Communism vs Capitalism Sticky


#1

Communism: A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Which is the better ideology? Why?


#2

Communism is run in the interests of the majority, capitalism the minority, hence I voted communism


#3

I believe both are horrible, and should be done away with.


#4

[QUOTE=“Vulpes, post: 109392, member: 3029”]I believe both are horrible, and should be done away with.[/QUOTE]

What would you have them replaced with?


#5

Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class. Profit ends up over people, it serves only the interests of corporate fat cats.


#6

[QUOTE=“Alias, post: 109408, member: 2875”]What would you have them replaced with?[/QUOTE]
judging by the image of the fasces in the user’s signature, I would assume they would be talking about fascism.


#7

[QUOTE=“Marzanne, post: 109415, member: 2544”]judging by the image of the fasces in the user’s signature, I would assume they would be talking about fascism.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, I should look more into ideological symbols…
But thanks, :smiley:


#8

If I were poor, I would be a socialist.
Since I am not, I am a capitalist.

I fucking hate bankers but communism is a really dumb idea when practically attempted.


#9

Capitalism actually works, communism doesn’t.


#10

[QUOTE=“RickyMcMoney, post: 109432, member: 2996”]If I were poor, I would be a socialist.
Since I am not, I am a capitalist.

I fucking hate bankers but communism is a really dumb idea when practically attempted.[/QUOTE]
Why would you (knowingly) let class determine your outlook on such a thing?


#11

Tree ahouldnt be class warfare but I still think the rich need to ne taxed more


#12

[QUOTE=“Allegrif, post: 109387, member: 1”]Communism: A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Which is the better ideology? Why?[/QUOTE]
Communism says all humans are equal and should be treated so. Each and every human is unique, therefore their ideology is wide of the mark. Capitalism allows humans to achieve what they want to achieve through hard work, whereas in a Communist society a hard worker can have an equal standard of living to one who does not try to fulfill oneself.


#13

[QUOTE=“FarageForPM, post: 109651, member: 3149”]Communism says all humans are equal and should be treated so. Each and every human is unique, therefore their ideology is wide of the mark. Capitalism allows humans to achieve what they want to achieve through hard work, whereas in a Communist society a hard worker can have an equal standard of living to one who does not try to fulfill oneself.[/QUOTE]
No, this is you engaging in a lazy strawman.

Socialists have repeatedly advocated that remuneration should be based on labour. In the case of abundance this would instead be [SIZE=4]“to each according to his need”[/SIZE], and even that does not prevent extra incentive. This is one the reasons we oppose capitalism, because it’s predicated upon the derivation of wealth from ownership of property (instead of labour).


#14

If communism were the better ideology it wouldn’t have needed a 12ft wall to keep people in. Free market economics have delivered prosperity on a mass scale.


#15

Capitalism isn’t predicated on anything. Simply, capitalism is free market economics. If you invest capital in a product, and take that product to market, you are entitled to any profit or losses resulting from the sale of that product. So, if a watchmaker invests money in acquiring the base materials and tools to make watches, and hires someone and pays them a wage to help make the watches, then sells those watches for a profit, he is entitled to the profits because without those base materials and tools, those watches would not have been made.

The issue many socialists/communists seem to have a problem with is the pay scale offered to employees and their ability to meet basic needs. However, this is also a result of their ability to put meaningful value into a product. So using the watchmaker example, the watchmaker may have designed the watch and developed the parts, and the employee simply assembled the watch. In this case, the watch was at the point of being finished. All the widgets simply needed to be assembled, and it was more efficient for the watchmaker to hire someone to do it. In this case, that employee provided little value to the company, as they did not do anything to make the watch work better, looks nicer, sell easier, etc. Simply, they provided little value to the company, and their job as such was easily replaceable.

Now had that same employee been involved in the design process or helped to design components, they would be providing additional value to the employer. Then they may be entitled to a higher wage. However, as they did not invest capital in the original materials and tools, they cannot have a say in how much they earn. The employer is free to set a wage that the employee will work at, and that employee is free to accept it or look for other work. That same employee can also, through careful spending and investment, start his own company and thereby become the employer.

