Capitalism VS Comunism

[A Demented Goldfish]

This thread is to discuss, in the modern age (so no soviet union crap) which form of goverment works best.

NOT the one which is most popular or best for the common man but wich is best to run a country if you want it to last and prosper.

I say communism, simply becase that whilst the western world was in recesion, Chinas economy was booming

[JP226]

Soviet Union not modern?

and: "I say communism, simply becase that whilst the western world was in recesion, Chinas economy was booming "

=

Fail

[A Demented Goldfish]

Soviet Union not modern?

Well ok lests say the year 2000 plus

[Cussa]

Soviet Union not modern?

and: "I say communism, simply becase that whilst the western world was in recesion, Chinas economy was booming "

=

Fail

So was India. another developing country that sustains its growth on internal growth mechanisms rather than external like many countries that crumbled under the recession, your point?

Also like mentioned by several posters above, Communism in it's pure form doesn't exist.

The best form of government is a Socialist-Capitalist one.

WIN-WIN!

- Cussa

[JP226]

So why is China better?

[CarbEast]

China doesn't have communism.

As a matter of fact, no country to this day had communism.

[Jaketh]

China isnt communist, they introduced capitalism into their economy to prevent them from going to the way of the USSR

[The spartan]

Capitalism is by far the best way to LAST. Depends on what you mean by "prosper" though.

[JP226]

So was India. another developing country that sustains its growth on internal growth mechanisms rather than external like many countries that crumbled under the recession, your point?

ohhh this is cute. Undeveloped countries maintain high growth rates because they are undeveloped. If I have 1 cent and I get 5 cents what's my growth rate? If I have a million dollars and I get 2 million, what's my growth rate?

[Cussa]

ohhh this is cute. Undeveloped countries maintain high growth rates because they are undeveloped. If I have 1 cent and I get 5 cents what's my growth rate? If I have a million dollars and I get 2 million, what's my growth rate?

It's all relative!

I'm saying their growth rates compared to their economies are higher, and in the positive.

Compared to the developed nations which cannot sustain them.

I'm not favoring one or the other, I'm stating a fact.

- Cussa

[Kiljan Arslan]

capitalism as long as it has a few fail safes in place.

[Landsknecht_88]

This thread is to discuss, in the modern age (so no soviet union crap) which form of goverment works best.

NOT the one which is most popular or best for the common man but wich is best to run a country if you want it to last and prosper.

I say communism, simply becase that whilst the western world was in recesion, Chinas economy was booming

You do realize that China's economic success as of late is because they have started leaning more towards Market Liberalism, don't you?

[A Demented Goldfish]

You do realize that China's economic success as of late is because they have started leaning more towards Market Liberalism, don't you?

yes but their goverment is still communist

[Landsknecht_88]

yes but their goverment is still communist

That's true. But now we are debating Capitalism vs. Communism, and the Communist economic system itself is not what has contributed to China's recent prosperity. If anything, I would say that China's prosperity is better used as an argument in favor of Market Liberalism. The Market Liberal reforms in China do however show that even Communists are capable of economic pragmatism.

China doesn't have communism.

As a matter of fact, no country to this day had communism.

And there are no countries that have been purely Capitalist either for that matter. But I guess that you understand that when one speaks of a Communist economy, one's speaking of an economy that's largely handled by the state.

[CarbEast]

And there are no countries that have been purely Capitalist either for that matter.

Communism has been implemented neither in pure nor in dirty form.

But I guess that you understand that when one speaks of a Communist economy, one's speaking of an economy that's largely handled by the state.

Which usually implies that "one" is American and he speaks about Obama policies. The problem is that from academic point of view this is complete BS. Economy that's handled by the state is not definition of communism, not even close. In fact "pure" communism implies that state doesn't even exist.

[Alkarin]

yes but their goverment is still communist

no, they're government is authoritarian. I do believe that's the most audacious thing ive ever heard. Communism is a economic policy, not a governmental one. Infact, Communism is the absence of a government. Let alone ANYTHING like the Chinese have. Just because they call themselves communist doesn't make them communist. I can say im 12 ft tall but it doesnt make me 12 ft tall.

Practice?When in God's name has Capitalism been used?!?!

Argentina during the early 2000s....mind you it ended in disaster. With thousands starving and dying. Neo-Liberalism is incredibly disastrous, that is why all capitalist countries today are not COMPLETELY capitalist, for there are some regulations. Even in the US.


