements at least give them a chance to not die, and living with excessive pleasure gives them a chance to not die sad.

What would you do if you were born poor? If you were born poor, and every job you ever had, you lost because you made a single mistake? I've seen how mainstream companies treat their workers; if you make a single mistake in a place like Wal-Mart or Apple Bees that causes somebody to complain specifically about you, just once... your ass it gone. And if you're that black/Latino/Asian/young person, then well... it's pretty easy for you to be singled out among all of the white, adult, people/males that work around you!

Our system is not fair and unjust. Getting rid of all or any entitlements is not right and not the solution. If anything the solution is the one that nobody really cares to put out into the open -

Getting rid of the Upper Class.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party

You've definitely enlightened me somewhat, but please, there is NO excuse to have 5 children and smoke cigarettes while you're below the poverty line. There is simply NO reason. You need to wake up and smell the drugs that these people are cooking in the projects and realize that SOME people are just LAZY. It's as simply as that.

Even if your mother is a crack smoking prostitute who is constantly bringing home guys and is rude and ignorant, that is NO excuse for you to grow up to be that. If you've stepped one foot outside of your house you have to have SOME idea of what is right and what is wrong.

Enough with the blame game.

Side: Capitalism
3 points

Considering, the experience of my country (former-Soviet Autonomous Kazakh Socialistic Republic), when there were not any basic freedoms that we have right now ( freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of religion) life is way better than back in the time. The "legacy" of communism still has its impact on the abandoned villages and manufactures. The soil has been destroyed, because central government wanted to squeeze as much as possible from farmers and wheat-growers. I am not blaming USSR in the all current problems in modern Kazakhstan, moreover there were a lot of heavy industry developed during 70-s.

However Semey nuclear tests, is now ecologically unstable region. The rattle is dying number of Semey region citizens have radioactive diseases. Furthermore the land is not useful anymore for more than 200 years.

Even though there were some beneficial things USSR did to Kazakhstan, still there are a lot destructive problems that came with the breakdown from Soviet Union. If I were to go back I would not be joining Communist, but it is what it is, and I am glad we live in capitalistic modern society where you will not be oppressed and have basic freedoms.

Side: Capitalism
3 points

Maybe the real question should be is "Free Market Capitalism" (Reaganomic Capitalism) better than a "Democratic Capitalism"(my parents generation was the last of the great generations (I grew up in the 1960's).Good paying jobs were abundent,the American worker was the backbone of the country,and "Made in America" kept the whole country employed."Free Market Capitalism" is just as bad as COMMUNISM.Fewer Americans have the realistic opportunity to reach the "American Dream" than at anytime in history.

Side: Capitalism
2 points

Hey I couldn't find "What Real Communism Is" by this Carl Marks guy. I'm assuming that along with the asshats in D.C. right now, some of the idea is to control the markets. Pick winners and losers, subsidizing or paying for goods from the companies, state-funded, that get passed around to all the people. Which completely destroys any semblance of competition and improvement. Competition in the free market spurs innovation. The corporatist plots to save struggling companies that needed to go under in a healthy business cycle of what should be a free market, was opposed by virtually everyone. Yet there are still people blaming it on capitalists? Hey talk to the heads of those companies and they'll probably tell you it was a great idea, but they're the corporatists who came up with it. People, especially self-proclaimed "communists" always talk about the evils of capitalism. Let's talk about the evils of Unions for a second. Do you know in some states there's a costly review for service businesses that are just starting up, if there is a unionized group that offers the same service, entrepreneurs (the people that cause economy growth and standard of living improvements) aren't allowed to start the business. Did you know that shortly after the new deal, since Black people weren't allowed to join construction unions in some states, they would just offer their services for slightly less, providing competition in the market (the thing that causes economic growth and standard of living improvements) so the unions, who couldn't stand those niggers taking their jobs (see a parallel?) lobbied local governments into making it ILLEGAL to offer a service for less money than unions. Effectively putting all of these workers who were providing a valuable service at a better price out of work. Unions are pretty god damn bad organizations. In some states less than 1% of teachers are fired annually for performance-related issues. Are teachers really that good? Every university in the whole damn country must be pretty good at making teachers right? Or it's just impossible to fire a teacher even if they aren't teaching kids well enough. Anyone see how that might cause some problems for the kids they are educating? If one thing is clear about capitalism and communism, it's that capitalism can take anything and make it faster, cheaper, stronger, smarter, and with a nicer paint job, in half the time it would take a public sector. The period of incredible growth this country experienced when so many new technologies and sciences were born, literacy spread like pubic lice and the standard of living increase took our life expectancy to about where it is now, happened in almost completely unregulated, unmeddled, free markets, where businesses were free to live and die in the name of progress and had no influence over the government, or vice versa. And the companies that fucked up, got sued, in the wonderful court system we have that, at the time, wasn't crowded by people smoking a plant like people have done for four thousand years! YAAAAAAAAAY CAPITALISM!

