now i’m not an expert on politics, nor am i extrememly well educated on either ideal…but to me, i think capitalism is not as good a system…in a perfect world. however, as we are NOT in a perfect world…nor are there infinite resources…i think that capitalism is probably better. what are your thoughts?
What would you consider to be a ‘perfect world’?
My answer would be: A perfectly smooth, spherical solid ball, maybe bright blue or green, with no capacity for any form of life. Maybe a balmy 70 degrees. Also it would have to be far enough from any intelligent life form to be inaccessible to probes and spaceships that may mar its perfect surface.
Defined as such, I would agree that we are not in a perfect world, and that communism could thrive there in a way it never could in our world.
Yup.
Capitalism allows for greater allocative and productive efficiencies.
Thus, it’s better.
Capitalizm rulz!!! Communizm can suck it!!!
I think this has been done before recently, but I could be wrong.
I am definetly not an economist or an expert in government, but from my own personal reading and world examples, Capitalism seems to be the best system.
Communism, as a whole, allows for much less personal freedom than Capitalism, and places less importance on personal responsibility. I don’t have a desire to help provide for some formless, imaginary entity called “society,” and don’t think that it provides much of an incentive. However, if I’m working to support myself, there is quite the motivation.
For me, it all comes down to trusting oneself, and valuing one’s own personal happiness over that of an indiscriminately put-together group of people.
Personally, I think a moderate blend of the two works best. Pure Capitalism has mass exploitation of the majority by the minority, while pure Communism relies on everybody being willing to sacrifice their gains for the common good, always. Either system, in my opinion, has unacceptable results (Capitalism makes a massive dividing line between rich and poor, Communism results in lowered productivity).
I think a limited Capitalism - a free market with certain restrictions designed to protect the weak, to a degree - is the best that we can use at the moment. It has many of the benefits of pure Capitalism, such as encouragement for people to work harder (so they can get more gains), while also taking into account that, inevitably, some people are going to become more powerful than others and will attempt to use that power to take advantage of the less powerful.
In a perfect world, both capitalism and communism would work perfectly.
In the real world, the experience of history suggests that societiew which are basically capitalist do better and last longer than societies which are basically communist, which suggests that capitalism is more efficient at meeting the needs of those societies.
It’s probably fair to say that the most successful capitalist societies tend to be those which recognise the needs which communist societies seek to meet and try to meet those needs, e.g. by establishing a social security system or a state health service. In short, they are happy to learn from more communist societies, where there is something to be learnt. And vice versa.
There’s not really much to debate here. Sure, in a magical fantasy world filled with elves, dragons, and dwarves I might think a government headed by an enlightened despot is the best. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I live in the real world so I’ve got to look towards real life examples of what works and what doesn’t work. It seems rather silly to muse over how well something will work in an imaginary world. Unless of course you’re writing a book or something.
Marc
I’ve got to go with SPOOFE and UDS. Surely Communism is fairer, utilising the means of production for the common good. The fundamental problem with Communism is the Animal Farm effect, “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others”. It’s never really communism in its purest form.
Its only fairer if you down own the means to production. But even Adam Smith agrees that there are certain things that should not be treated as a business.
Communism is more fair for those who determine what the common good is.
Well, the notion that somebody owns the means of production implies that we are starting from a capitalist rather than a communist position, which kind of makes the argument pointless. We could put the converse position, and argue that the notion that anybody *can[/oi] own the means of production is unfair, but that too would be to assume a certain answer to the question posed.
Why is that unfair? Means of production do not simply wink into existance. They are the result of someones inginuity and labor. What is unfair is to assume that other people automatically have the right to someone elses work.
I’m not saying it’s unfair. My point is that, if we argue that expropriating the owners of the means of production is unfair, we’re assuming that the capitalist system is fair, which makes the whole argument pointless. Conversely, if we argue that private ownership of the means of production is unfair, we’re assuming that the communist system is fair, which equally makes the argument pointless.
