Communism Vs Capitalism

lala88

Not sure if this is the right place for this but anyway. Was talking to a Polish friend of mine the other day and he said he was just back from Poland. I was asking him how things were over there etc and he said to me that he tuaght Poland was better off under communist rule! I asked why and he said when they were a communist country that there was never any homeless people and now there everywhere! How he said communism may not be the best but he said it seemed alot better then capitalism. People may not what to admit be but capitalism is alot of the reson Ireland is the may it is now

What do people think?

TiGeR KiNgS

lala88 wrote: »

Not sure if this is the right place for this but anyway. Was talking to a Polish friend of mine the other day and he said he was just back from Poland. I was asking him how things were over there etc and he said to me that he tuaght Poland was better off under communist rule! I asked why and he said when they were a communist country that there was never any homeless people and now there everywhere! How he said communism may not be the best but he said it seemed alot better then capitalism. People may not what to admit be but capitalism is alot of the reson Ireland is the may it is now

What do people think?

Because they were sent to the gulags or forced labour camps.

Boom and Bust is a fact of life in Capitalism. The benefits of this far outweigh communism.

RichardAnd

TiGeR KiNgS wrote: »

Because they were sent to the gulags or forced labour camps.

And leaving them on the street is just magnanimous eh.

Capitalism and Communism both have positives and they both have negatives. An extreme case of either will be bad. The key is to find the best mix of the pair, not an easy thing to do.

TiGeR KiNgS

RichardAnd wrote: »

And leaving them on the street is just magnanimous eh.
.

A Gulag was a death sentence.

Domitius Felix Invictus Aurelianus

Germany was better off under the Nazis, at least for a brief period. Communism is/was clearly another way of state control over EVERYTHING and ANYTHING the individual can or is allowed to do. id rather live in a poor broke country that live in one that treats people like robots and inevitably ends up destroyed by its foreign polices and wars.

andrew

If only there was some metric other than homelessness with which we could judge different economic systems. :pac:

Zonda999

Well, IMHO, you'll soon get into an argument trying to gauge people's perceived quality of life in capitalist and communist states. Perceived quality of life and happiness of the population are very different things however, not that that has anything to do with the economy of a country. Look at North and South Korea for a good example of thw two, capitalism at work in one, and a supposedly 'communist' dicatatorship in the other(As in communism for 99% of the population)

Suryavarman

lala88 wrote: »

Not sure if this is the right place for this but anyway. Was talking to a Polish friend of mine the other day and he said he was just back from Poland. I was asking him how things were over there etc and he said to me that he tuaght Poland was better off under communist rule! I asked why and he said when they were a communist country that there was never any homeless people and now there everywhere! How he said communism may not be the best but he said it seemed alot better then capitalism. People may not what to admit be but capitalism is alot of the reson Ireland is the may it is now

What do people think?

I'm guessing you are referring to the fact that Ireland is one of the richest countries in the world?

scotty_irish

I could recommend some reading for you which might change your mind on that one.

What age is your friend? Is he by any chance to young to properly remember Communist life?

Liam Byrne

Domitius Pius Felix Invictus Aurelianus wrote: »

Germany was better off under the Nazis, at least for a brief period. Communism is/was clearly another way of state control over EVERYTHING and ANYTHING the individual can or is allowed to do. id rather live in a poor broke country that live in one that treats people like robots and inevitably ends up destroyed by its foreign polices and wars.

Off-topic I know, but on mobile that post has 4.2 billion thanks !!!! :eek:

RichieC

I think they're both failed experiments at the extremes of ideology, unless someone can think of an altogether new one we're just going to have to settle somewhere in the middle.