Side: Capitalism
casper3912(1581) Disputed
3 points

There seems to be several points you make:

A]your ignorance

If you do not know your opponents position, then you do not fully know your own.

It is also good practice to make sure you know what your talking about before you talk about it.

1. The Necessity of competition for improvement.

"Necessity is the mother of invention". People still have needs, competition or not. While competition can certainly add to the difficulty, there are ways of large scale co-operation which doesn't involve a planned economy that can better allocate resources. Where those ways are not applicable, government regulation can actually improve industry performance(look at the car industry). Also, the recession is due to de-regulation, the repeal of parts of the Glass-Steagall Act. Also, NASA and nation wide highways were only possible at the time of their creation due to government support.

Simply put, examples abound of ways less competitive models or even government involved models can be even more efficient then unregulated capitalism.

Consider open-source software development. Its nature is drastically different due to technological considerations then producing other products, but it works. It also creates a culture, and a political mindset. In the open-source community you can find a nice microcosm of what I would like to see in the future. The "base" or economic productive capability is what creates the "super structure", or politics, culture, etc. You seem to be approaching communism as if it is a superficial attempt at a quick fix, it is much more.

2. Unions

Unions are only useful up to a certain point, then they become reactionary. We have surpassed that point in most industries in America, but a few industries and the economies of other companies may find them useful. Further more, they derive from the basic right to freely associate and are a result of worker interests. There are reasons union membership drastically went down just a few decades ago in the states. Eventually, the union becomes an entity unto itself, almost independent from the workers and it is then that it tends to become a problem.

As for firing teachers, its actually beneficial to the good teachers for the bad ones to be fired, so long as the bad ones are a minority that is. This means firing them should be good for the union as well, except teacher pay isn't strongly related to their performance and so the less stable members the less the union becomes payed. Eventually, good teachers pay to keep bad teachers so that bad teachers can continue to help pay for all the teachers voices. If schools could find a way to make teachers pay based more on merit then unions would be more willing to fire bad teachers so that they can be replaced by good ones. (cause it means more money, of course there would be a time delay between changes in the pay method and union policies) Of course though, implementing such a program would be tricky and difficult but doable.

3. Historical analysis of capitalism effects on production.

Yes, capitalism is effective at production. Its even better when its properly regulated. Consider stocks, without a government agency and laws for reporting accurate information businesses may find gaining trust from investors more difficult, resulting in less demand for stocks and less funding from IPOs and stock sells. Consider regulations on emissions, which may increase costs but it does so industry wide, so that every company must improve their technology(it provides the initiative the market may lack). I could continue with examples. Also, yes regulation can also harm improvements in technology, like the current patent system. However, not all regulation is bad regulation.

Finally, I haven't really argued for communism, but rather against an idealistic black and white interpretation of several economic issues. I hope I've added a little grey, maybe even a color or two?

Side: Communism
RudeRebel(45) Disputed
1 point

The Karl Marx thing was a joke of course. I'm familiar with his manifesto and I know how to spell his name, I can clearly read after all. I've never subscribed necessity as the mother of invention. I think it's Frank Zappa. Another joke. Seriously though, desperation is what drives true change, especially in a worldwide economy where the fates of so many might hang in the balance of the fate of one corporation. Hypothetically, if we ran out of crude oil tomorrow, I guarantee that hundreds of companies would spring up in addition to those that are already there, to deliver alternatively fueled automobiles and the infrastructure needed to convert the world's economy to running on hydrogen or what have you. This is the beauty of capitalism. No system is perfect, and no system is going to give absolutely everyone a fighting chance for success. However capitalism comes a lot closer than any communist society would. It is proven to increase the standard of living everywhere it lands. Look at India, where a vastly impoverished population now has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. While there are still a lot of problems, and bureaucratic inefficiency, they are definitely coming out of the same kind of rut the U.S. was in, in the early 20th century/depression era. The common misconception I see is that unregulated capitalism caused the depression, poor working conditions, and the vast disparity between the upper class and lower class. This simply is not true. First of all, immigration drastically increased the population of the country, and most of the immigrants already had nothing or less when they got here. So yes, they worked in sweatshops, and were injured in factories, but most of all they saved, and saved and saved, and opened up storefronts and businesses across the country. Secondly, in this economically charged era, we were coming off the heels of the industrial revolution, if not still in the midst of it. This revolution which modernized so many aspects of our society, I'm sure I don't have to tell you, was spurred by capitalism: "How can we make more product, faster." This was a dangerous time to be an unskilled laborer, and it was hard, but through the hard work of the quarter a day workers and child laborers, the factory became a much safer place due to the fact that it simply is not profitable to have a dangerous work environment.

