• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pick your Poison - Communism or Capitalism? (Or Socialism?)

Which poison would you pick?


  • Total voters
    44
Wake said:
It is a spreading of the wealth, is it not?

It's a transformation of the entire socio-economic system, which is just a little more profound than "equal redistribution of wealth". In fact I don't think the phrase has much to do with socialism, which surpasses such an economist demand.

In essence, socialism is doing away with artificial scarcity and raising the level of production to such a point which capitalism is unable. As the productivity of society increases, so does societal wealth. This gives the exact opposite result than "shared poverty" (whatever that means).
 
Last edited:
I chose socialism, but only socialism defined by the neo-conservative base:

That being an idea system that has public goods and services being provided by government entities - not private. I am not anti-Capitalism, I just feel that there are certain goods and services that the private sector does not have the ethical ability to run.
 
It's a transformation of the entire socio-economic system, which is just a little more profound than "equal redistribution of wealth". In fact I don't think the phrase has much to do with socialism, which surpasses such an economist demand.

In essence, socialism is doing away with artificial scarcity and raising the level of production to such a point which capitalism is unable. As the productivity of society increases, so does societal wealth. This gives the exact opposite result than "shared poverty" (whatever that means).

What do you base such conjecture on, Khayembii Communique?

Dreams are such splendid things.

Until you awake.
 
What do you base such conjecture on, Khayembii Communique?

What conjecture? We certainly have the potential to do so now; it is just not done because it goes against the laws of the capitalist system. Artificial scarcity exists because it is embedded in the capitalist system itself. However the economic basis for socialism is already in place.

Employ the unemployed, reduce working hours, redirect resources away from profit-driven motives to need-based motives and there you go, didn't even have to go into any socialist mumbo jumbo about how a post-revolutionary economy would run.
 
Last edited:
Socialism puts a country on the road to poverty because it kills incentive and when you can get it free why work just to hive your money to someone who doesn't

Communism is the same except you get to add tyranny to the mix.

Neither of these systems have ever worked as long as Capitalism has here. In fact no system has worked as well and been as prosperous.

Our current problems are do to the mismanagement of a few made worse by an amateur in the White House.

People who have voted for Socialism don't know history or don't care about failing.
 
Human nature, my friend. Human nature.

I always find it depressing when conservatives (or really anyone, but it always seems to be conservatives who do this) argue so passionately that humans are, by our nature, selfish, evil beings who cannot rise above our baser instincts. We can, and we do, continually. Human nature is gregarious. We live in tribes and clans, and always have. It is only a matter of realizing that all the world (or at least all the country, in this case) is part of the same tribe.
 
Socialism puts a country on the road to poverty because it kills incentive and when you can get it free why work just to hive your money to someone who doesn't

Fundamentally, that's not how socialism works. You don't get it for free. How many times must this be repeated to you? Everyone works, and everyone benefits from that work. And unlike in a capitalist system, you don't need to shop around to find work, because the system would benefit from finding you work, instead of calling you selfish and lazy for not finding it yourself. Socialism doesn't even require that everyone would be compensated equally, just that everyone would receive the means to their necessities before others can have decadence. And we certainly have the means to make that happen.

If you're going to bash a system, please at least try to understand it first.

Also, people do a lot of things without the motivation of rewards. Great inventors worked tirelessly for a love of science. Preachers preach out of faith, not greed. Doctors (most of them, at least) just want to help people and save lives. For every money-obsessed corporate lawyer, I will raise you a dozen public defenders who barely make enough to live on and do nothing but help those who are unable to help themselves.
 
My poison would be: Pseudo Communism & Working Capitalism...
 
One way would be to take the strategy of The Venus Project. Wait for our financial system to completely crash, which it will, and use that opportunity to introduce the ideas of The Venus Project. If you haven't already, you should probably browse through that website. They even have programmers on their team working on the various computer programs they will need for their society at this present time. Basically, they are devoting their professional lives to a world better for human civilization as a whole.

Another way is by force. Maybe something happens and the population decide to take matters in their own hands and use the second amendment to its full potential. Overthrow the people in power, and then start implementing the ideas of The Venus Project.

Or somebody in The Venus Project obtains a seat in power, and slowly moves civilization towards that direction.

The Venus Project literally has a lot of it already thought out. What they need is the resources to back it up. Before you start throwing arguments back at me, I would actually suggest reading what The Venus Project has already done and thought out.

OMG, I'm literally laughing my ass off....I read the website and their plan is to build a building, produce a movie and then build a theme park to educate the masses. I mean you can't make this shtick up. That's just too funny. Oh my.
 
ksu_aviator is under the incredibly naive opinion that good choices provide rewards and bad ones negative consequences. Anyone that has lived in the real world for a short while knows this is not the case, so there really isn't any point debating him on this matter, as he is clearly divorced from reality.


The only way you can come to any other conclusion is if you believe everyone is a victim of their circumstances. Even if that was the case, I would rather make a good choice with bad consequences than have the government make a bad choice with good consequences. I choose freedom over socialism.
 
I am often puzzled by the fact that so many of the passionate critics of socialism have such a poor understanding of it.

Or...maybe....they have a good understanding of it and don't think it to be utopia.
 
Mixed economy. Avoid the worst elements of both capitalism and socialism.
 
"Communism is forced equality. Capitalism is forced inequality. I've picked my poison."

You may think him wrong, but he does have a point.

Should resources be distributed based on need or by ability?

That question exemplifies the fools errand that is choosing between communism and capitalism.
 
Should resources be distributed based on need or by ability?

That question exemplifies the fools errand that is choosing between communism and capitalism.

Both, depending on which gains the greater advantage for whatever particular situation.
 