Suryavarman

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Off-topic I know, but on mobile that post has 4.2 billion thanks !!!! :eek:

It has that many thanks on a computer as well!

irishh_bob

lala88 wrote: »

Not sure if this is the right place for this but anyway. Was talking to a Polish friend of mine the other day and he said he was just back from Poland. I was asking him how things were over there etc and he said to me that he tuaght Poland was better off under communist rule! I asked why and he said when they were a communist country that there was never any homeless people and now there everywhere! How he said communism may not be the best but he said it seemed alot better then capitalism. People may not what to admit be but capitalism is alot of the reson Ireland is the may it is now

What do people think?

under communism , those in ireland on the bottom rung of the economic ladder would be considerabley worse off

laoisfella

RichieC wrote: »

I think they're both failed experiments at the extremes of ideology, unless someone can think of an altogether new one we're just going to have to settle somewhere in the middle.

help 1 another would be bang rite in the middle me thinks. any other way is either up or down.

matthew8

And my Ukrainian friend was recently telling me about how his parents often had to eat dog food in Soviet Russia. You can't get an image of a country or an ideology through tidbits of information from people who lived there.

Liam Byrne

Suryavarman wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Off-topic I know, but on mobile that post has 4.2 billion thanks !!!! :eek:

It has that many thanks on a computer as well!

Kevin Cardiff got a new job in charge of boards.ie stats ?

RichieC

matthew8 wrote: »

And my Ukrainian friend was recently telling me about how his parents often had to eat dog food in Soviet Russia. You can't get an image of a country or an ideology through tidbits of information from people who lived there.

Chile was uber liberal capitalist under general pinochet who slaughtered people. does anyone blame capitalism on that? no, they blame the authoritarian regime.

not with Stalin and the rest of his boys, no, the economic ideology they chose is to blame..

double standards.

andrew

RichieC wrote: »

matthew8 wrote: »

And my Ukrainian friend was recently telling me about how his parents often had to eat dog food in Soviet Russia. You can't get an image of a country or an ideology through tidbits of information from people who lived there.

Chile was uber liberal capitalist under general pinochet who slaughtered people. does anyone blame capitalism on that? no, they blame the authoritarian regime.

not with Stalin and the rest of his boys, no, the economic ideology they chose is to blame..

double standards.

Both capitalism and communism are flawed. The reason people blame communism for authoritarianism is that communism's flaw seems to be a strong tendency toward dictatorship. in practice, its hard to appropriate the populations property without being a an all powerful dictator. in contrast, capitalism doesn't tend to lead to authoritarianism. it's flawed real world implementations lead to many bad things, but not dictatorships.

RichieC

andrew wrote: »

Both capitalism and communism are flawed. The reason people blame communism for authoritarianism is that communism's flaw seems to be a strong tendency toward dictatorship. in practice, its hard to appropriate the populations property without being a an all powerful dictator. in contrast, capitalism doesn't tend to lead to authoritarianism. it's flawed real world implementations lead to many bad things, but not dictatorships.

You're putting the cart in front of the horse to justify your western bias.

andrew

RichieC wrote: »

andrew wrote: »

Both capitalism and communism are flawed. The reason people blame communism for authoritarianism is that communism's flaw seems to be a strong tendency toward dictatorship. in practice, its hard to appropriate the populations property without being a an all powerful dictator. in contrast, capitalism doesn't tend to lead to authoritarianism. it's flawed real world implementations lead to many bad things, but not dictatorships.

You're putting the cart in front of the horse to justify your western bias.

So you're saying that there were dictators, and then they tried to implement communism? why is it that there has never been a state which democratically decided to go communist then? I'd say its because communism is impossible to implement democratically; humans are inherently self interested and selfish, and nothing can change that.

Suryavarman

RichieC wrote: »

Chile was uber liberal capitalist under general pinochet who slaughtered people. does anyone blame capitalism on that? no, they blame the authoritarian regime.

not with Stalin and the rest of his boys, no, the economic ideology they chose is to blame..

double standards.

The thread was started with anecdotal evidence saying that communism was better than capitalism. Matthew8 then presented contradictory anecdotal evidence before dismissing the use of anecdotal evidence to contrast systems. You then go on a big rant about Pinochet. There's no double standards here, it's just you getting all worked up because you hate capitalism.

