Capitalism or Communism? (1 Viewer)

[Nebuchanezzar]

I wish, I wish that people would stop this "communism is great in theory" thing. Yes, it is, I concur. But to use that as a way of saying that it's shit irl is silly, because capitalism is just as shit irl.

Ok, so let's say for argument's sake that communism is a good idea for people in downtrodden countries, and maybe it is. Though, I can't help but think that after a while, people would start to think less about what's good for everyone and more about what they themselves want. You can't stop that kind of thinking, and personally I wouldn't want to see it stopped, because it's quite a natural way to think. A person who never thinks this way has either been brainwashed or is a robot.

Interestingly, the point of the law is often to ensure that what is good for society takes precedence over what is good for an individual, so long as human rights aren't curbed. As in, if an individual wants something that's harmful for another person, or society, then the law steps in and ensures that thing doesn't happen!

Why do I bring this irrelevant point up? Oh, it's interesting is all.

There are some things about communist states that irk me too much for me to trust that such a system can be implemented for long without getting corrupt. E.g. state control of the media. Also, since communism is supposed to operate for the 'greater good', does that not mean that opposition to the regime effectively constitutes treason? that's something i can't morally accept. everyone has the right to freedom of speech, thought and expression.

Since when does a socialist society nessecarily involve a cap on the media? Look at some of the European social democracies eh? Not much restriction of the media there, and they're far closer to communism than you'd think! Now that's a form of government that I like! They enable those who work hard for their money to keep it, but at the same they ensure that, er, no-one is left behind. Those countries usually rank right up the top of the human development indexes, above total capitalist havens such as the beloved US. So in relation to what dieburndie said, The US - a capitalists dream. Unfortunately though, the more communist societies outrank it in terms of quality of life. Lower living standards indeed. :rofl:

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Capitalism - keeping the third world intact since whenever.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

I wish, I wish that people would stop this "communism is great in theory" thing. Yes, it is, I concur. But to use that as a way of saying that it's shit irl is silly, because capitalism is just as shit irl.



Interestingly, the point of the law is often to ensure that what is good for society takes precedence over what is good for an individual, so long as human rights aren't curbed. As in, if an individual wants something that's harmful for another person, or society, then the law steps in and ensures that thing doesn't happen!

Why do I bring this irrelevant point up? Oh, it's interesting is all.



Since when does a socialist society nessecarily involve a cap on the media? Look at some of the European social democracies eh? Not much restriction of the media there, and they're far closer to communism than you'd think! Now that's a form of government that I like! They enable those who work hard for their money to keep it, but at the same they ensure that, er, no-one is left behind. Those countries usually rank right up the top of the human development indexes, above total capitalist havens such as the beloved US. So in relation to what dieburndie said, The US - a capitalists dream. Unfortunately though, the more communist societies outrank it in terms of quality of life. Lower living standards indeed. :rofl:

it is an interesting point

oh and i agree with you about the fact that there are social democracies that work very well. i was talking more about actual full blown communist states e.g. north korea, etc. you make a valid point though.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

We are not a pure capitalist state. We offer welfare to ensure people have a basic standard of living even if they don't work. Providing anything more than this is definately a disinsentive to work.

Nobody said anything contrary to this.

The European social-democracies Nebuchanezzars mentions are far more capitalist than communist. Most goods and services are still provided by private enterprise. The only difference is they have higher tax and greater welfare and government provided service. This is NOT communism.

Nobody said it was.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Yes. That's why communism is never going to take hold in the Western world.

When communism does take hold in the territory known as the Western World, the Western World as an ideological and economic bloc will be destroyed by wars of national liberation against imperialism.

Ok, so let's say for argument's sake that communism is a good idea for people in downtrodden countries, and maybe it is. Though, I can't help but think that after a while, people would start to think less about what's good for everyone and more about what they themselves want. You can't stop that kind of thinking, and personally I wouldn't want to see it stopped, because it's quite a natural way to think. A person who never thinks this way has either been brainwashed or is a robot.

There are some things about communist states that irk me too much for me to trust that such a system can be implemented for long without getting corrupt. E.g. state control of the media. Also, since communism is supposed to operate for the 'greater good', does that not mean that opposition to the regime effectively constitutes treason? that's something i can't morally accept. everyone has the right to freedom of speech, thought and expression.

State control of something doesn't mean corruption. The state in the capitalist society does not control such things as the media or big buissness. Yet corruption is such a common thing in capitalism. Control does not equal corruption. Corruption is when individuals or groups of individuals use their position for personal benifit.

In capitalist society, the bourgeois, the bourgeois acadamics and in some cases the labor aristorcray (thoose workers who are paid off by imperialist profits) control the media. And we get a whole variety of views promoted to the audience of various social classes. While they may sometimes promote what some people believe is leftist ideas (ABC, SBS) they still promote the bourgeois ideology. Human nature, greed is good, democracy means voting for parties every given cycle, are some of the ideas they promote. Is this corruption? No, it is bourgeois democracy.

