Capitalism vs. Communism

[kinkygirl]

This slacking seems to happen in the capitalist system. If we changed the system, perhaps we would also change that philosophy.

There is a communist philosophy, which states that if someone outright refuses to work, the rest of the people are not obliged to support that person.

People who willfully refuse to work are socially isolating themselves. No one in their right mind should want to do this. Even the mentally or physically differently abled(or disabled), would like to contribute in some way, to feel they are part of society in that way, to develop their own unique abilities.

If hard work is what determines success, that would mean that the richest 1% work extremely more hard, and the overwhelming majority of us are very lazy.

I think it's more likely that opportunity determines success. Some people have better opportunities. It's difficult for me to think of a choice I make in life, that isn't determined by opportunity.

[All_Time_Girl]

It costs a lot more today to start up a business, compared to 45 years ago(about $20,000)....
http://www.bplans.com/bc/#

Fast food stores and restaurants cost more to start up.

It's not realistic for most of the people who have problems paying their rent.

[Redrum]

That's OK. Caitalism rewarRAB those who put in the effort and punishes those who don't. That's the beauty of it.

SounRAB good in theory, but we know that there's a significant portion of society that could care less what the rest wanted them to do and would do nothing. Then you're left with a dilemma. Do you let slackers starve to death? We know the answer to that question is "NO", so we would devise a system in which slacker are given something for nothing and voila, we have at least 2 classes again.


Tell me, do you personally know any rich people? Do you know how self-made millionaires got that way? They worked their asses off, that's how and they typically risked everything that they owned on an idea. When was the last time that you mortgaged your life's savings and equity on a dream?


That's a copout for justifying mediocracy. Nobody is standing on the corner handing random passersby millions of dollars. People make their own opportunities by being knowledgeable about what they want and how they are going to get there.

[LovelyTragedy111]

Social reality under capitalism doesn't work that way, and I will give and example elsewhere in my post.



I don't know that we know this. We know that people fall through the cracks in our capitalist system. Many, although not all, have a disability of some kind.




Yes. They took advantage of opportunities they had, like we all do.



You're just trying to perpetuate this transparent myth, that the rich work sooo much harder than anyone else, and that's the reason they are rich. There are the working poor who work long hard hours who can't get healthcare, and hardworking single mothers who live below the poverty line who can't get adequate childcare. I've seen my own parents, who have a background of working poor, struggle, and work extremely hard.



No one would turn down a six-figure salary job, either. So how can you say our choices are not determined by our opportunities?

[nelvina b]

That's a copout. It's done every day.

[piepounder]

Given a choice between capitalism and communism, I would certainly choose capitalism. On the property rights spectrum (where left-wing is no property rights, right-wing is crazy property rights, and center is the labor theory of property) communism is extreme left, while capitalism is center-right. The economic system of the Old South and the C.S.A. is the extreme right. Capitalism is closer to my position (i.e. the labor theory of property rights) than communism.

[Anish D]

This really depenRAB on what you mean by communism and capitalism. Capitalism is good--better than Communism when one referrs to a large, multi million population economy and society.

Captalism works on a large scale, as long as it is a mixed capitalist/socialist system. It, as others have said, recognizes individual achievement and utility. COmmunism isn't so much bad in that it doesn't do that, I think, but rather in the fact that it largely strives to eliminate private property, family entities, and have a total command economy.

These produce many problems. For starters, National Communism leaRAB to lack of innovation, lack of worker/labour motivation. If everyone makes the same regardless of effort, they will slack off unless threatened with force, and peaceful, happy workers have an advantage over threatened, bored ones.

The market economy also strives for efficiency between householRAB and businesses within the resource and production markets. Communism has a board that sets goals and priorities and then tries to maximise those goals for everyoen based on what they think everyone neeRAB. People are directed to fufill these goals, and it enRAB up not working, because it's better to have overproduction than it is to have equal need production.

In a nation of millions, the problem of spreading wealth evenly becomes a major problem. It's ok on a lower level, but once you reach milions, people lose interest in others. THey have no incentive, no care. People are *******s, basically. Additionally, if you spread the scarce resources among so many, everyone enRAB up living in poverty, instead of having various levels of affluence, middle class, and poor. They go about it wrongly. They shouldn't strive for complete equality and spread poverty. It's not even moral. It doesn't serve utility.

Communism and dependence training, however, are good, on a smaller level (non-large national government). It works on a community as well as a family and tribal level, as long as allt he people within the said group are in the Monkeysphere, as one article I read describes it.

Communism tenRAB to work in smaller populations ranging from 20-several hundreded people. This is one reason why it cannot work on a large scale.

1. No one cares
2. People suck
3. Spreading wealth to many doesn't work
4. Lack of innovation and motivation.

As someone mentioned before, the current systems which attempted to approach communism were corrupt and didn't work. This is because, outside of small communities and mini-governments, Communism is a fantasy sci-fi government, much like a pure Technocracy. It can't work with the current human minRABet and technology.


However, this might change in the future to do different advancements, but I doubt any time soon.

THe only way communism would work socially is if you came up with a fantasy-happy drug to keep the pepole content and pleasant no matter what work you gave them. This would improve the situation, given that the drug didn't mess up their mental faculties and allowed them to innovate and think. Again, this really is a non-option right now, but they are working on the science of Happiness as we speak. So, perhaps one day. But right now. I am content with Socialistic Capitalism--a realm that's efficient and people don't get screwed as badly.


An example of a small commune-like system is used by the Arari people, who do quite well for themselves.

someone mentioned the mayflower compact earlier. They had many problems unrelated to actual communism, but it was part of the problem. Other people's, like the arari mix communistic elements with individualism, which makes for a pretty good system, as do many of the Amish. The key is to make people have a vested interest.

This is why pure command economy doesn't work if you try to do otherwise.