And saying communism as an ideology failed because the soviet states fell, is like saying capitalism fails because of any capitalist country ever has fallen. It's juvenile to come to such an assumption. Especially when the Soviet Economy was in a constant period of growth for the last 3 decades of its existence, it fell because of a coup. JUST LIKE ANY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH CAN FALL.


I can't help but constantly facepalm at the arguments being made by both sides in this thread.

What is this guy smoking? Resources with always be scarce, capital decays without maintenance, demand is only limited by what people produce they will always want more new trinkets.

We have the technology to mine asteriods which have virtually infinite amounts of resources, but we don't. Because having a surplus of something does not make profits. Scarcity does. So we artificially create scarcity in our markets to make more money. For the Food Industry for example. America alone creates enough food to feed the entire planet. yet there are 1 billion people on the planet that are starving. This is because the corporations that run the food industry pay their farmers either to not grow food, or instead burn the surplus of their quota

its basic economics.

[Knight_of_Ni]

I thought that Communism (some say it is a feasible type of government(well not a government but you know what I mean)) was a utopian ideal that will only ever come to pass if everyone has brain surgery to remove the impulse of greed.

And I thought that Capitalism was an economic system that, if unchecked whatsoever, completely screws over its workers.

Niether of them are a type of government. So....I can't really tell you if which one would be a better form of government.

[Alkarin]

I thought that Communism (some say it is a feasible type of government(well not a government but you know what I mean)) was a utopian ideal that will only ever come to pass if everyone has brain surgery to remove the impulse of greed.

And I thought that Capitalism was an economic system that, if unchecked whatsoever, completely screws over its workers.

Niether of them are a type of government. So....I can't really tell you if which one would be a better form of government.

The impulse of greed is created by societal factors. But im not saying its impossible to feel greed even in a perfect utopian society...it had to come from somewhere

Capitalism inhibits governmental structures that are more of a head, instead of acting in effect, Either the government is authoritarian, and forthright carries out the interest of the corporations in charge, or the government can even be a democracy, but the democracy in itself is useless since everything that goes on in the country is ran by the corporations anyways, so the government is more of a show than an actual GOVERNMENTAL body.


Saying Capitalism Vs Communism is not really a topic, since your not saying which is the best for what? Morals? Longevity? Efficiency? And even then you can still have lengthy debates due to arguements from both sides.

[Nevins]

We have the technology to mine asteriods which have virtually infinite amounts of resources, but we don't. Because having a surplus of something does not make profits. Scarcity does. So we artificially create scarcity in our markets to make more money. For the Food Industry for example. America alone creates enough food to feed the entire planet. yet there are 1 billion people on the planet that are starving. This is because the corporations that run the food industry pay their farmers either to not grow food, or instead burn the surplus of their quota

its basic economics.

You seem to have forgotten transportation costs. We cannot mine asteroids because its insanely expensive just to get into orbit, much less to Jupiter. The starvation issue is linked to transportation as well, much of the charitable food simply cannot get to the people who need due to infrastructural problems.

[Alkarin]

You seem to have forgotten transportation costs. We cannot mine asteroids because its insanely expensive just to get into orbit, much less to Jupiter. The starvation issue is linked to transportation as well, much of the charitable food simply cannot get to the people who need due to infrastructural problems.

its only expensive because we don't want to expand on that market, because it wont make profits, the second you have a stable train of supply to asteroids people aren't going to be paying big bucks for metals of any sort after that. And sending robots into space is ridiculously cheaper than sending people into space. its actually fairly easy, and i actually know a few people who do work at NASA in the united states, and one of them said they could easily do it. If they were given permission. But NASA gets less funding than companies that create new weaponry because they are such a low priority. because such advancements aren't good for the market.

If you have set wages, there can be no incentive. You get the same amount of money for producing 1 as you would 1000. That is not an incentive.

the incentive to working hard is you will in return receive the benefits of others who also work hard in there own respective fields....not money...and no you wouldn't get paid the same for producing 1 item compared to 1000. you get paid for what you earned (if your daftly talking about a socialistic system that is based on monetary economics) kind of what capitalism claims it does. but in reality, capitalism just pays you more if you are in control of a business. not for working hard, if so. why does a neurological scientist make 1/50 of that of a stock broker on walstreet who does virtually nothing and takes no real intellectual inclination to carry out his job.