Communism vs Capitalism Sticky


#461

Both ideologies can work very well if and only if, in the case of capitalism, the businesses are heavily regulated so that they are unable to exploit and demean the middle and lower classes. The goverment here is very vulnerable to coaxing by the rich, which democracy helps by (hopefully) getting in fresh new unbribed leaders. I will not go into detail about this problem in the USA for the moment. Capitalism has shown to work well many times in recent history.

I am not sure how communism can work, as from what I have seen it seems to require a very large government which is very vulnerable to individuals that wish to ‘rule with a iron fist’ with the immense power they have. Democracy with balance of power makes this possibility less likely, but there is still the problem of selfish individuals that take advantage of the system. Granted, this is a problem in every system. The only solution I see there is making ‘not working’ a crime, which may become a problem if there are literally not enough jobs to go around and stay out of a government deficit. Examples of this working in ants, and bees.


#462

[QUOTE=“Polyester, post: 432243, member: 1366”]I am not sure how communism can work, as from what I have seen it seems to require a very large government which is very vulnerable to individuals that wish to ‘rule with a iron fist’ with the immense power they have. Democracy with balance of power makes this possibility less likely, but there is still the problem of selfish individuals that take advantage of the system.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know what you are talking about, a communist system is stateless, there is no way someone could “rule with an iron fist”.


#463

[QUOTE=“StrangeSignal, post: 432290, member: 6563”]I don’t know what you are talking about, a communist system is stateless, there is no way someone could “rule with an iron fist”.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, thank you for pointing that out. I was not aware of this fact.


#464

[QUOTE=“ancap_commonsense, post: 409639, member: 7001”]List of Anarcho-Capitalist Societies:
[LIST]
[*]Celtic Ireland (650-1650)[/LIST][/QUOTE][LIST]
[/LIST]
Others have pointed out how these societies were not capitalist, but I want to point out the absurdity of labeling Pre-Colonial Ireland “anarchic.” they were kingdoms ruled by monarchies. It seems you didn’t even attempt to fact check.


#465

[QUOTE=“GráinneH, post: 432133, member: 1485”]Voted Communism, because it was made out of respect for all human beings. It might not work but the theory is selfless. Capitalism is for the rich and the greedy. It is made for one man to be seen as better than another.[/QUOTE]
So you’d rather ignore what works just to suit your own twisted morality and principles? Is this even for real?


#466

[QUOTE=“Modern Gladstone, post: 435408, member: 3622”]So you’d rather ignore what works just to suit your own twisted morality and principles? Is this even for real?[/QUOTE]
I like it how you instantly called them “twisted” without any argument for [I]why.[/I]


#467

[QUOTE=“StrangeSignal, post: 435421, member: 6563”]I like it how you instantly called them “twisted” without any argument for [I]why.[/I][/QUOTE]Because they are willing to ignore what works and what is effective just because of their principles. No one in the right mind does that, so their views must be twisted.


#468

Are these the only options?


#469

[QUOTE=“throughtheprism, post: 435425, member: 7386”]Are these the only options?[/QUOTE]
In this thread, they are.


#470

[QUOTE=“Modern Gladstone, post: 435422, member: 3622”]Because they are willing to ignore what works and what is effective just because of their principles. No one in the right mind does that, so their views must be twisted.[/QUOTE]
You don’t even know if socialism works or not, and so do most economists. You are basically arguing that just because we know capitalism is able to bring an increase in human development larger than any other system that has been attempted in large-scale so far, then that qualifies it as the best system that there could be. Very few economists actually attempt to construct models for alternative economic models to capitalism that could potentially work better for the whole of society rather than moving most of the wealth towards those who own property. If I may tell you something, self-managed factories in Spain during the days of the Anarchist Revolution saw their productivity increase by a 20% when socialization of factories were carried out [1][/URL], and so happened in the “recovered factories” of Argentina [URL=‘http://www.shareable.net/blog/a-decade-after-the-take-inside-argentinas-worker-owned-factories’][2][/URL] [URL=‘http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/argentina-recovered-factory-movement’][3], where accidents and machine wrecks were also significantly decreased since the machines now belonged to the workers themselves and had much more reasons to take care of them.


#471

[QUOTE=“StrangeSignal, post: 435441, member: 6563”]You don’t even know if socialism works or not, and so do most economists. You are basically arguing that just because we know capitalism is able to bring an increase in human development larger than any other system that has been attempted in large-scale so far, then that qualifies it as the best system that there could be. Very few economists actually attempt to construct models for alternative economic models to capitalism that could potentially work better for the whole of society rather than moving most of the wealth towards those who own property. If I may tell you something, self-managed factories in Spain during the days of the Anarchist Revolution saw their productivity increase by a 20% when socialization of factories were carried out [1][/URL], and so happened in the “recovered factories” of Argentina [URL=‘http://www.shareable.net/blog/a-decade-after-the-take-inside-argentinas-worker-owned-factories’][2][/URL] [URL=‘http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/argentina-recovered-factory-movement’][3], where accidents and machine wrecks were also significantly decreased since the machines now belonged to the workers themselves and had much more reasons to take care of them.[/QUOTE]
Of course I know how socialism works, don’t make presumptions. I’m arguing that capitalism is better because it ensures that resources are allocated to produce a socially optimal outcome, as scarce resources only go towards producing output where each unit’s benefits exceed the costs.