It's a transformation of the entire socio-economic system, which is just a little more profound than "equal redistribution of wealth". In fact I don't think the phrase has much to do with socialism, which surpasses such an economist demand.

In essence, socialism is doing away with artificial scarcity and raising the level of production to such a point which capitalism is unable. As the productivity of society increases, so does societal wealth. This gives the exact opposite result than "shared poverty" (whatever that means).
The bolded bit is the nub of the issue for me. 'Artificial' because capitalism could, although inefficiently so, provide sufficient wealth to end the evils of want but, by its very nature, ensures that it doesn't in order to maintain the competition for resources that allows some to profit, others to suffer. Artificial also, because it limits the goals of endeavour and creativity to the cash nexus. What becomes prioritised is the production of goods and services that are the most profitable, not the most necessary. Thus, just one example, billions more are invested in research into cosmetic pharmaceuticals than into cures for ailments widespread in the poorer regions of the globe.
 
Democratic socialism would be my choice. That would essentially entail progressive tax rates, as though who control the most must pay a higher percentage. That would help ease such scenarios as that of the US, where 1% of the population controls 90% of the wealth. Also, it would include regulated capitalism.
 
"As to Communism and Capitalism, as a quote from, if I recall, Viktyr Korimir:

'Communism is forced equality. Capitalism is forced inequality. I've picked my poison.'"
- Wake

His sig is a lie.

Capitalism doesn't force inequality on anyone. People are free to choose to be losers and failures.

Under communism failure is forced upon everyone without choice.

Although I agree with you about communism and I voted for capitalism I think you went a little to far in your statement about inequality. For example a teacher, professor, government employee, union worker, etc. will receive less pay than say a doctor or lawyer, even though the good they produce is equally important. What it becomes in a capitalist world (at least sometimes) is the choice between a career that you are not necessarily in love with but where you make a substantial salary and substantial benefits v. a career that you love but where the benefits and salaries are significantly less. Thus I would argue that in a communist society there is "forced success", that is the individual has no freedom to measure their own success. Whereas in a capitalist world, if you work hard, you can decide what "success" means.
However I believe just because you don't make an outstanding salary does not make you a loser/failure. It is all dependent on your definition of success.
 
People forcing their ideas on other people kill people.
No idea where you got this from.......

That is why capitalism is the best choice. It forces nothing and leaves everything up to the individual.

I think a system where this is no state, no class, no money, and everything is owned in communally. Sounds perfect :)
 
I think a system where this is no state, no class, no money, and everything is owned in communally. Sounds perfect :)

That won't work as long as resources are scarce. There just isn't enough of everything that people want, for them to have as much as they want. If everyone shares something, then no one cares about it. It's the same reason why rental car customers almost never go to the car wash. Or why people often litter on the side of the road, but less often in their own backyard.

Furthermore, if everything is owned communally, people want more of everything. I'd love to have a mansion, six or seven fancy sports cars, a few hundred fancy electronic gizmos, and gourmet meals for lunch and dinner every day. The only reason I don't is because those things have a price attached to them because of their scarcity.
 
Last edited:
That won't work as long as resources are scarce. There just isn't enough of everything that people want, for them to have as much as they want.
Yes, there is. Its the previously mentioned artifical scarcity that is the essential feature of corporatist capitalism that ensures people do not get what they need. It's not about having everything you want. 'Want' is a social construct, one that the entire capitalist media and advertising industry is in business to create.
If everyone shares something, then no one cares about it. It's the same reason why rental car customers almost never go to the car wash.
Or because they only keep the car on average for a week? And most cars don't get very dirty in just a week. Bad example.
Furthermore, if everything is owned communally, people want more of everything.
Not unless they are being bombarded 24/7 by messages from people who tell them what they should want.
I'd love to have a mansion, six or seven fancy sports cars, a few hundred fancy electronic gizmos, and gourmet meals for lunch and dinner every day. The only reason I don't is because those things have a price attached to them because of their scarcity.
And yet, if you got all those things, do you think you would be instantly happy? If you think you would, I'd recommend spending a day attending a divorce court hearing between a couple of insanely rich people.
 
Yes, there is. Its the previously mentioned artifical scarcity that is the essential feature of corporatist capitalism that ensures people do not get what they need. It's not about having everything you want. 'Want' is a social construct, one that the entire capitalist media and advertising industry is in business to create.

So people didn't have any wants before there was a "capitalist media and advertising industry"?

Andalublue said:
Or because they only keep the car on average for a week? And most cars don't get very dirty in just a week. Bad example.

If the rental car company didn't clean it, no one would EVER take it to the car wash. Another example: Why do people voluntarily take the time to clean their homes, but usually not their office buildings (unless it's their job to do so)? Because it's a shared area, and therefore somebody else's problem. This is the prevailing attitude toward ANY public property. It's also why overfishing occurs in public waters, but less so in privately-owned fishing farms.

Andalublue said:
Not unless they are being bombarded 24/7 by messages from people who tell them what they should want.

Wrong. People will want more if there isn't a price attached to it. This has been tried in the Soviet Union, where advertising was very limited. And yet the shelves in stores were frequently bare, because people wanted more than what was available. Markets are a good (but imperfect) mechanism for dealing with this problem in most situations.

Andalublue said:
And yet, if you got all those things, do you think you would be instantly happy? If you think you would, I'd recommend spending a day attending a divorce court hearing between a couple of insanely rich people.

No. What does that have to do with anything?
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
I think a system where this is no state, no class, no money, and everything is owned in communally. Sounds perfect

Feel free to join any number of African tribes and villages if you believe this to be true. Ignore the average lifespan and AIDS rates - that's just capitalist propaganda.

People are not equal. The people who say otherwise are the ones on the losing side of average.
 
Back
Top Bottom