It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Communism vs. Capitalism-In an Idealistic World

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   
O.K., I know that everyone is aware of the negative aspects of both ideals, but I am curious. If it were possible for Communism to work as it was intended, everyone being equal and the removal of any hierarchy, would it be better or worse for mankind?

Try and remove the instinctive mental block against the dreaded word "Communism", and think of it like something you haven't been taught to fear and hate.

The basic premise of Communism is that everyone works for the common good and nobody can subject anyone else to their will, because of status or wealth. Nobody can avoid doing their share of the work, by paying others to do it for them. It prevents the fat, lazy element from forming and makes the executive of the company as important as the grunts that do his work.

Of course it could never work with the way mankind thinks today, namely, every man for himself, but if we were able to consider our fellow man first and truly love our neighbors as ourselves, I think that Communism would be the result.

If you were thinking of everybody else, and everyone else was thinking of you, when working or doing anything, the world couldn't help but become a Utopia. No one would have to worry about how they would get food or clothes or shelter, because everyone else would do that for them. It would require greed to become a thing of the past, which is why it is impossible in real life, but if it could happen, why wouldn't we want it to?

p.s. I am not a Communist, or any other -ist for that matter, except maybe an idealist. So don't go jumping to any conclusions please.




posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   
[Edited on 17-1-2004 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I'm not sure that communism intended to be about the removal of hierarchy and equality for all. I always saw it as placing the means of production into a better organized collective, and having a meritocracy as the social order.

Anyway, both systems at their extreme end stink to high heaven, especially the corrupt form of crony capitalism that is the inherent policy of the incumbent administration in the US political cesspit. There are dozens of records of abject failure of this kind of attempt, the US is just one more. Sad for the people.


What I understand, from reading the Communist Manifesto, is that Communism came about because the Proletariats organized to remove the oppressive hierarchy from power and destroy the caste system. They hated anything that could be used to enslave or oppress the working class, primarily status and wealth. It was trying to create a communal existence on a grand scale. It's greatest failing was that it tried to force people to accept it's ideals, rather than allowing them to freely choose whether or not to be part of it. Since the Communistic philosophy only works if everyone wants it to, and people are to greedy to ever give up their search for power and money, it always failed. Even though it was supposed to do away with the caste system, people still managed to put themselves in power, thus creating oppressive governments, like the USSR.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Paper to paper...Communism all the way.

Whereas in reality some Capitalism-Socialism hybrid seems to work best. Anyone that thinks America or the like are strict Capitalist societies are mistaken.

Some form of government/tax supported industry, infrastructure, defense, education, retirement and healthcare are necessary in varying degrees as the needs of the people demand.

What people overlook is that nothing takes place in a vacuum. Communism would have worked MUCH better in practice, had the US not conspired against it. Similarly Capitalism in First World countries would NOT have worked so well, if not for the existence and suffering of the Third World.

Both the extremes of 'paper' ideals require growth in mass and influence to continue. At some point, perhaps a more globalized world will require the ultimate compromise.

With any luck, technology will lead the way to something more like the Star Trek mythos of the Federation, than any other form of government tried to date. For is that not the perfect Headless State?



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 07:35 PM
link   
[Edited on 17-1-2004 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Communism arose because certain groups were locked out of power and desired it. They especially despised monarchy and tribal systems.

The problem that I see with communism is that it does not allow for the full range of human expression. Some desire to just exist and others desire to conquer the world. In an ideal existance each human would be able to be what their 'drives' push them to do.

Agreed that extreme forms of capitalism also lead to dictatorship but we do not have an extreme form of capitalism anywhere on the earth today. It may have had its best expression during the industrial revolution in England though.

Why do we have autocracy now in government, simple most people do not want heavy involvement in the day to day affairs of running a country. If you doubt just ask most of your friends.

The system we have presently in much of the first world is the best there has been. It can and is being improved via incremental tinkering but of course it still is not perfect.

Then again the reason the system is not 'ideal' is the fallability of humans in general of which very few of us are exempt.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   
TheNeo

Interesting points - Marx and Engles wrote the communist manifesto in England during the industrial revolution. It fell on deaf ears. It took an autarchy - Nicholas - to get taken seriously- in a predominatly agricultural nation - nothing to do with the "means of production"

Then in the '90s the house of cards fell

A personal view - but communism is untennable in a world based around any currency transaction.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 07:53 PM
link   
WTF?

I was happy to participate in this as a R.A.T.S. topic, where jezebel elected to place it.

* Subsequently, after the thread was returned to RATS and yet again proposed to be returned again to some other Forum, I edited out my personal experiences and opinion on editorial policy from this thread. *

[Edited on 17-1-2004 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar Whoever moved this to "Other Current Events" has done ATS a disservice.
www.abovetopsecret.com... What about this topic required it to be in RATS? [Edited on 10-1-2004 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   
why so masked ?

Its a worthy discussion - and will benefit from the input of many more members.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
[Edited on 17-1-2004 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   
In an ideal world there is no commies or capitalist, just me as king.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Sad very sad to lose a valued contributor

but RATS is a restricted forum - I see nothing in this thread i want restricted.

If you feel unable to contribute in the face of oposition then lets move this to the mud pit

But this as i see it is nothing more than a discussion.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
[Edited on 17-1-2004 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Mud pit isn't appropriate. And for the original intent of "Really Above Top Secret", there no reason this thread should be there rather than other forums. "Current Events" seemed the most likely place given aspects of the discussion.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Move it if you must, but what has this thread got to do with current events?



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I still can't see that you asked jezebel why she wanted to place it in R.A.T.S.

Look at your own expressed policy about R.A.T.S., and the member choice implied in it.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   
EXCUSE ME!! I did not post this in the regular forum because I wanted to avoid the typical, thoughtless, pointless arguments that have ruined several serious topics and questions that I have posted in the past. This was not a "Chit-Chat" thread, and I was under the impression that RATS was for serious and objective discussions. I think that moving it, without explanation, was undeserved and thoughtless.

p.s. Thanks for the support MA, it did not go unnoticed


[Edited on 10-1-2004 by jezebel]



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 08:14 PM
link   
[Edited on 17-1-2004 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   
OK Masked i didnt originate the thread

so my contribution should be ignored ?

thank you

I will remember that



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join