Why I Cautiously favor Capitalism over Communism

Communism works fine in theory. Sadly, power corrupts. This is without question. Those in power will want, and have more then those without.

Originally posted by Allthegood
Communism works fine in theory. Sadly, power corrupts. This is without question. Those in power will want, and have more then those without.

But communism, worker ownership, takes away the the potential for those who seek power to do so. There doesn't have to be a state to corrupt.

The reason capitalism is so corrupt is because it is an economic system based on economic exploitation. A minority class exploiting the majority, and gaining power over that majority through economic inequality.

Capitalism has it's faults and can be dangerous when aligned with government (ie, fascism) BUT Communism is akin to vampirism and when the hosts are drained of their blood there is nothing left to suck on. In a word communism "sucks"....capitalism is the better economic complement to democracy. And since we are a democratic republic only capitalism will ensure our long term political-economic survival.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Good for you freedom is always the answer over coercion. One minor point; when you say freedom has not resulted in a better system you mistakenly assume that freedom is the cause and it is just a matter of lack of morals. This is not the case. Freedom has been subverted through government intervention in favor of these socialist/communist decrees and coercion. So it is the abandonment of freedom in favor of socialism that has gotten the result you speak of.

There is nothing wrong with social programs as long as they are voluntary. Get the goddamn government out of the markets protecting their corporate cronies and let the free market actually work and we would not have any "to big to fails" All regulation is nothing more then protecting markets in favor of the politically connected and stifling their competition.

The most prosperous time in America was when were the freest during the 19th century (except for the civil war period) up until 1913 when the federal reserve act was passed in secret on Christmas eve giving a monopoly of the currency to the banking cartels. its been down hill ever since.

The wannabe commies won't answer when you ask them to make it all voluntary. If it is such a great system it should be able to stand on its own. it can't and never has not because of morals but because people are not equal in drive intellect and action. And when one person works harder and smarter then the guy down the street he resents having the fruits of his labors stolen and given to the guy who does not work as hard or as smart as he does. Its that simple. this is why it results in dictatorship every time.

The pilgrims learned that right off the bat when they implemented a socialist communist system at first. www.thecitizen.com...

reply to post by hawkiye


From that link you posted

The land was owned in common; everyone worked for each other and each received an equal allotment of food no matter how hard they worked. The men planted for everyone and the women prepared food and washed clothes for everyone. This system quickly failed. The women described the communal chores as a form of slavery, men rapidly lost motivation, and the able-bodied feigned illness to avoid work

Just because you may have a socialistic system doesn't mean everyone gets compensated equally. The best workers will get more, the lesser ones would likely find it better to find another line of work as they won't make so much if they aren't producing. The difference is that there are not "owners" benefiting from the labor or consumers paying more for goods to cover their profit margins. If ones skill is running an organization effectively and productively then they will be needed and still command high levels of compensation. It's just that their compensation will be more inline with their actual contribution to society instead of their ability to extract more value than the real cost of goods. Intellectual achievements and advancements would still be rewarded. Only people who are afraid to go along are those who feel their true worth is below their current compensation. Otherwise why not, we really can all get ahead, we just have to decide that's what we want.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Capitalism has it's faults and can be dangerous when aligned with government (ie, fascism) BUT Communism is akin to vampirism and when the hosts are drained of their blood there is nothing left to suck on. In a word communism "sucks"....capitalism is the better economic complement to democracy. And since we are a democratic republic only capitalism will ensure our long term political-economic survival.

Capitalism is akin to vampirism where the top 1% suck the 99% dry, we do all the work and they get all the wealth. Just look at the inequality, the top 5% of wealthy people own 95% of the world wealth, and many of them don't even have to work! Talk about vampires.

If you are one of those people that think Russia is communist because they called themselves communist, then yeah I would agree that "communism" sucks. But Russia was actually Stalinist, with a state-capitalist economy.

Russia was also fascist, which is far right wing. Communism is far left wing. So saying Russia was a fascist communist country is akin to saying they were "far right wing left wing"

Kim Jong-un's dictatorship in North Korea is called the "Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea", but just because they call themselves democratic doesn't make them so, there's nothing democratic about it, its just a name that appeals to the people.

Communism treats weeds like food bearing plants and thus the food bearing plants suffer and are weakened in potency.

Capitalism gives all food bearing plants and weeds alike an equal chance to live or die. The theory being that the weeds die and the food bearing plants prosper and flourish.

