Capitalism versus Communism Thread.

Post Reply New Topic

is it wrong to say that in its very nature, capitalism will always lead to a "runaway" economy, unless some forms of regulations are set up to prevent it?

No, this is basically an accurate observation. Capitalism = inflation and ecocide.
They are inevitable without moderation and some industries are logicaly the domain of centralised organisation, this, where essential to the function of the comunal body of the society is ultimately the rightful property of the comunal body and should be administered by it's governing or managing body.

peace j

Communism.

the why do the communist countries have inferior standards of living. Even China which is becoming more capitalistic as time goes by still has a very large population that lives in poverty. Ditto for India.

ruveyn

If you read some books then you would find the rather complex answers to this question lie in failings of the method of the revolution in China [which has still managed to deliver a widespread and consistent improvement in quality of life], comparable starting point vis a vis level of industrialisation, the impact of war colonial powers on pre revolution China etc, etc, etc. the rape of India and the overturning of social structures and their replacement with 'client' structures by the Raj etc, etc, etc.

But then again 'those damn books, hell you can prove anything with facts'...

j

India is capitalist. It used to have some socialists elements, but those have by in large been done away with. I assume they might still have a bit more regulation than most countries, but that's all.

Also, both India and China were poor to start with. It's a big job to bring a billion people from poverty to affluence. Not to say a better job couldn't have been done, but I don't know how much better.

none of them wrk on their own, a state needs the capital an active buisness life promotes, they also need to maintain the health(mental and physical) of their citizens, to the extent it doesnt cut into personal freedom.

this discussion would be far more fruitfull if we started discussing what responsibilities belong to who in this debate.

i think a country has a responsibility to make life as hassle free as possible for its citizens, free to pursue what they want individually, none of the above can do this in itself.
the danish system has a lot of "nanny" rules, most i find ridicoulous at best, some are legitimate(mostly traffic), some force harm directly upon individuals.
i will be voting socialist but in a very liberal context, we have a building socialist movement now due to the horrible choices of our previous liberal governments, but i feel the gap over here is more of an overlap.

Actually neither is the case. Both communism/socialism and capitalism/private ownership are of Man. They are two different ways of dealing with property. One sees property as the common holding of the tribe/family/nation the other sees property as private holdings of individuals or voluntary associations of individuals.

It turns out capitalism is better a material production, but it it has short falls in dealing with human deficiencies. Capitalist societies do not do as well in dealing with idiots, cripples, incompetents and habitually unproductive folk (other than letting then starve). If everyone were bright, beautiful, smart and ambitious then capitalism would be the only workable system. But over half the people alive aren't worth the effort that goes into feeding them.

ruveyn

Are there any industrialized market economy nations where people are starving?

Are there any Communist nations where people are starving? Yes. North Korea

ruveyn

Modern society is much bigger than a tribe, so a hierarchy is going to manifest accordingly to the fact that modern society provides an infrastructure through which resources and communication can effectively be given/done through. We have grocery stores, so we don't face the risk of starving if we don't tag along with our tribes and hunt. Given the higher autonomy that modern society grants us, it's not that capitalism somehow corrupts our nature but that the hierarchy manifests accordingly to the convenience of modern society.

There would be no capitalism among tribes since there is no infrastructure like the ones modern society has established. The way cavemen adapt to this doesn't mean capitalism is inherently evil. I notice that big welfare states are usually small countries with small populations. This extent of collectivism is unsuitable for bigger countries with bigger populations since there are more providers of resources and means of communication in em which grant more individual autonomy.

Well, people on the street are starving in industrialized nations. And the problem with Communist nations is that they are dictatorships, with corrupt and/or misguided men at the top. North Korean life could probably be a lot better for the people if the economy was directed towards improving living conditions. Unfortunately they have a government that thinks all of the resources should be directed towards th military.

And in the quasi-socialist nations that are industrialized (Singapore, some in Europe) there aren't really people starving. From what I know the Nordic countries have some of the lowest poverty rates around.

Sweden. They operate a market ecconomy with very high tax rates and excellent centralised social services. The only trully working class travellers I have met that were not doing their OE/gap year travelling but actually having adult holidays while home awaits their return were Swedish factory workers - excellent english, highly educated with good teeth and domestic standards of living and factory workers - something is being done right over there.

Although I can not claim to have met anyone from Sweden, those are my thoughts exactly. Plus Sweden, Denmark, and the other Nordic countries tend to score very high on happiness surveys--much higher than the USA. Check the Wikipedia article if you don't believe me. Unfortunately, in North America there are people (ex: Canada's Prime Minister) who dismiss it as a "Socialist Welfare State" and want to avoid other countries becoming like it at all costs.

Happiness is a matter of opinion. Life/death/health/sickness are matters of fact.

One man's happy is another man's stupidity.

ruveyn

But they are very healthy countries, from what I know. (Life expectancy in the Nordic countries is a few years longer than in America). And they are among the most sustainable. And cities such as Copenhagen and Helsinki are considered some of the world's most livable. Anyway, what is the point of living a long life if you are miserable?

Under Capitalism Greed and corruption is good. Everything is allowable to make a profit under real capitalism. Government regulation and laws are interference in a free for all market economy.

Under Socialism/Capitalism Greed and Corruption is bad. Every worker should be available to work and earn a living and paid according to how much they contribute towards society under Socialism or paid equally regardless of skill under Communism.

In reality Socialism and Communism do not work because human instinct is motivated by their own selfishness , greed and corruption. The Capitalist system is similar to human's individual self interest by profit motif, greed and corruption.

Make a profit and keep it all for oneself you are a Capitalism. share it with your own family and friends you are a Socialist. Share the wealth equally with strangers and enemies you are a Communist.