Capitalism and Communism

Page 2 of 2 [ 32 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Oct 2013, 4:49 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:

LKL wrote:

what if the statements specified 'artificially induced' misery?

LKL, can you go into this further? You may be onto something.

RushKing pointed out that some people, due to psychology and genetics (internal factors), will never be happy regardless of the comfort they live in. On the other hand, various economic systems do drive miserable external conditions that will make some people unhappy regardless of their internal factors. Capitalism has arguably gone too far in that it keeps lots of people at the lower ends of the socioeconomic ladder in misery regardless of how hard they work or strive; Communism, when it's taken too far, keeps people in misery for the same reason. No matter how hard they strive, they cannot advance themselves.

Threore
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 18 Oct 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 176

31 Oct 2013, 5:06 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:

Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth.

In simple terms, capitalism uses the unequal distribution of wealth to encourage work. Any capitalist system will therefore requirer some inequality of wealth.

Quote:

Capitalism is the unequal distribution of misery.

Only insofar misery is caused or cured by wealth.

Quote:

Communism is the equal distribution of wealth.

Obviously true, this is the main point of communism.

Quote:

Communism is the equal distribution of misery.

It is not unreasonable to assume that a system that tries to distribute wealth evenly would also attempt to compensate for various causes of misery. Whether that is enough to make it equal depends on the specific implementation and your definition of equal.

GGPViper wrote:

There appears to be no definitive link between (in)equality and capitalism/communism. Depending on choice of method, capitalism is likely to either increase or decrease inequality

Interesting outcome. But given that capitalism, by definition, requires some inequality of wealth, and communism, by definition, requires complete equality of wealth, shouldn't the conclusion be that either;
- neither capitalism nor communism exist in a pure enough form to show significant correlation
- or other factors have too large an influence on inequality for the correlation to be noticeable?

Fnord wrote:

How dare you introduce valid data and verifiable facts into this discussion? Don't you realize that they could offend a lot of Socialists, Communists, and other Share-the-Wealth types? Not to mention those who simply lack what ever it takes to become successful on their own ...

Why would you compliment someone on using facts in the discussion and then turn around and start throwing around biased nonsense?

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,958

31 Oct 2013, 5:28 pm

Threore wrote:

cubedemon6073 wrote:

Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth.

In simple terms, capitalism uses the unequal distribution of wealth to encourage work. Any capitalist system will therefore requirer some inequality of wealth.

Quote:

Capitalism is the unequal distribution of misery.

Only insofar misery is caused or cured by wealth.

Quote:

Communism is the equal distribution of wealth.

Obviously true, this is the main point of communism.

Quote:

Communism is the equal distribution of misery.

GGPViper wrote:

There appears to be no definitive link between (in)equality and capitalism/communism. Depending on choice of method, capitalism is likely to either increase or decrease inequality

Fnord wrote:

Why would you compliment someone on using facts in the discussion and then turn around and start throwing around biased nonsense?

He does that all of the time. He is baiting.

trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

31 Oct 2013, 5:36 pm

WorldsEdge wrote:

GoonSquad wrote:

So, do you endorse Canadian style "Capitalism" complete with its obviously "capitalist" universal health care?

It did seem odd that Denmark, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are all considered MORE capitalist than the USA. Or at any rate more "economically free," whatever that might mean.

And that Hong Kong is considered a "country?" Not even sure what that's about.

The USA became commonly known as the #1 capitalist country because they were the main opponent of the Soviet Union I guess, not because their system is completely capitalist.

Since Hong Kong became part of China they have operated under a different political and economic system than China, they call the policy "One country, two systems". So for the purposes of ranking their economic freedom, it might make sense to list them separately.

albedo
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 11 Jul 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 293

31 Oct 2013, 6:02 pm

GoonSquad wrote:

Fnord wrote:

So, do you endorse Canadian style "Capitalism" complete with its obviously "capitalist" universal health care?

I'm sure most of us American commies would settle for that.

Universal healthcare isn't communist, just like having some municipal services doe not make a country communist. We have had universal healthcare for 80 years UK, been through several government, none of them got rid of it. It is universally popular.

You would be hard pressed to find a Conservative that wants to get rid of in. Not only did Marget Thatcher not wish to shut it down she actively defended it.