#472

capitalism is better because it can stay in power for long periods of time.communism cannot do that,it works for a certain amount of time then fails most of the time.not all communist/socialist countries fail but most do.


#473

[QUOTE=“Modern Gladstone, post: 435465, member: 3622”]Of course I know how socialism works, don’t make presumptions. I’m arguing that capitalism is better because it ensures that resources are allocated to produce a socially optimal outcome, as scarce resources only go towards producing output where each unit’s benefits exceed the costs.[/QUOTE]
So, basically you think that socialism is unable to correctly calculate scarce resources? Then you just proved that you don’t know it. Even the USSR was able to implement the socialist alternative for this. What they did was to make a survey of all available resources in their country that were open for extraction, and they translated it into their economic calculation. By doing so and translating the data to a monetary measurement, they could easily determine which resources were scarce, and the economic planners used them accordingly in the units of production in which they were needed the most, and use alternatives for not depleating the resource. If a central organization could do it, there’s no reason to believe that making such available information for a decentralized system won’t be able to do it, and even more efficiently.


#474

[QUOTE=“Equalist, post: 435466, member: 7015”]capitalism is better because it can stay in power for long periods of time.communism cannot do that,it works for a certain amount of time then fails most of the time.not all communist/socialist countries fail but most do.[/QUOTE]
If you had followed some of the last posts on this thread, you would realize why this is not an argument against socialism properly speaking.


#475

i know this is not an argument.


#476

[QUOTE=“StrangeSignal, post: 435476, member: 6563”]So, basically you think that socialism is unable to correctly calculate scarce resources? Then you just proved that you don’t know it. Even the USSR was able to implement the socialist alternative for this. What they did was to make a survey of all available resources in their country that were open for extraction, and they translated it into their economic calculation. By doing so and translating the data to a monetary measurement, they could easily determine which resources were scarce, and the economic planners used them accordingly in the units of production in which they were needed the most, and use alternatives for not depleating the resource. If a central organization could do it, there’s no reason to believe that making such available information for a decentralized system won’t be able to do it, and even more efficiently.[/QUOTE]
The USSR didn’t implement socialism at all. Rather it was state capitalism, which makes your argument invalid.


#477

[QUOTE=“Modern Gladstone, post: 435550, member: 3622”]The USSR didn’t implement socialism at all. Rather it was state capitalism, which makes your argument invalid.[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn’t, because while their system was a statist version of capitalism on its core, several socialist practices were implemented. On this case, the possibility to use economic calculation based on amount of resources was put forward by economist and epistemologist Otto Neurath, even if the concept itself already existed.


#478

[QUOTE=“StrangeSignal, post: 435586, member: 6563”]No, it doesn’t, because while their system was a statist version of capitalism on its core, several socialist practices were implemented. On this case, the possibility to use economic calculation based on amount of resources was put forward by economist and epistemologist Otto Neurath, even if the concept itself already existed.[/QUOTE]
Does it perform that outcome at the lowest possible cost as well?


#479

[QUOTE=“Vulpes, post: 435379, member: 3029”]
Others have pointed out how these societies were not capitalist, but I want to point out the absurdity of labeling Pre-Colonial Ireland “anarchic.” they were kingdoms ruled by monarchies. It seems you didn’t even attempt to fact check.[/QUOTE]

In Celtic Irish society of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period, courts and the law were largely anarchist, and operated in a purely stateless manner. This society persisted in this manner for roughly a thousand years until its conquest by England in the seventeenth century.

In contrast to many similarly functioning tribal societies (such as the lbos in West Africa), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense “primitive”: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, [B]“There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice[/B]… There was no trace of State-administered justice.

All “freemen” who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath’s members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their “kings.” In contrast to primitive tribes,[B] no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location.[/B] Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath. Professor Peden states, “the tuath is thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension.

The “king” had no political power; he could not decree or administer justice or declare war. Basically he was a priest and militia leader, and presided over the tuath assemblies.

Celtic Ireland survived many invasions, but was finally vanquished by Oliver Cromwell’s reconquest in 1649-50.

SOURCES:
[URL]https://mises.org/library/property-rights-celtic-irish-law-0[/URL]
[URL]https://books.google.com/books?id=nft4e62nicsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false[/URL]

“Check yourself before you wreck yourself.” ~ Shrek


#480

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.