Eric Cartman

capitalism puts everyone in the best position to make what they want of life, it provides freedom, choice and competition and drives down prices. Socialism pidgeonholes everybody, lets everyone be lazy and creates the culture of mooching that can be seen all over Ireland today

RichieC

Eric Cartman wrote: »

capitalism puts everyone in the best position to make what they want of life, it provides freedom, choice and competition and drives down prices. Socialism pidgeonholes everybody, lets everyone be lazy and creates the culture of mooching that can be seen all over Ireland today

What a great post card. reality is rather more different.

sarumite

RichieC wrote: »

What a great post card. reality is rather more different.

The reality is thatcommunism is a failed philosphy. It just doesn't work as well as capitalism.

breadmonster

In a strange kinda way it feels like were living in a communist state as it is most people are working just to pay tax and have nothing to show for it.

RichieC

Suryavarman wrote: »

The thread was started with anecdotal evidence saying that communism was better than capitalism. Matthew8 then presented contradictory anecdotal evidence before dismissing the use of anecdotal evidence to contrast systems. You then go on a big rant about Pinochet. There's no double standards here, it's just you getting all worked up because you hate capitalism.

Okay so, I'll forget all of everything I know about the world simply to stay within the realm of THIS PARTICULAR DEBATE.

sarumite wrote: »

The reality is thatcommunism is a failed philosphy. It just doesn't work as well as capitalism.

Both have failed. look around you. both have led to economic hardship and millions of deaths.
What does it say when OUR prosperity depends on the hardship of millions of others? WHAT THE FK DOES IT SAY?

sarumite

RichieC wrote: »

Both have failed. look around you. both have led to economic hardship and millions of deaths.
What does it say when OUR prosperity depends on the hardship of millions of others? WHAT THE FK DOES IT SAY?

How far afield do I need to look around. I don't actually see millions of deaths looking around me. Capitalism hasn't failed. Its having a trough after a peak lasting over a decade. Communism has is a failed enterprise. Capitalism is just a struggling one.

RichieC

sarumite wrote: »

How far afield do I need to look around. I don't actually see millions of deaths looking around me. Capitalism hasn't failed. Its having a trough after a peak lasting over a decade. Communism has is a failed enterprise. Capitalism is just a struggling one.

Do you own an Iphone? you realise that's built by children's hands? What has been sold to us as a stepping stone to the poorest people on earth's prosperity is nothing but a money and resource grabbing colonialist enterprise. It's grand for us to accept these lies being the lucky people born where we are. but there are millions who will die with naught but a pot to piss in to show for these "advances".. entire lives, not within one country but throughout the entire planet, with some affected more than others.

Stalins excesses affected his realm, ours, the entire planet.

val_jester

sarumite wrote: »

The reality is thatcommunism is a failed philosphy. It just doesn't work as well as capitalism.

It could be argued that communism isn't a failed philosophy because it has never been implemented truly in the way it is set out. In theory it is the perfect economic system and social system but in reality it is a pipe dream that will never work, there are too many flaws within it for it ever work and in order for it too work we would have to ignore, or hope that we overcome, the main human fault of greed and being power hungry.

There is no doubt that the average person is worse off under a communist/dictatorial regime and the North/South Korea example used earlier is proof of this.

Good loser

Communism abolishes freedom.

jank

RichieC wrote: »

Chile was uber liberal capitalist under general pinochet who slaughtered people. does anyone blame capitalism on that? no, they blame the authoritarian regime.

not with Stalin and the rest of his boys, no, the economic ideology they chose is to blame..

double standards.

One of Communism's key foundation is state control on pretty much everything. Politics, economics, society. It is then no wonder that the two go hand in hand. Sure authoritarian regimes can exist under a capitalist system but the these are generally the exception rather than the rule. Can you name one communist regime that was NOT an authoritarian regime? I struggle to think of any.