Intelligent people are pragmatic and come up with pragmatic solutions.

By that definition US is more communist that UK or Argentina. Why? becuase every time you take a shower, or turn on the tap, you are consuming Communist water you pinko creeps!! Seriously though we have been consuming capitalist water for near on 20 years.

I'm not here to tell US what to do in terms of water, I''m just making it obvious that you can't talk of thing you have never experienced.

Often countries use the benchmark of their best hospitals. However this is not a very good metric. Your worst hospitals in the US, my word I have seen better in developing countries, and I have lived all over the world. Even some hospital that have underperformed in the UK and have even been shut down becuase of the don't even compare to how bad some of these hospitals are in some states. I have never seen such cramp operating theaters, staff shouting over each other, with lack of direction, poorly organized, bad layout, etc.

So it is not a question of if you have to do something about it. You need to do something about it. What you do you need to figure out yourselves, but you do well not shoot yourself in the foot by covering your ears to alternative models.

Of course you have some outstanding hospitals, but you have some way to go to bring up the overall standard.

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

31 Oct 2013, 6:57 pm

Botswana chose capitalism at the same time as Zimbawe chose a Soviet-based socialism. Allthough still poor, Botswana is nevertheless a Sub-Saharan country that's actually growing.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

31 Oct 2013, 7:17 pm

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/10/four-major ... rosperity/

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

pete1061
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,766
Location: Portland, OR

01 Nov 2013, 3:32 am

thomas81 wrote:

pete1061 wrote:

In true capitalism, people enjoy the fruits of their own labor.
.

I would actually question that.

The political author George Monbiot recently made a very true statement, "if under capitalism, hard work equated to success, then every woman in africa who walks miles just to get water should be super rich".

The case is very often under capitalism that labour, with the exception of a few individuals rarely reaps true fruits in relation to the amount of work done. Conversely, you have people living in immense privilege for no reason other than being lucky enough to slide out of the right vagina.

You do have a valid point.

_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005

pete1061
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,766
Location: Portland, OR

01 Nov 2013, 3:43 am

I would also like to caution people not to confuse modern corporatism with true capitalism.
The economic system in the west that many call capitalism, is not. In corporatism, a few major players at the top manipulate governments to have laws passed to suit their needs and severely hinder new competition to enter the marketplace. Also in corporatism, there is no human held accountable for the actions of a business.

But that there is the major flaw in capitalism, eventually it decays into corporatism.

The world still has yet to come up with an economic system that works well.
Both communism & capitalism have critical flaws.

In whatever system, the biggest problem is the concentration of power into the hands of a few, which leads to corruption & tyranny.

_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

04 Nov 2013, 12:37 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:

Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth.
Capitalism is the unequal distribution of misery.

Communism is the equal distribution of wealth.
Communism is the equal distribution of misery.

Are any of these statements true or false. Which ones are true and which are false? After that, please give your reasoning as to why.

First can you define what you mean by communism. Why do I ask this, simple really, I want to understand how much you understand concerning the topic you have raised.

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,958

04 Nov 2013, 9:05 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

cubedemon6073 wrote:

First can you define what you mean by communism. Why do I ask this, simple really, I want to understand how much you understand concerning the topic you have raised.

No problem,

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... /communism

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

04 Nov 2013, 3:33 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:

No problem,

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... /communism

Ok so that entry is very interesting, It correctly ascribes the political theory to Karl Marx. It then however very erroneously links Marx to bureaucratic dictatorships.

So to answer your question under a truly communist society as theorised by Marx the world would be a very pleasant socially and technologically advanced place and your maxims would be wrong. Your maxims are also wrong from a stalinist and maoist perspective as there is far from an equitable distribution of wealth in these systems.

Might I suggest you read this:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/mani-o14.html

Zyg
Butterfly

Joined: 4 Nov 2013
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 12

06 Nov 2013, 1:39 am

I think putting 'Communism' and 'Capitalism' against each other like this is a false dichotomy. There are more than two choices.

Second, I agree with the poster who said that we do not live in a Capitalist economy.. we do not. It is a Corporatist economy, bordering on Neo-Feudalism. If we were strictly Capitalist, we would not bail out corporations, give any of them tax benefits, subsidies or incentives, etc. All corporations would have to live or die by the market.