Your comment about open-source would be correct, maybe it will be in a few decades. The big problem I see with your idyllic analogy (I love free stuff too) is that you can't assemble a car on the internet. You can't mine coal, stitch a dress, or make a cheeseburger with a few lines of code that represent your contribution to the global collective. Real products need real ingredients, and tangible workers, skilled or unskilled. People seldom work as hard or as well when there's nothing in it for them unless they gain from the product as well, such as the case in open-source development. It's hard to prove an unskilled worker's gain from dealing with ignorant, selfish, and gluttonous customers in a drive-thru line when they aren't being paid. This is where the part about no system is perfect comes in. Yes, I would love to live in Star Trek too, where the human race has become enlightened and moved on from our petty squabbles and simple motives of having more than our neighbors. But we don't and people who believe communism is the answer simply do not have a grip on the way the world works, and the way progress is achieved. If Henry Ford's company had been bought up and made to comprise the entire automotive market, we would all be driving Model T's or something very much like it. I would say that, while cars have had a lot of additions due to government intervention, the cars themselves, the critical components, speed, performance, have never benefited. I can tell you if the government never intervened in the automobile industry there might be more automobile deaths annually, there may be more emissions, but the average persons car would probably cost about $500 as opposed to $15,000.

As for unions, I can tell you no industry needs unions and they never did to be honest. My dad is in the service industry, he owns his own corporation which has only ever had three employees, himself, my mom, and me. Because he refuses to pay someone to be able to do his job, many potential employers that have need of his valuable, but relatively cheap service can't and won't hire him, because they are contractually obligated to hire only union workers. Where does the worker benefit from that? My dad sure doesn't, pay money to work, or bust his ass to get the same amount of work? I know which choice most people would pick, the one that doesn't flatten their wallet. That's just a personal experience to shed light on my own feelings on unions. While I may be biased I think I'm pretty fair in saying that Unions only hinder progress by not letting workers have a right to their choice of hours, workplace, pay (If I'm on my own and only need to provide for myself I should be able to take a job for a lower salary than they offer if it will improve my chances of employment), etc. As for teachers, honestly if the current tax code were scrapped, replaced with fair tax and the government were much smaller (Gary Johnson 2012) I would say we should do away with teacher unions and the department of education. Privatize it! Suddenly an entire new industry pops up, and it becomes the goal of businesses across the country to give the best PRODUCT (Child's education) for the lowest PRICE. I think this would put less of a strain on people's wallets than is assumed, and would probably be an all around improvement to the way things work now. Parents suddenly become a lot more invested in their child's education when it's actually an investment. This creates a home environment where children everywhere, are pushed to their learning limits (of which there are none, for young kids).

As for your analysis on Capitalism's historical effectiveness I would just ask you to keep this in mind in the debate against/for communism. The Federal Government, as much as it would like to be, can't be everywhere at once. They can not possibly regulate all the bad actors out there, and most of the bad actors have bought the government anyways! Communism can only work in terms of the community. PEOPLE everywhere have to make the voluntary choice to support everyone in the community, regardless of their status. I don't know many people who would do that, some and believe me they're great people, but not many would right now. Maybe in the future. The bottom line is the government can't just write the rules like that and make everyone level, or as close as it can and say "Good enough." A. Because that's fascism. B. because governments are inherently inefficient and are incapable of that kind of global monitoring, and C. because for all his speeches and debates, whoever spear-heads this movement is still going to be placed in absolute power over everyone's assets and is going to take advantage of that. As we know, and have seen, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Communism doesn't work simply because human nature won't allow it to. Until it does, Capitalism is the best chance we have of getting further.