SupaNova

Even if Communism didn't suffer from incentives it would still be a stuttering economy due to not having a market price system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alqUqdbfxhk

sarumite

val_jester wrote: »

It could be argued that communism isn't a failed philosophy because it has never been implemented truly in the way it is set out. In theory it is the perfect economic system and social system but in reality it is a pipe dream that will never work, there are too many flaws within it for it ever work and in order for it too work we would have to ignore, or hope that we overcome, the main human fault of greed and being power hungry.

There is no doubt that the average person is worse off under a communist/dictatorial regime and the North/South Korea example used earlier is proof of this.

These two statements conflict each other in my opinion. If it can "never work" then it is a failed philosophy. At least that was my definition of a failed philosphy when I said it.

Panrich

Communism is the better philosophy. Human nature dictates that it is always destined to fail. Selfishness and greed turn communist states into corrupt failed entities. These baser traits are part of what drives captilism and therefore this is a more sustainable model.

superman123

Commulism is the answer

lala88

Good to see theres quite a good debate about this for a change other the the useal ''im right your wrong'' that happens most of the time.

Of the two i think in theory Communism is the better of the two just doesn't work in pratice. Good points about how it wont work because greed will always take over

someoneok

Capitalism has never been tried. What we have now is state capitalism or croney/lobbyfest capitalism/parasitism. This is a far cry from a philosophy based on mutually beneficial trade which capitalism is about. I hardly benefit by being stolen from by governments for 'services' I don't ask for or obligations I do not choose.

Communism is just collectivism which is wrong on so many levels. No man is entitled to another man's wealth and productivity unless he can offer something of consented exchange. Jealousy fuels bad ideas like these. What shocks me is the amount of support for these terrible ideas. I can only imagine what people who advocate communism do with their lives or the relationships they have or lack thereof.

Panrich

someoneok wrote: »

Capitalism has never been tried. What we have now is state capitalism or croney/lobbyfest capitalism/parasitism. This is a far cry from a philosophy based on mutually beneficial trade which capitalism is about. I hardly benefit by being stolen from by governments for 'services' I don't ask for or obligations I do not choose.

Communism is just collectivism which is wrong on so many levels. No man is entitled to another man's wealth and productivity unless he can offer something of consented exchange. Jealousy fuels bad ideas like these. What shocks me is the amount of support for these terrible ideas. I can only imagine what people who advocate communism do with their lives or the relationships they have or lack thereof.

In true capitilism, how are the sick and disabled catered for? I am not having a go at your post by the way. I am just interested to hear how it would work in practice.

davoxx

Panrich wrote: »

In true capitilism, how are the sick and disabled catered for? I am not having a go at your post by the way. I am just interested to hear how it would work in practice.

they'd be taken care by kind generous rich people who needed serfs to farm the land i'd imagine ...

kupus

In theory and on paper communism is hands down the better of the two, everybody equal, everybody working, everybody sharing.
It just doesn't account for one major problem though...the human mind meaning.....human greed, jealousy, and for want of a better word...begrudgery.

Im living in a former communist country and yes it is true that a lot of the people from around 35 and up who have just plodded on with their lives wish for the comfort and safety net of communism......
while those with good schooling and jobs like it the way it is.

They former mention things were better.... Everybody had a job, they could afford cheap beer, cheap cigs, cheap bread, neglecting to mention the bread lines, the rationing, the waiting 5 hours a day in a line to get coffee which is part of the staple diet here. Crazy inflation. Having to bribe the doctor with a side of lamb or bacon to get him to look at you quicker. Having to bribe inspectors to allow you to build on an extension to your property.
Having to be careful of government spies, never knowing who was a Gov spy and if you were found saying something against the gov, you were thrown out of the party which meant no job.

A lot of this is seen through rosy glasses in retrospect as the former top communists have taken to capatilism like ducks to water, whereby they have even amassed more of a fortune than was ever possible under the old regime.