Also, such a pure Capitalist system doesn't preclude the addition of social programs and protections, provided by the government. Not all resources need to be privately held.. resources held in the common good is neither Communist or Capitalist. How we protect resources and our populace from exploitation is neither Communist nor Capitalist if such resources and programs are paid for by taxes (or revenue, in the communist case), and held in the common good. It only means that we have taken those things out of the market (in the Capitalist sense), or that we have sequestered them away from the state's apparatus (Communist sense) in order to preserve them. We're removing them from the direct economy, and from the line of economic power descending from government.

So, a single payer health care system, publicly held water reserves, publicly held oil reserves, mining, forests, etc.. none of that is particularly Capitalistic or Communistic... even though we have been told over and over again that they are :-)

How we use them NOW is Capitalist, or Socialistic.. depending on the resource or program (oil being a great example of a resource that drives the World Economy).. but it doesn't have to be.

old_badger
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 41

08 Nov 2013, 12:02 pm

GGPViper wrote:

I think that the statements in the OP would need qualification to make sense.

Here are the top 10 most capitalist countries in the world (Measured by the Index of Economic Freedom) and with their corresponding inequality score (measured by their GINI score (higher = less equal) according to the World Bank):

1. Hong Kong (53.3)
2. Singapore (48.1)
3. Australia (30.5)
4. New Zealand (36.2)
5. Switzerland (33.7)
6. Canada (32.6)
7. Chile (52.1)
8. Mauritius (39.0)*
9. Denmark (24.0)**
10. United States (45.0)

The bottom 10 scorers on the Index of Economic Freedom are:

169. Iran (38.3)
170. Turkmenistan (40.

170. Equatorial Guinea*** (65.0)
171. Congo (47.3)
172. Myanmar*** (40.0)
173. Eritrea (No data)
174. Venezuela (44.

175. Zimbabwe (50.1)
176. Cuba*** (30.0)
177. North Korea*** (31.0)

However, this is a difficult comparison. A high score on the Index of Economic Freedom is definately an indicator of capitalism, given its components, a low score may be due to corruption, which is (as far as I know) not a necessary condition for communism.

So I consulted Wikipedia (the Truth, the whole Tooth, and nothing but the Ruth), and came up with the following list of socialist countries (unranked - same source for GINI):

China (47.0)
Cuba*** (30.0)
Laos (36.7)
Vietnam (35.6)
Bangladesh (32.1)
Guyana (44.5)
India (33.4)
North Korea*** (31.0)
Portugal (38.5)
Sri Lanka (40.3)
Tanzania (37.6)

Summary:
There appears to be no definitive link between (in)equality and capitalism/communism. Depending on choice of method, capitalism is likely to either increase or decrease inequality

However, since highly capitalist countries also tend to be very wealthy countries (7 of the top 10 capitalist countries above are among the 20 richest countries in the world according to The World Bank), having a lower share of society income in a highly capitalist country is likely to provide a higher standard of living than a higher share of society income in a highly communist/socialist country.

Sources:
http://www.heritage.org/index/explore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _transfers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_so ... _countries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

*No World Bank data. CIA data used instead.
**Lowest income inequality in the world according to the World Bank.
***No World Bank Data. World Peace Index Data used instead.

What is your definition of economic freedom? Whose economic freedom? Clearly this was published by the oligarchy. It is not scientific data.

Under desperate attempts to generate hysteria, they lump together countries with entirely different political systems.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Nov 2013, 8:52 am

GoonSquad wrote:

Fnord wrote:

So, do you endorse Canadian style "Capitalism" complete with its obviously "capitalist" universal health care?

I'm sure most of us American commies would settle for that.

The first attempt by a modern industrial nation to introduce universal health care was in Bismark's Germany. Universal Health care is a way of insuring the risk of ill health, not a socialist plot.

ruveyn

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

09 Nov 2013, 9:12 am

I actually keep a copy of this photograph in my study, such a powerful image.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Page 2 of 2 [ 32 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Jump to:

Capitalism and Communism Post Reply New Topic

Capitalism and Communism