Debate Capitalism or Communism?

Then why are you still here?

Without one world government that's not very likely. Look at the intensely paranoid and isolationist North Korean government. Starvation is widespread there, but not only will they not accept help, they won't change their policies.


Edit: By "nobody has a right", I mean that globally. There's no such thing as rights in nature, so this is why I'm not surprised these things happen. A right exists only so long as a government is willing to uphold it.

 

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

 

Essentially. There is no gigantic tablet floating about in the universe denoting rights. Rights, like laws, morals and such, are manmade concepts.

If a lion pounced on you and began to eat you, it is not going to care about your right to life. Similarly, a murderer will not care about your right to life; a rapist will not care about your right to keep your sexuality your business, and so forth.

A right in essence is an ideal we wish to uphold, and via government, create. We aren't born with a sheet that lists what we do and do not deserve. We're basically walking lumps of flesh who are victims of our circumstances, which we can sometimes alter.

Would I like to see everyone happy and fulfilled? Oh yes, most definitely. I am not a monster. Do I acknowledge the fact that the reality of our world is that there is still much suffering, and we can't just say "YOU HAVE A RIGHT" and expect a problem to go away? Yes.

You look at this too literally; a right, a law, these are not solid objects. These are concepts, and by our actions we can uphold these or dismiss them. The Revolution was, in essence, illegal and in some ways was also terrorist action. In the action of rebellion, it was dismissing British law.

Lets hypothetically say Person A is holding a gun to Person Bs face with murderous intent. If Person B says "I have a right to live", odds are that won't do much to keep Person A from pulling the trigger.

Why do I care about what your country was founded on? I'm not a member of your country. Heck, even a country is ultimately a manmade construction. A border is really only a line on a map and possibly buildings along the imagined border. Remove humanity, and you just have our planet. There would be no more USA, France, Australia, etc. There would just be a bunch of landforms.

 

This puzzles me. If humanity is merely lumps of flesh who are victims of our circumstances then why would you care about starving poor people in some other country? Im not saying I dont think one should care but with the view you are supporting why do you care if someone else is happy and fulfilled? If there is no innate value to human life that makes it worth more then any other form of life on the planet then why give a damn. And if there is innate value to human life must we not fight to protect it and put aside are own personal greed for the betterment of humanity?

Oh I agree with you dont get me wrong. Saying you have a right to live will not stop someone with murderous intent. That does not mean that you dont have a right to live though and their actions are not moraly wrong.

And p.s. sorry about the USA thing, I thought in some maddness induced stupor no doubt brought about by too much weed that you were an american. whoops. I realize how insulting calling someone an American can be so please take my humblest apologies.

 

I said essentially, not merely. As in, when you get right down to it.

Do any of us have a "right" to be happy and fulfilled? No, however ideally we should be happy and fulfilled. Ideal and Reality, however, do not always line up. This is why, to an extent, you can't feel extreme sympathy for everyone who doesn't have your lifestyle.

Do I want those starving kids to be fed? Yes. Do I want corrupt governments gone? Yes. Am I going to feel guilty when I turn on my Gameboy and drink a Pepsi? No.

You seem to be confused. I am not saying that those kids shouldn't get food. I am saying that there's nothing guaranteeing that they get food aside from our own goodwill and their governments management of resources. Sometimes that's how life works out, and you can't let it get you out of shape. Sympathize, yes, help if possible, but don't let your guilt rob you of enjoying the benefits you have.

I think that being eaten alive by a shark is a pretty bad way to go, but I sure don't feel any sympathy for the millions of fish that get torn to shreds each day. I think slowly starving to death is a bad way to go, and I do feel sympathy for those who suffer, but I didn't look at my hotdog today and start to cry.

I'd love it if every animal, and every human being, could live in peace and harmony and everything could be well fed and happy and content. But even mans own instincts, as a social animal with a heirarchal mentality, prevent that.

This is not a desire for people to starve. This is an acknowledgement of the fact that, due to the way the world works, there is a very real chance that people can starve, and due to the way man is wired, we can only give up so much. In fact, you never answered my question. If you are in fact so sympathetic, why are you here? Why are you one of the most elite classes in the world, with literacy, plumbing, access to amazing technological resources like the internet, some form of education and the like? Are you at least sponsoring a third world child? You may not be able to initiate a global morality shift, BUT you can at least be responsible for a kid being fed and educated.

The trick is not to try to initiate large things. That will get you nowhere. The trick is to start it all with tiny steps.

I wish I could say I believed humanity could do that, but having seen what I have seen, I believe there will always be "bad people" and injustices. One mans injustice is another mans triumph.

