Debate Capitalism or Communism?

Alright, in another thread I said I didn't want to start a debate about it, but I changed my mind.

So, which would you prefer, Capitalism, Communism, or some mix of the two?

For my opinion, you'll have to wait. I want to see what the rest of you have to say before I say my bit.

 

The mix of the two is called "socialism", if I remember correctly.

As for me, I go with Feudalism all the way! I joke. Honestly, if we were just dealing with the basic theory behind the economic system, Communism would get my vote. Since I sincerely doubt that we are, I'd go with Capitalism. It just allows for more diversity and, though it has many flaws, right now it seems to be the best concept we can use. Perhaps, as we did with Feudalism (which is why I mentioned it in the first place), we will be able to grow as a society out of the "Age of Capitalism" and into something else. I'm not really sure. Whatever happens, it will take quite a long time. Capitalism, for example, was devised in the Middle Ages (if I remember correctly), but was never sucessfully implimented until around the very late 1700's. Communism was only concieved in the past century.

Now I'm just rambling, so I'll stop here.

 

Capitalism. The fiercer competition in industry brings about urgency for newer and better tech, and communisms fatal flaw is that People Like To Own Stuff.

 

The idea of communism is very good and fair, but it turned out to be impractical in real life. However, if to make some adjustments to communism, like letting people to own a business or a property(thats what China is doing now), i believe it will turn out to be very effective, more effective than capitalism.
Capitalism has too much corruption and communism dont have enough freedoms. But if i had to choose i would choose communism(on terms that i can make some adjustments)

 

Trully in my opinion neither have pros in wich out way thier cons. I mean to say that either one would have flaws that would displease half of a nation. Even though communism has a nice way of looking at the life of equallity it never turns out that way. With capitalism most of the "little people" are pushed aside so that other "big people" (I know these terms may sound childish, but my diction needs some work) can put themselves atop a pedestal. I know that there will always be flaws with any type of government but as of now there is no government that i would prefer (and dont take it in a totally literal meaning and say that i wouldnt care if we had a dictatorship).

 

If I had to chose between living in a corporate war or living under communism, I'd go for the corporate war. Why? Because then I'd have a choice about what I buy, I'd actually own my stuff, and there's a better chance of it being higher quality since they have competition to worry about.

 

Capitalisum, for the sake of having the choice just to own my own property and business. Although i think that the idea of equality in communisum is a good thing, i just find it very hard to beleve that it will happen or be accepted in real life. Although the little people have to wirk harder then the big people in capitlisum, they at least have the right to call something their own when they are finished at the end of the day.
Also as Neph said earlier the Compitetion between different companies would mean that new and better products are brought out faster, and most of all cheaper. OK, so it may be hard for any small time businesses or new companys to get themselves a foothold in the market, but it's if they can make themselves noticed then they may be able to get somewhere, all new good ideas go down well (and so do low prices ).

 

See, the main thing is, that capitalists see people for what they are: Greedy, selfish, and materialistic. Communism, while we all seem to agree that it is a good idea on paper, bases itself on the idea that people are generous and willing to help each other.

Personally, I prefer Socialism. It's got elements of Communism, in that people are fairly well-taken care of, and have pretty good chances of getting jobs, and elements of capitalism, in that there is competition, and all of that. I'm forgetting the stuff I learned in Social Studies, but this is what I prefer.

I suppose the best example would be the Scandinavian countries like Sweden or Finland. Perhaps, if any of our members are from those countries, they could tell us what they think of it?

 

And people in Communism aren't greedy, selfish, and materialistic? What makes 'bad' a goverment or goverment system are it's people. Also, sometimes I see communism more like people who can't share with others and have to be forced to do it. Of course this does not always happen but it does.

I prefer capitalism, it gives me more freedom and many others caracteristics that others have posted. Also, anime was born in a capitalist society, wasn't it?

 

Japan has an emperor, so its an imperialist society, i think. And when Russia was communist they did some pretty amazing animation.

 

Monarchy has nothing to do with capitalism.

I meant that i might were different if they were with other rules.

 

For the greater good, the thought police have decreed you agree with Communism.

 

For the greater good, the thought police have decreed you agree with Communism.

 

Exactly. The idea of communism is great! It works for everyone, and nobody is left out, or ignored. But it can't work because people aren't they way they need to be.

That's why I'm a socialist. It's the best of both worlds. The government does a lot to help it's citizens, but it doesn't control everything, and there are elements of capitalism. (Tsk, if only I had the essay I wrote about this in High School)

 

Still the same, it's still an idea if it is not applied by the goverment.

I don't need to be communist, socialist nor capitalist to help or to do social work. I can do that in almost any goverment system.

 

Well personally though I do enjoy personal ownership of property and goods I cant justify it moraly.

Do any of us have the right to own goods and property when there are those who do not have basic necessities such as food and water? I read once that there was enough food being produced in the world to feed everyone an approximatly 2000-3000 cal diet. Hmmm. Did you know that the government of the United States often pays farmers not to produce? And that farmers sometimes are coerced to burn their crops to ensure stabilty in the food market of the USA?

wtf

Personally why can we all have communial owenership of all goods? Isnt it greed (which is bad remember) to have to make someing "mine". People are always saying "well you cant rely on people to be good enough for communisim to work" but thats what they said about Democracy. Back when the USA was forming it was "you cant rely on the masses to be intelligent enough to vote and control there own destinies". Maybe if we took chances and trusted in the goodness of mankind like the founding fathers of the USA did the world would become a better place.

The people shall rise.

Workers of the World Unite.

 

Does anyone have a right to basic necessities? As cruel as it sounds, nature sure doesn't work on a fair and just level. In nature there is no such thing as a right. We can donate all we want but the starving nations governments have to start helping out if they want to get into a better position. One might even suggest that helping them might not be right, because some governments have ended up thinking they can just spend more money on military because we'll feed their citizens. (for example, look at what happens with Ethiopia and China. We help Ethiopia, nothing happens. We never helped China, NOW look at them!)

I think it's a shame that such things have to happen, but you'll have to pardon me for enjoying what I buy.

No offense but a source would be nice. Not saying you're wrong but you have to back up your claims.

Because the world can't support everyone living a first world lifestyle.

Greed is also a good survival mechanism. It's not "bad", it's simply morally distasteful when in excess.

Yeah, because current and past communist regimes have been real moral nations and democracy always always always works.

The fact of the matter is, mankind isn't naturally good. We aren't naturally bad, but you don't have to look hard to see that we're usually more in the grey than anything else.

 

Dude just look at what your saying man, I dunno but something inside of me hurts when I see poor children starving to death. I'd rather end that then live a First World Lifestyle.

Fair enough, I shouldn't have included that without evidence.

But it can give everyone at least enough not to starve to death and die from common curable illnesses

Here I will have to disagree with you whole heartedly but respectfully. I personnaly believe that every human has a spark of the divine, a soul if you will. The divine I believe is fully good ergo humankind is naturally good we just have a tendency to fall from our true nature an are easily coruptable. Just because we currupt easy does not mean we are not naturally good. Human life is also the most valuable thing in existance and each life is equally valuable i.e. a rich American is worth as much as an impovereshed dying African child. For us to live in weath and excess while they die is intrisically wrong.

This can only be remedied by all humankind working together communally without a focus on personal wealth for to focus on what you have is putting yourself higher then your neighbor.