Originally posted by FinalCountdown
Communism treats weeds like food bearing plants and thus the food bearing plants suffer and are weakened in potency.

Capitalism gives all food bearing plants and weeds alike an equal chance to live or die. The theory being that the weeds die and the food bearing plants prosper and flourish.

edit on 10-12-2012 by FinalCountdown because: (no reason given)

Once a plant gets big enough nothing much survives underneath it. Human beings are not weeds. Sorry you feel that way. No one without empathy should be given a voice in my opinion.

Why are these the only choices?

I personally am a fan of the resource based economy model. I have yet to read/hear an argument about why it would not work.

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

Originally posted by FinalCountdown
Communism treats weeds like food bearing plants and thus the food bearing plants suffer and are weakened in potency.

Capitalism gives all food bearing plants and weeds alike an equal chance to live or die. The theory being that the weeds die and the food bearing plants prosper and flourish.

edit on 10-12-2012 by FinalCountdown because: (no reason given)

Once a plant gets big enough nothing much survives underneath it. Human beings are not weeds. Sorry you feel that way. No one without empathy should be given a voice in my opinion.

Oh course not. It was a metaphor trying to show the perspective to "world leader" types.

reply to post by polarwarrior

Capitalism in its unrestrained form will suck resources also (ie, colonial mercantilism) but in capitalism the means of production are not owned by the state (which tends towards corruption) and theoretically everyone has a chance to be innovative and can succeed by raising "capital" to create a business (bringing in shareholders who believe in the product or service). Name me one true "communist" system above a hippie commune or Israeli kibbutz that has been successful. The problem is that a) the state gets in the way and b) the "have nots" want what the "haves" have until it is all gone....then what is left to support the welfare state? No true motivation leads to ultimate failure of the system. Read the history of the early settlers at Jamestown. A communal approach failed but when they each owned their own plot of land and were responsible for putting food on their own table they succeeded.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

I cautiously favor capitalism because I believe progress made with freedom of choice is superior, and more authentic to progress made through legislation.

I believe that you are mixing things that you shouldn't...

Capitalism comes from "capital" and the structuring of a society around this specific factor of production. It does not have any limitations or requirements about legislation (or freedoms) about it can have as much or more than a society running on a Communist system.

I think you intended to refer to free markets this is capitalism with the focus of reduced state (legislation) control over economic entities.

You should also spend sometime thinking about the meaning of freedom, to notice that simply by existing in one or the other type of system you would have limitations that ultimately would be almost equal. The major deference is that with Capitalism society fosters egotism and in Communism it fosters shared responsibilities, the first has the focus in the rise of the self (ultimately at the expense of others) the second the rise of society in general at the expense of all (the all is extremely important to show that very few examples of real communism ever existed, Communism will never survive coexistence with Capitalism due to the nature of man, the middle ground is Socialism and its dangers of state centralism).

I think a lot of the disagreements about capitalism and communism stem from the fact that the terms are not very well-defined and are riddled with historical bias. Communism has an obvious historical stigma in the US, and for many of us in the ATS crowd, capitalism has its own stigma.

I like to just abstract the terms and define them using etymology for simplicity's sake. IMO "ism" simply indicates that something is being valued or prioritized.

Communism - value or priority assigned to the commune
Socialism - value or priority assigned to society
Capitalism - value or priority assigned to capital.

*Note that "capital" implies power and/or status, not just money or the means of production (i.e. capital cities, capital letters, economic capital)*

Using these definitions I think communism is the best answer of the three above listed. Here is why:

Capitalism - If people only care about power and status, you get... our current world, wherein people fail to realize or appreciate their connection to others. This is why I would classify the "communist" governments of the world as still being capitalist -- they still value power and status first and foremost.

Socialism - I think caring about society is much too broad -- you would end up probably better off overall than in capitalism, but it would be inefficient and probably somewhat oppressive.

Communism - people caring primarily about their local communities and having most issues dealt with at the community level makes the most sense to me -- it would be both efficient and conducive to personal liberty (if you don't like the rules of your community, find another community).

Originally posted by Allthegood
Communism works fine in theory. Sadly, power corrupts. This is without question. Those in power will want, and have more then those without.