Consider - what makes you so much more special than the plants and animals who died to feed you today?

 

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

 

Please read..

We have ideals of what we want our world to be.

Some wants to be imperalist, thinking having the whole world in his hands would be happy and yes, he is happy when he has things under control.

Some wants to be capitalist, feeling having a good business at hand to earn money would be his heaven, and well they have it. You can see from the anime in japan. That i fully agree.

Some wants to be communist, because they feel that human behaviour needs to be in a set of order and feels that desires shouldnt be that too extreme to be balanced. Well, thats true. Everybody wants and desired to be happy. Who desires not?

Some wants be into the democracy, feeling everybody has the rights to be say what they want and vote. They feel they are happy, they had voiced it out.

Some chooses to be a socialist, they feel helping people out is very important. And yes, thats true.

But seriously no country works on a 100% of each the system stated above.
We have a mixture of each and every bit. Example america can be say to be capitalist, socialist, communist at some point of perceptions.

The most important thing here is not about winning the whole country to be your favour, but winning the hearts of the people. People have their moral standards and the model of it is UNIVERSALLY rated. No one will says murdering is right, unless it has reasons to support for its doings, and able to win people's empathy.

One shouldnt ask for to be the top(imperalism), nor to be in the crowd(communism), one should seek for HARMONY at all costs. Because this is the best ingredient for a long lasting realm, should a politician desires for control and say in the country. Peace is always better than war, at least for all citizens anywhere and everywhere.

 

Hmmm, I think that Marxists would stop you right there and ask "well, that's the only freedom that is being met for people in capitalism, the freedom to buy". Poor people in North America have no needs being met and whatever they do have is slowly being taken away - (for instance dental, and physiotherapy has recently been taken away from Canadian health care). The only thing stopping these people, the proletariat, from having a revolution is welfare. They're given money from the system so they can buy things and be happy (or be controlled for that matter). But, they're still stuck in run down houses and many are stuck on the streets.

Most just think that 'that's the way it is', ignoring the possibility that a better lifestyle could exist for them and for all of society. And, thanks to capitalistic ideas, people think that it's their fault for being poor.. But, I doubt they suddenly woke up one day and said "I want to be poor today and live on the streets, that'd be great!" If a person was born and raised in a ghetto, and ended up addicted to drugs.. was it that person's fault for being addicted to drugs, or could it be because there was no education around the area that taught kids about the negative side effects of drugs?

Ughh.. I don't agree with capitalism, but I don't agree with total Marxism either. I think that systems need to be changed so that they treat every person equally, and are humanistic. More services need to be put in place to allow every person to have an equal opportunity, such as an addictions center being put up in that ghetto mentioned earlier - which would allow that person to get over his/her problem and get a good job.

 

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

 

Freedom to chose my work, freedom to pick what I want... I'd rather like to keep those.

Uh oh, the hobo revolution is afoot! Communism hasn't had such a good track run either; need I point out certain communist regimes that collapsed, and communist regimes that aren't doing too well these days?

Yep, having a portion of your society poor is much worse than having a society where everyone is equally poor.

See, your problem is that you're looking at real capitalism vs ideal communism. However, if you look at real communist regimes, you see they're even worse. North Korea, for example, has massive starvation problems. You could always say "But if the government was run right it would be different!" Thing is, the same applies to capitalism. If everything ran perfectly, there wouldn't be that super-poor class of people.

Yes communism has done a great job of respecting human dignity. Word to my Chinese homies. Why are you looking at this so black and white? I've stated before (though not in this thread) that if I had to pick a system to work under, I'd love to try out technocracy. Second to that, capitalism.

 

In all honesty I must disagree with you. Humans are all created equal, what right do some have to live in wealth and prosperity while others starve?

If we all have to be poor, which is not the case there are plenty of reasources to go around, then we all have to be poor. No human has the right to eat well while his neighbor starves.

Just my opinion though, and I don't even vote...

 

Don't be silly. Some people have advantages others don't, both in terms of physical genetic structure, intelligence, and social standing. At best we all have equal potential, and even that's up for debate.

You mean like how communist leaders like Kim Jon-Il live in prosperity and his people- oh wait.

Actually, go look at a pack of wolves. The omega males always eat poorly. One might say that things like this are just mankinds nature. Is it right? No, but the oh so virtuous communism hasn't really done anything to change whats happening.

 

[sarcasm]"Communism has only killed 300 million people... LET'S GIVE IT ANOTHER CHANCE!" [/sarcasm]

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

 

Of course people aren't born equal. It's up to them to make themselves equal, really. But then, why should people struggle on their own? Why should the government sit idly by and watch it's people suffer because they can't get a job, or because they can't get into school? Why shouldn't the government step in and help them?