As for your statement about deregulation causing the current recession, this again, is simply not true. This is the classic mistake of seeing two events in sequential order and drawing a connection simply because one happened before the other. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the main government institution for regulating the markets, the SEC, has been too busy with investment banks' asshole to do any actual regulating. Further this entire recession was caused by bad regulations, and the SEC's guarantee that when investments went south, the government would bail them out, in some sick attempt to avoid another depression. The banks had no real reason to avoid failure or measure risk sanely, because the only thing they had to lose was taxpayer money, and they don't give a fuck about that. I'll direct you here: http://reason.com/archives/2009/06/19/the-myth-of-financial-deregula for more information on this and similar misconceptions. I'll agree with you that some regulatory measures are good, but far less than actually exist. Capitalism is a lot more effective, and a lot better at creating peace and prosperity when the markets are left to regulate themselves. For the most part, schemers and sharks get sued or other court action that removes any credibility, and since capitalism is consumer-driven, the rest of it is up to us. Consumers need to start taking responsibility for what they buy and thinking for themselves, this will be reflected in the market. But hey, those are just the facts.

Side: Capitalism
2 points

Stalin was evil, he killed more people than the nazis did, all because of his communist ideas. capitalism is free and good, communism is foolish, especially the idea of every getting the same pay.

Side: Capitalism
1 point

stalin for your info was no real communist, stalin did not kill more than Hitler, you don't really know what communism is you don't know the evils of capitalism. Stalin was loved by the people. USSR was not comunist

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
2 points

From USSR history all of us knows that communism is not a useful and productive system because USSR had collapsed. If we talk about China and their "communism", so, it is not a real communism which Marks and Engels preached. It is a mix of totalitarian regime and commercial relationships. Commercial or market-oriented relationships as you may know are traits of CAPITALISM. So, we can see that China becomes the most developed country not because of their political system, but because of well-oriented changes in economics- market, there market exists. hat about a real communism- there are no place for market, for private property. Thats why capitalism is better than communism.

Side: Capitalism
2 points

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.

Side: capitalism

How is it determined who does what for a living in a communist system? Does a pizza delivery person earn the same compensation as a brain surgeon? Will there still be pizza delivery people? I can't buy into the idea until I know.

Side: Capitalism
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
2 points

Then go look up what real communism is, by Karl Marx, according to a multitude of different dictionaries. If you can't buy into the idea until you know, then go find out before taking a side!

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
2 points

hen go look up what real communism is, by Karl Marx, according to a multitude of different dictionaries. If you can't buy into the idea until you know, then go find out before taking a side!

I had to be on one side or another didn't I? At any rate, could you just indulge me? Will there be pizza delivery people and will they be compensated at the same rate as brain surgeons? I looked up both questions and couldn't find an answer to either.

Side: Capitalism
1 point

well, how come you are a communist and have a computer and an interner connection?i thought this wasnt allowed in red countries. in Cuba people are not allowed to have a house let alone interner or tv, in china all sites are banned including google and in Venezuela hunger and poverty is so big it could end up a yo mamma joke. Dont get me wrong capitalism by it self is really bad as well but communism is the worse for many reasons. i ll tell you a short story, when Russia was communist it allowed inports from other countries mainly for food and equipment. the truck drivers that came into Russia would go around in the houses and by offering two or three tins with food they would "sleep" with the moms and daughters. forget communism my friend it sounds good but practically it is the worse dictatorship

Side: Capitalism
pacis(4) Disputed
2 points

do you wish to know why "red countries" don't allow the Internet and other luxuries? that because they are not communist! they have dictators in a truly communistic society there is no leader the people lead with no figurehead. People like you who claim that there are many communistic countries need to brush up on your history, as well as what communism is.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
chain1978(1) Disputed
0 points

To begin with try to pay more attention when reading.I never said that there are many red countries. Russia(old), Cuba, Venezuela, China arent they supposed to be led by communists?????dont almost all communists support che and wear his t-shirt????why do you dispute that?Is it because communism is actually a dictatorhip? oh yes! dont give me that crap about no figurehead.....you want a movement, you want to support a notion an idea?then you need inspiration and figureheads......if you want to talk about science fiction then fine, i can tell you that i believe that we are ruled by aliens hidden underneath the matrix........ but here we discuss two ideas two methods of ruling if yoy want. communism has failed big time over the years and has been betrayed by its best supporters. Take a look around the communist parties, they all have the same appearance, one guy who leads and is probably frikin rich and the rest of the dummies follow blindelly what he says going against anything and everything for no reason at all.

as i said before capitalism is bad but please do not insult everyones intelligence by trying to state that communism is different from what we see in the real world.