Absolutely correct. If you recall during the days of the USSR, the communist leaders would ride in Mercedes-Benz or equivalent while there was no food on the shelves at the market....remember the lines? Remember when the first McDonald's opened in Red Square area and the line went around two blocks? Remember when the collective farms would grow their own personal vegetable gardens and sell the foods so that they could bypass the communist system? Remember when Nikita came to Disneyland and thought we made all the supermarkets and Disneyland just to trick him, because nothing could be that good?

Communism is a failed system. America already employs socialism in public schools, postal service, etc. As others mentioned, greed fuels the economy of a capitalist nation. Democracy is rather what we are all after, not capitalism or communism.

reply to post by Jim Scott


But those people were not communists, they were not supported by the real communists...

Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks were a series of rebellions and uprisings against the Bolsheviks led or supported by left wing groups including Socialist Revolutionaries, Left Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and anarchists. Some were in support of the White Movement while some tried to be an independent force. The uprisings started in 1918 and continued through the Russian Civil War and after until 1922. In response the Bolsheviks increasingly abandoned attempts to get these groups to join the government and suppressed them with force.

Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks

Demonising communism because of what happened in the USSR is simply doing the capitalist class work for them, you are oppressing yourself by denying yourself true liberty. True liberty can only happen when everyone has access to produce for their needs and desires. As long as the means to produce stay in the hands of a minority, the majority will always be subservient to that minority.

Communism/socialism is an economic system that requites no state system.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

And then there is Nationalism, also Individualism and Autonomy...all worthy priorities.
But I'm not understanding why it has to be an either communism/ or capitalism situation?
Why not look at them, keep the advantages, but eliminate the disadvantages?

Come up with a brand NEW -ISM?

I think it is important to have a mission statement so people know what your priorities are.
Our Mission Statement, right now the US, as a Nation would serve The People before it considers the Capitalist. And I think appropriately so, although people seem to want to change that.

reply to post by newcovenant


Someone has to own the means of production. The only alternative to private ownership worth considering is worker ownership. We saw what happens when the government owns the means to produce in the USSR, and it's not what any of us want.

So who would you suggest own the means to produce? Should it not be those that do the producing?

Wait Liberals don't tell u is that in a communist socialist society. The evil people always end up at the top and that's when they put their people in charge to run everything. They become the billionaires and everyone else remains poor. That is just human nature that there is always a few destroying it for the rest. Kind of like wait Obama is doing right now. He is giving the monopoly men control of the economy as disguise as helping the poor. When the banks lobby for welfare and bailouts because they make massive money from perpetual debt. The communist sell the same idea but never tell u the truth that at the top they are billionaire and not allowing competition to compete with them.

reply to post by amfirst1


Rubbish. Liberals are not socialists. Liberalism was a movement completely separate to socialism and the labour movement. Liberalism came from the middle and upper classes as a way to appease the workers, while maintaining the capitalism economy.

"Liberalism is not socialism and never will be" Winston Churchill 1908 as the Liberal Party candidate for Dundee.

Human nature is to be social and equal. Capitalism, and the desire of a minority class of sociopaths to live off the backs of others labour has perverted our nature. We were heading in a different direction naturally until the land owners enacted the inclosure laws and started the change from feudalism to capitalism.

We were doing just fine before capitalism, and society was developing in an entirely different way.

Feudal Origins of Capitalism

Okay, I might be missng something here...but are we actually now arguing that the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics or Soviet Union was NOT Communist? Err... Okay. I suppose we'd also be suggesting China is not communist? Their system is still alive, well and named such actually...although it's fair to say they are morphing into something a bit different now too. It's interesting to see that develop but for now, still as Red as that little red book. After all, China makes absolutely no bones about it, whatsoever.

BEIJING — Xi Jinping became China's new leader Thursday, assuming the top posts in the Communist Party and the powerful military in a political transition unbowed by scandals, a slower economy and public demands for reforms.

and the caption under the photo is noteworthy itself (check source link for the photo)

Chinese Communist Party top leaders stand up while "the Internationale," the international communist anthem, is played during the closing ceremony of 18th Communist Party Congress held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2012. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan)

Source

That's communism in it's glory and in the modern world. The Soviet Union and Russian Communist Party collapsed in 1989/90 for all intents and purposes..altho it took a bit longer to make that official. There are still a few examples around tho....and They'd take serious issue with being called 'not communist enough', I'm thinking. China, in particular...seems rather devoid of humor about their Government.