Under Communist leadership, the state, who should be elected in some form from the masses, and the party do have alot of say in media. This ownership of media, is just the dialectical opposite of the capitalist system. There are new owners, thoose who are in power through proleteriat revolution, and they promote their ideas. Do note that I think the leading organisation, in their administration should have to negotiate with mass organisations, trade unions, womens organisation, a thing that is practiced in Cuba. Now is this corruption? No, it is proleteriat democracy.

In both cases the opposite class is left out of having a say in the society. I have used media as an example. This is not corruption, this is class dictatorship. Both system can produce corruption, and both system usually have a method for control of corruption.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Eh? I said that those states were more communist than one might think, and that as a result they rank higher in human development. That's all. Foo.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

When communism does take hold in the territory known as the Western World, the Western World as an ideological and economic bloc will be destroyed by wars of national liberation against imperialism.

...but it'll never take hold. Not in our lifetime, anyway. And if it does, it's not going to be some dramatic revolution. Change on the scale you're suggesting takes ages, if it happens at all.

State control of something doesn't mean corruption. The state in the capitalist society does not control such things as the media or big buissness.

...er, yeah. i know. In communist societies, it does, though. Which is hardly a good thing. I'd much prefer to watch the news and be reasonably sure that the government hasn't censored anything contrary to it's own agenda.

And yeah corruption is a problem that occurs in societies of every kind, of course capitalism is not immune. Personally, though, if it comes down to picking between two evils, so to speak, I'll pick the one that gives me more personal freedom. ie. capitalism. the idea of the will of the collective group being more important than the will or freedoms of the individual is an oppressive concept to say the least.

In capitalist society, the bourgeois, the bourgeois acadamics and in some cases the labor aristorcray (thoose workers who are paid off by imperialist profits) control the media. And we get a whole variety of views promoted to the audience of various social classes. While they may sometimes promote what some people believe is leftist ideas (ABC, SBS) they still promote the bourgeois ideology. Human nature, greed is good, democracy means voting for parties every given cycle, are some of the ideas they promote. Is this corruption? No, it is bourgeois democracy.

i'm not sure what you mean by imperialist in this sense so i'm gonna leave this one

Under Communist leadership, the state, who should be elected in some form from the masses, and the party do have alot of say in media. This ownership of media, is just the dialectical opposite of the capitalist system. There are new owners, thoose who are in power through proleteriat revolution, and they promote their ideas. Do note that I think the leading organisation, in their administration should have to negotiate with mass organisations, trade unions, womens organisation, a thing that is practiced in Cuba. Now is this corruption? No, it is proleteriat democracy.

If the state has more say in the media than the common people (i.e, the people who are not in positions of power), how are the people going to know that it hasn't been censored? How do you ensure that both the messages and ideas of the state, and the messages and ideas of people who might oppose the state, are delivered? Because in any state there will be people who don't support the system and their views have every right to be heard, too. I find it hard to believe that countries like, say, China, or North Korea, allow such freedom of the press. If you can show me that they do, I'll be very surprised. At least in a capitalist society you can express a view opposing the government and its ideological system and not be suppressed or punished for it. Take for example the commnist newspapers and magazines and things that circulate in Australia. We're a capitalist country and you're opposing that system, but you're not getting in trouble for it.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

And I'm saying they are not particularly communist and that their similarities to communism are not the reason for their high HDI (which is a dubious measurement anyway).

How else do you explain the high scores then? They're not particularly communist in terms of just how communist one country can be, but they're certainly more, er, socialist than say, the US.

Top 10:

1. Iceland 0.968 (▲ 2)
2. Norway 0.968 (▼ 1)
3. Australia 0.962 (▲)
4. Canada 0.961 (▲ 2)
5. Ireland 0.959 (▲ 1)
6. Sweden 0.956 (▲ 1)
7. Switzerland 0.955 (▲ 2)
8. Japan 0.953 (▲ 1)
9. Netherlands 0.953 (▲ 1)
10.France 0.952 (▲ 6)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

 

[bassistx]

We are not a pure capitalist state. We offer welfare to ensure people have a basic standard of living even if they don't work. Providing anything more than this is definately a disinsentive to work.\

And yet more than 1000 people sleep on the streets in Australia.
You really are stupid. You can join my "Dubbed as Stupid Club". Oh, and I'm president btw Considering my number of "epicly stupid" posts.

This system ensures that people will not work for the money, but because it's their passion. I hate people who work for the money - they never give you an honest answer about their product/service/whatever and don't have any pride in their company/whatever. The customer service is horrible.
In any case, if you want to live for free, steal food from the neighbours. The government is not going to give you bread & butter.