The question posed is “which system is better?” On the assumption that being fair is a good thing, there is no point in discussing this question starting from the premise that one of the systems is fair and the other is not. Consequently, to say or assume that private ownership is fair, as msmith537 did, or equally to say that it is unfair, begs the question.
I think it’s plain that, in a society made up of human beings, communism will not work.
Does capitolism work? I think the question is, has it really been tried? For long enough to find out if it’s workable?
This article asserts that socialism has not worked very well in Sweden. http://www.techcentralstation.be/2051/wrapper.jsp?PID=2051-100&CID=2051-060702B
What is this about communism not allowing personal freedom? Actually, communism is supposed to increase personal freedom. Not only do people have their basic civil liberties (religion, speech, press, due process, search +seizure, etc.), but people also have the freedom (economically) to pursue what they really want to do in life. People have the freedom (since they don’t have to worry about food, education, medical care, etc.) to focus on more important things- like self-actualization for one.
Communism does seek to ensure that all people have basic needs taken care of. But it is not simply an altruistic economic theory. There is a lot of “me” in communism.
Wouldn’t you love a 6 hour workday, for example? I love when people talk about motivation and incentive. As if people are just lazy pieces of shit who will not work unless their life depends on it. Okay, so some are. A small minority, I would think. Most people cannot sit on their ass and watch TV all day. I can’t. There is an urge within me to do something. I want to do great things, and it is not because of money, and it is not because I need it to survive.
I work a shitty job that consumes 1/2 of my waking life because of money, and because I need the job to survive. But, when given the chance, I want to do other things.
Do you think most doctors are driven by the money? Some are. I think most, especially the better ones, have wanted to be a doctor all their life. It is their calling. Will a decrease in income deter them? Doubtful, especially since medical school wouldn’t cost anything.
be careful what you learn from your parents
colin
Capitalism is better at amassing wealth, technology, and the means of production than communism is. That is why Marxist theory dictates that communism evolves out of capitalism- that is, capitalism provides the economic framework for a communist society to develop.
Please define what you mean by “needs.” Indeed, capitalism is very efficient at meeting the needs of those who already have too much money. And, quite obviously, capitalism is not very good at meeting the needs of the poor and powerless. Starvation is not a statistic. It is a suffering that should not be tolerated. Same with the inability to get medical treatment, the inability to afford a good education, etc. The US’ medicare programs and welfare obviously do not do their job.
Some have argued that a mixture (eg socialism) would provide the best of both worlds. I would have no problem living under a socialist government.
And, to respond to Nerrie about Animal Farm: great book. In the USSR that indeed did happen (some people more equal than others) but I do not see why that is a prerequisite with communism. Because the USSR was communist, does that mean that all past and future communist governments will have the same shortcomings as the USSR?
Please don’t forget: Communism in its highest ideal is not a dictatorship. It is a democracy. Not a representative democracy like here, where all you can do is place a ballot in the box every couple of years, but a true democracy that encourages and depends on the political activism of every citizen. Unfortunately, the USSR betrayed that ideal, as it betrayed dozens of other communist ideals.
colin
p.s., I hope people realize that, in the occurance of redistribution of wealth, the middle class would not need to have much “redistributed.” Thanks to the fact that a couple hundred citizens in America own and/or control 95% of the wealth in this country, redistributing their wealth would be more than enough. Do they really need another ivory backscratcher?
Not really. If everyone persued what they want to do in life, no one would clean the toilets or dig ditches. A capitalist society uses the market to influence people into professions that society needs. Society needs computer programmer -> wages go up -> we have enough programmers -> wages start to go down. Since a communist society does not have market forces, the only way to get people to to do work they don’t want to do is to force them
So what happens when all the assembly line workers, McDonalds employees, cubicle drones, and truck drivers decide they would rather grow hemp and study Eastern philosophy? There are a lot of crappy jobs that people would not deicde to do without motivation and incentive.