In a socialist system, whereby the workers as the state control the means of production, there are a considerable number of problems. First, how are scarce resources distributed? How do the workers decide whose work is most valuable, and then efficiently distribute materials? Capitalism has solved this problem with the “user pays” system - if you can buy it, it’s yours. Second, how do you manage oversupply? Oversupply is a waste of resources, as those resources are not used by society. Capitalism has a solution to this: investor’s risk. If your product does not sell, you do not gain a return on your original investment. Third, how do you encourage efficiency and success? Communism has proposed “rewards” such as awarding honours and such, but as soon as you begin to slip into providing more resources (income) to someone, you begin trekking down the road back to capitalism. Capitalism simply says the most successful will bear the fruits of their labour and their luck - it is why people can either become rich or crash and burn.

Capitalism has side effects, but has also contributed the most to the greatest improvement in human quality of life over any single system. Without it, we would not have computers that continually are improved upon, cars that run efficiently and have parts readily available should they malfunction, houses that can vary widely in shape, design, colour, size, etc.

Simply, capitalism rewards those who are willing to work and take risks, and does not reward those who are not willing to work or take risks. Not only that, capitalism does not dictate a certain distribution or societal structure - it is simply an economic structure within which there are a great variety of solutions to an equally great variety of issues. Communism has not offered a solution to the dillemma of fixing the inequality between the bourgeoisie and proletariat that it seeks to eliminate, without risking a return to the class divisions which it fought against. Nor has it offered any system that can produce an effective communist state except for the vague “dictatorship of the proletariat”.

The most efficient systems are those in which there is drive and incentive to succeeding. That system, for better or worse, is capitalism, as it plays off of humanities greatest emotion: fear. Fear of failing. Fear of going hungry. Fear of everything.

Communism, by its very nature, advocates for the elimination of the fear of wanting, but by doing so eliminates humanity’s greatest driver of action. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Communism cannot and will not work without becoming that which it sought to destroy.


#16

Communism doesn’t work? Well, we will have to tell that to the millions of people who live in communist countries. Sure, life there isn’t like life in, say, the US, but we have to remember what life was like there before communism.

For example, China. Before communism, they lived under a feudal system. If you are not born into the right family, your chances of getting beyond just surviving is negligible. A lot of peasants starved while the lords feasted. Under communism, the peasants did not starve. That’s why they supported communism. So, for them, communism works.

Now, having said that, I must also say that I do not believe in communism. I am just saying that communism works. It’s sort of like saying that I don’t believe in, say, the Yakuza, but the Yakuza works.


#17

[QUOTE=“jamesbrowning, post: 109879, member: 3165”]If communism were the better ideology it wouldn’t have needed a 12ft wall to keep people in.[/QUOTE]

On the off-chance that you might be interested in another side to the story, here’s some GDR propaganda explaining their story of the wall.


#18

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 109606, member: 2288”]Why would you (knowingly) let class determine your outlook on such a thing?[/QUOTE]

Is it not obvious? Socialism disproportionately helps the poor. Capitalism disproportionately helps the rich.
Of course if I were poor I would still try to become rich, but I would be much more welcome to socialism and willing to resort to it.


#19

[QUOTE=“Duvniask, post: 109606, member: 2288”]Why would you (knowingly) let class determine your outlook on such a thing?[/QUOTE]

Is it not obvious? Socialism disproportionately helps the poor. Capitalism disproportionately helps the rich.
Of course if I were poor I would still try to become rich, but I would be much more welcome to socialism and willing to resort to it.


#20

[QUOTE=“RickyMcMoney, post: 109995, member: 2996”]Is it not obvious? Socialism disproportionately helps the poor. Capitalism disproportionately helps the rich.
Of course if I were poor I would still try to become rich, but I would be much more welcome to socialism and willing to resort to it.[/QUOTE]

Your brutal honesty always makes me smile mate. I have to concur, as my main man Nietzche might, that the historical struggle between slave morality and noble morality is a significant force in the world. This, in my opinion, applies to political ideologies as well.