So ritchie while your rhetoric and theory might be fine but try and actually live it, you may come to a different conclusion.

someoneok

Panrich wrote: »

In true capitilism, how are the sick and disabled catered for? I am not having a go at your post by the way. I am just interested to hear how it would work in practice.

What does catered for mean? How are they catered for now? I imagine that they would be looked after by people like you and me through charity. The fact that this is one of the most common objections to capitalism is evidence enough that lots of people would, if in a tax-less region, give a portion of their wealth to people with disabling features.

Your question asks me to think like a central planner though and I think that is a trap (unintentional) as it is the antithesis of a free society without arbitrary rulers. the reality is nobody knows how it would be done but I am very sure it would be done as so many discussions yield the same questions which assures me it would get done one way or another.

sarumite

kupus wrote: »

In theory and on paper communism is hands down the better of the two, everybody equal, everybody working, everybody sharing.
It just doesn't account for one major problem though...the human mind meaning.....human greed, jealousy, and for want of a better word...begrudgery.

Somepeople are just better at doing something than others. Some work harder than others. Some work longer than others. Expecting to be better renumerated for doing a more difficult task or working harder or longer than other people is not greed, jealousy of begrudgery. Its common sense.

SupaNova

kupus wrote: »

In theory and on paper communism is hands down the better of the two, everybody equal, everybody working, everybody sharing.
It just doesn't account for one major problem though...the human mind meaning.....human greed, jealousy, and for want of a better word...begrudgery.

How can you consider it a better theory on paper if it doesn't even account for human nature??? Should the hands down better theory not account for human nature and peoples self interest? Also in theory one needs wide-scale theft of property through physical force to be implemented, the other protection of property and voluntary exchange, which is better in theory? Then there is the economic calculation problem that occurs without a market price system.

Maybe you mean that the theory describes a better utopian vision, even if it is unrealizable and doesn't account for human nature.

Debtocracy

What does catered for mean? How are they catered for now? I imagine that they would be looked after by people like you and me through charity. The fact that this is one of the most common objections to capitalism is evidence enough that lots of people would, if in a tax-less region, give a portion of their wealth to people with disabling features.

Your question asks me to think like a central planner though and I think that is a trap (unintentional) as it is the antithesis of a free society without arbitrary rulers. the reality is nobody knows how it would be done but I am very sure it would be done as so many discussions yield the same questions which assures me it would get done one way or another.

Libertarianism is a religion not an economic or socioeconomic theory. I mean that it is based on a warm feeling coming from the midbrain region rather than the rational prefrontal cortex. The goal of this religion is to create the maximum degree of freedom possible, irrespective of people’s well-being. If a significant proportion of the population dies because of a lack of a social security or public health system, that’s fine because an individual’s freedom to hold onto their excess wealth takes precedent over another’s need to survive.

Libertarians are a mix of people. Some basically use it as a politically correct way to justify keeping their excessive wealth or paying their employees minimal wages (no one likes the word greed but everyone likes the word freedom). Others truly believe in a utopian libertarian society (e.g. younger members). The latter, uninformed about human psychology believe people to be rational, self regulating and caring for others and that these traits will generalise to businesses and corporations. For instance, no one will starve because people will give so much to charity, doctors will give free operations to those in need, corporations won’t pollute and will use the earth’s resources in a sustainable way. There is also the misguided belief that one’s success in life is entirely determined by one’s hard work and talent. This neglects the wide range of barriers to social mobility (e.g. buying academic success, having to work for free to gain experience, family contacts etc.) and simple random variance (e.g. illness, accident, swings in the economy).

I expect Liberatarism to become somewhat more popular in Western countries in the next few years as people try to search for an economic model where you pay less tax. However, as people become to realise that such a model leads to a greater inequality, a reduction in the median wage and corporatism (corporations would occupy the government power vacuum), libertarianism will quickly lose its attraction and be consigned to a few crazy people in Texas.