You mean like how everyone in a capitalist society is rich and prosperous and there's no crime- oh wait.

I'll repeat what I said before. Communism isn't perfect. I don't believe it to be. And in examples of it actually existing, our media has shown it to fail miserably. But that's just our media. How do we know they do not lie? Obviously, the american media is going to make communism look as bad as it can.

Now, if Kamikaze Pilot were here, he'd do better at this than I, but oh well.

Here's a link to the most recent discussion on this matter over there.

 

Psst - Welfare. As for school, define school. Do you mean how not everyone can get into university or college? Well, someone has to flip my burgers, and we can't all be astronauts.

You seem to have missed my point. Your point was that people shouldn't starve while others are prosperous. I, in turn, illustrated that even in communist countries, it happens.

Er, what? You and I are both Canadian; why are we discussing American media?

Another point about communism - no freedom of religion. Marx may not have intended it to be that way, but it's ended up as being so. I may not like certain religious ideas but I'm not going to force anybody to believe a certain way. The idea of doing so is morally repugnant to me. Ooo, lets not forget state seizure of communication services and transport services.

Give people freedom and they'll abuse it. Give the government more power and it will abuse it.

 

No offense, but in my experience, there are only two groups of people who think communism is a good idea: 1) Those who've never been forced to live under it; and 2) Those who've been brainwashed by communist/socialist propaganda for a majority of their lives.

I would amend this to point out that large-scale poverty and starvation especially happens in communist countries.

 

If welfare is so great and awesome, why are there still so many people who live in the streets, who starve every day because they don't get enough to eat? Why, if welfare is the great almighty solution to everything, does it not solve the problem? Simple. Because the system is so ridiculously convoluted that many people get lost in it.

Also, pride. There are those who refuse to accept welfare, and those who refuse aid when they need it.

And of course, there are those who will abuse the system. Welfare is far from perfect, or even adequate. I'd suggest, instead of welfare, why not a program where people are given jobs? Ones that are needed, whether they be something like a factory worker, or even something like a burger flipper? If they have jobs, they can at least earn the money they get.

I realize that. According to the media, there were massive self-inflicted famines in the Soviet Union. I don't know for sure how true that is, though. Anyway, hunger is everywhere, but communism seems to me to be the best way to eliminate it for everyone.

Our media does much the same. Why wouldn't it? Remember that for 50 years, communism was the hated evil enemy of the "free world." Would you, after declaring something for 50 years, try and make them look good? Would you not try and make your statement look "right" by downplaying the successes and playing up the failures?

This is something I'm not sure of, myself. It might have been discussed in the link I gave above, but religion has always mattered little to me, so I didn't exactly go out of my way to research this.

Obviously. People are greedy, power-hungry, and weak. They need a strong, benevolent leader to show them the way.

 

Communism didn't work for those people either. Look at North Korea. Oh hey, remember the Soviet bread-lines?

Have you ever really talked to a homeless person? I've never met any who'd turn up their nose at a penny or nickle donated. Prideful people don't last long on the streets for a reason.

What if those jobs just simply don't exist anyway? You can only have so many people work in a factory, etc.

Please, please go study up on North Korea. If you think anywhere near the majority of people eat well...

Hint: Sit down and actually read the Communist Manifesto. I certainly don't need my tv to tell me it's a severely flawed piece of work which if put into practice would limit personal freedoms severly.

Figures; a supporter of communism who doesn't know what it fully stands for.

Look: When you can get a liberal, aethiest Canadian to hate it, as per these links: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html

You can ignore the Star Trek part; note however how controlling and confining communism is.

"Hay guyz don't worry we're gonna find strong benevolent perfect leaders and always have a constant supply and nothing will ever go wrong great kthx"

Come on.

 

State intervention in businesses

I live in Mexico, this country has suffered the consequences of the american liberalist economy.

But I've also seen how the pro-marxist parties use that as propaganda to get to the power.

I think we should focus instead on the medular point: How much should the government interfere with the enterprises?

All? Nothing? If the government keeps a total control of the economy, we get towards communism. However, if the government doesn't control anything and instead lets the market dictate the rules, we reach neo-liberalism.

IMO the best would be establishing some rules so that it's the government who decides if determinate companies are trying to establish a monopoly (by fusion, etc).

The point of free competition is to let the companies compete FAIRLY. Not with abusive practices that remove so many workers of their jobs.

 

LOL, "neo-liberalism"? Communism is far left. If anything capitalism is more right as it has less government involvement and the more capitalist you get, the less welfare policies are implimented.