Side: Capitalism
1 point

what do you think about North Korea? if you see their life, then you can not say that.. lack of house, lack of money,lack of food,serve in the army until they die,.... your life is not yours... you live your life for country without freedom....do you want this kind of life?????? you better not

Side: Capitalism

so many supporters of communism view seem to have the argument that the "rich" or "wealthy" people are evil or bad and the "poor" people are good. I think these people should clarify what is "rich and what is "poor".

The truth is everyones got more then someone else. In your fantasy world be it Communism or whatever who is going to decide who has "to much money"?

Side: Capitalism
casper3912(1581) Disputed
2 points

Why assume that there would even be money?

Its not so much that the rich are evil, or that the poor are good.

If you took a poor man and made him a millionaire he would either become wealthy or blow it all, he didn't suddenly become evil by acquiring a large amount of cash at once.

Rather, the systems which both the rich and the poor are placed in creates class interests such that Lead in gasoline and toys is possible, that an "natural" rate of unemployment is continually in effect, and so on and so forth. The poor are the majority, and yet they have the smallest voice in how things are done in their community, things which affect all of them. Consider how much of an affect a worker has in determining if the dumping of toxic chemicals occurs, or if he gets paid below a fair price for his skills. With out the government or unions, large companies can basically do what they want in a market with limited information and limited competition(which tends to be the case). Yes people can "vote" with their dollar, but that is only under specific conditions which are rarely meet. Those who can vote the most with their dollars and in most situations, are large companies; like the ones who pay for a politician's expensive TV campaign adds, radio shows, etc. Capitalism allows for these inequities, where a very small number of entities(many of which are not a natural being) has more control over the entire economy then most of the natural members with in it. This is inherently undemocratic, and the differences in interest and power between such classes will only serve one of those classes if we leave it up to the market. Further more, a look at history will show that in general, conflict between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is what results in dramatic social and economic change due to the inherent discrepancies in their self-interests. So long as we have "have-nots" we will experience various social tensions, conflicts and so forth irregardless of the economic system put in place. However, these social tensions are not the sole source of invention or innovation, others exist. A harmonious and progressive society is only possible with a high enough real standard of living for each individual, which means things such as the natural rate of unemployment needs done away with or that unemployment needs to not matter, it means the concentration of ownership in the hands of a few needs to end, etc. In other words, the basic effects of capitalism needs to be surpassed.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
1 point

Democracy is the best with a fair and equitable capitalism. Communism is said to be about quality, but when practiced it becomes more feudal than anything else. Communism and Fascism are basically the same thing in the end.

Side: democracy
1 point

What you don't know is that modern democracy is an illusion designed by politicians to make you think you have a say in what happens. If you read the communist manifesto you would know that communism depends on democracy to live. Communism calls for rule by many, fascism calls for rule by one.

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
1 point

Communism is violation of human rights. I could never agree to that. People from communist countries are always trying to come to America, which is allegedly capitalist.

Side: capitalism
1 point

Whilst I respect the fact that communism aims to be centered on a fair community, they miss the fact that communism is not fair. If you work a few hours a week but are paid the same as someone who works almost all of their life, then how is that fair at all?

Capitalism pays people what they deserve.

Side: capitalism
sarowiwa(9) Disputed
1 point

it doesnt though does it. African women arent rich. The richest dont work

Side: CCCP workers & peasants party
Micmacmoc(2259) Disputed
1 point

Some of the richest do work. The Royal Family serve in the military and the CEOs of companies are busy at work being the CEOs of companies - working! Homeless people are the ones that do not work.

Africa is a third-world country and that is completely different.

Side: capitalism

I used to think that communism would be a good system, but i think it is too restrictive and often ends up badly in a large community. As I stated in a recent debate, it is unfair for a doctor who has studied for over 5 years, worked incredibly hard, and

I also think that right wing economics, i.e. free-market-ism, is the worst way to run a society. You'll end up with one or two huge monopolies controlling everything people do. I think, ironically, that hardcore communism ends up the same as hardcore right-winging, just as I think hardcore libertarianism will eventually become the same as hardcore authoritarianism. One party, or corporation, that controls everything.

That is why I am a slightly libertarian socialist.

Side: capitalism