Joe 90

irishh_bob wrote: »

under communism , those in ireland on the bottom rung of the economic ladder would be considerabley worse off

I suspect that everyone would be worse off but that the middle would not be much better off than those at the bottom. Those at the top would be just fine, of course.

SupaNova

Debtocracy wrote: »

Libertarianism is a religion not an economic or socioeconomic theory. I mean that it is based on a warm feeling coming from the midbrain region rather than the rational prefrontal cortex. The goal of this religion is to create the maximum degree of freedom possible, irrespective of people’s well-being. If a significant proportion of the population dies because of a lack of a social security or public health system, that’s fine because an individual’s freedom to hold onto their excess wealth takes precedent over another’s need to survive.

Hmmm what is your definition of Religion, the goals of what are mostly recognized as Religion are rarely to create maximum freedom, and what is your definition of Libertarianism?

I don't really get your logic, but it is making me laugh. It seems because you think Religion and Libertarianism both create a warm fuzzy feeling in the midbrain, therefore Libertarianism is a Religion? If Libertarianism didn't give the warm midbrain would it then be economic or socioeconomic theory? Is economic and socioeconomic theory not allowed to create warm brains?

RichieC

I read that post to meean it's dogmatic like a religion. With the invisible hand of the market replacing god. I quite agree.

SupaNova

RichieC wrote: »

I read that post to meean it's dogmatic like a religion. With the invisible hand of the market replacing god. I quite agree.

Well the invisible hand has quite a wide interpretation, again i would love to hear which interpretation those anti capitalism and anti markets attribute to it? My guess is most people say it intending it to be a criticism without having any interpretation themselves at all, they do so because the phrase might make it seem that free markets advocates do so based on a supernatural belief. To people mindlessly regurgitating this as a criticism, advocating the free market, is to believe in an invisible hand of a higher power.

RichieC

SupaNova wrote: »

Well the invisible hand has quite a wide interpretation, again i would love to hear which interpretation those anti capitalism and anti markets attribute to it? My guess is most people say it intending it to be a criticism without having any interpretation themselves at all, they do so because the phrase might make it seem that free markets advocates do so based on a supernatural belief. To people mindlessly regurgitating this as a criticism, advocating the free market, is to believe in an invisible hand of a higher power.

In the sense that markets left to themselves with zero or very little regulation will lead to a fairer freer society. that's dogma.

val_jester

sarumite wrote: »

val_jester wrote: »

It could be argued that communism isn't a failed philosophy because it has never been implemented truly in the way it is set out. In theory it is the perfect economic system and social system but in reality it is a pipe dream that will never work, there are too many flaws within it for it ever work and in order for it too work we would have to ignore, or hope that we overcome, the main human fault of greed and being power hungry.

There is no doubt that the average person is worse off under a communist/dictatorial regime and the North/South Korea example used earlier is proof of this.

These two statements conflict each other in my opinion. If it can "never work" then it is a failed philosophy. At least that was my definition of a failed philosphy when I said it.

Sorry for the delay in replying. Yes that does seem to contradict it self and I apologise for not being clearer. What I mean is that the flaw with communism is the theory that all people will be content to be treated equally. In theory communism is great as everyone will have sufficient resources to be happy and have a good quality of life but the flaw with this theory is that it assumes that everyone will be satisfied with being equal and doesn't take into account human traits such as greed, jealousy and the longing for power. The likelihood of true communism ever being tried is highly unlikely and it would, perhaps, fail quite miserably. I doubt we will ever see a truly communist country, the way Marx and Engels envisioned anyways.

Good loser

In any society those with the will to power will get to the top.

Under communism (see North Korea) they control communications (one of the first things Lenin did in Russia was close down the opposition press), embed themselves in power and are virtually impossible to dislodge.

With media control many Russians in 1953 were distraught at Stalin's death.

With capitalism/democracy the main difference is that power is diffused rather than centralised and the great can be brought down by the market (Sean Quinn) or the electorate (Brian Cowen).