EDIT: Going a few posts back...
Globalisation... Just to be sure, I flicked through a BS textbook this morning. And nowhere was the word "choice" or anything equivalent mentioned. It simply explains that globalisation is the deregulation of domestic markets so you have an international market where you can exchange money, information, and technology. But nothing about choice.
Furthermore, it asks to think about the products which we eat/wear/use/etc made by TNCs (transnational corps). This only reinforces the feeling of an "invasion". When I think "consumerism", I think of McD's, Burger King, KFC, Microsoft Windows, Adidas, Nike, etc. What do these things have in common? They almost have a monopoly over the market. We do not have many choices.
If you walk into any shopping centre, you'll have your Myer, David Jones, Kmart, Target, Big W, etc... All of these big department stores. Particularly Myer and David Jones. They take up so many levels. Think of all the specialty stores (and how many more businesses would be running) we could fit in the gigantic place they take up. The more stores, the more choice.

PROS:
*Easier access to information and transferral of funds
*Ability to trade overseas without actually going there

CONS:
*Cuts down specialty stores significantly
*Products are not made in country of purchase (e.g. almost everything is made in China) and therefore do not contribute to that country's economy

I personally support Australian owned and manufactured companies/products. Even if it's more expensive, you can guarantee it's fairtrade and not sweat shop. But that's another issue altogether.

SMEs (small-medium enterprises) contribute a great percentage towards Australia's economy. I just can't find the bloody statistics. I'll refer to a textbook later on if need be.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

And yet more than 1000 people sleep on the streets in Australia.
You really are stupid. You can join my "Dubbed as Stupid Club". Oh, and I'm president btw Considering my number of "epicly stupid" posts.

This system ensures that people will not work for the money, but because it's their passion. I hate people who work for the money - they never give you an honest answer about their product/service/whatever and don't have any pride in their company/whatever. The customer service is horrible.
In any case, if you want to live for free, steal food from the neighbours. The government is not going to give you bread & butter.

They will, if you apply for welfare. There are measures in place to make sure that if for some reason you cannot provide basic things like food and shelter for yourself, the government will provide it for you.

But if you don't ask for help, you aren't going to be given any. The government can't read minds, if you don't tell them you're destitute how are they going to know? A lot of homeless people are too proud to go on welfare, which i think is a stupid mindset considering what their lives are like, but whatever. It's their choice. But those that choose not to accept help when it's offered don't deserve sympathy. Those that do take government benefits and are still homeless, probably need more help than they currently get, which is sad, but I'm willing to bet some of them also need to stop spending their welfare checks on drugs and start spending it on rent

 

[bassistx]

They will, if you apply for welfare. There are measures in place to make sure that if for some reason you cannot provide basic things like food and shelter for yourself, the government will provide it for you.

But if you don't ask for help, you aren't going to be given any. The government can't read minds, if you don't tell them you're destitute how are they going to know? A lot of homeless people are too proud to go on welfare, which i think is a stupid mindset considering what their lives are like, but whatever. It's their choice. But those that choose not to accept help when it's offered don't deserve sympathy. Those that do take government benefits and are still homeless, probably need more help than they currently get, which is sad, but I'm willing to bet some of them also need to stop spending their welfare checks on drugs and start spending it on rent

Is "Because we're a communist state and everything should be free" a good enough reason? Do you think they will take you seriously or kick you out of their office?

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Is "Because we're a communist state and everything should be free" a good enough reason? Do you think they will take you seriously or kick you out of their office?

a good enough reason for what? be clearer about what you're trying to say

 

[bassistx]

They will, if you apply for welfare. There are measures in place to make sure that if for some reason you cannot provide basic things like food and shelter for yourself, the government will provide it for you.

"because we're communist" is not a legitimate reason for you not to work.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

"because we're communist" is not a legitimate reason for you not to work.

oh i see

i'm talking about the current government, not communists.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

oh i also should have made myself clearer

the reason i said that in the first place was to make the point that a capitalist state will still help the needy, hence welfare systems.

 

[bassistx]

I was talking about how capitalists like you are saying "I would not work if everything was free".
Make sense?

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

I was talking about how capitalists like you are saying "I would not work if everything was free".
Make sense?

yes it does now. sorry.

it might not be a legitimate reason, but people would take advantage of the system anyway. people will take advantage of anything given the opportunity.

 

[bassistx]

yes it does now. sorry.

it might not be a legitimate reason, but people would take advantage of the system anyway. people will take advantage of anything given the opportunity.

Take advantage of what? You're contradicting yourself.
What they get free is health care and education. Whether they have food in the fridge or not. How can they take advantage? You're not making sense.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Take advantage of what? You're contradicting yourself.
What they get free is health care and education. Whether they have food in the fridge or not. How can they take advantage? You're not making sense.

by take advantage, i mean, they wouldn't work, and they'd still get exactly the same benefits as people who do. how is that not taking advantage? if you take something without giving anything back (by working) you are taking advantage of the system, even if noone else within the system is affected but you.

i also fail to see why communism shouldn't provide food if it's going to provide other essential things like education and healthcare. that seems to be a contradiction, itself.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

A communist society doesn't allow people to mooch of the working electorate - that's what it's against.