The debate "Capitalism is superior to communism" was started by
February 11, 2015, 10:25 pm.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 23 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Bailz posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Mr_Anonymous posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 5 arguments, Bailz posted 2 arguments, I_Voyager posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
mdavis1309, Bailz, Scottie, wmd, shinywhale, resiliently, stevenee, WhyNot and 12 visitors agree.
angryMonk, Mr_Anonymous, Sosocratese, Preploukus, darlingelysian, sickboyblonde, Hjkp98, Unfathomable, andrej, I_Voyager, Gordonchm and 12 visitors disagree.
Communism struggles against capitalism, and is crushed. It appears the weaker system, but no fair model exists for good comparison. If another earth existed where communism was the majority method, we could compare that world against ours and judge whether capitalism-dominant earth produces a better world than communist-dominated earth.
Thus we cannot know. All we can say is that when conflicting, capitalism has defeated communism. But the younger brother Socialism has merged itself with capitalism and so the whole world is in varied mixed-economy states, and it works out for better or for worse.
A fair addition is that no stateless communism has occurred. State-communism and state-capitalism appear to be similar - nazi germany and soviet Russia prove that no ideology prevails against dictatorship.
Ultimately I think we need to have a couple hundred more years of mixed-economy before we have satisfying data, and constant questioning of the efficacy of these words. They seem incomplete, like the physics, an incomplete theory of economy.
I think we can agree that economies are more of a sliding scale than they are hard definitions. Definitions work great in the classroom, but have little to do with the real world.
My main argument is that this question being asked is irrelevant at best. It presumes that pure forms of capitalism and pure forms of Communism actually exist...i would argue that they never have and never will.
I would also argue that the term better is arbitrary at best. Better how? Better in the sense of income inequality? Gdp? Standard of living? Etc...
I maintain that some sort of mixture, meaning somewhere on the scale between pure capitalism and pure communism is best... Now, where we should be on that scale is a different story. I would agree that leaning towards the capitalist side is probably "best".
Definition arent arguements.
laissez faire countries generally do better than communist countries im basing it of a quick skim through this http://www.econlife.com/laissez-faire-countries/
Laissez faire just means minimal state intervention. It usually accomodates Capitalism, a system where trade is done by private entitys for profit, they are separate not the extreme of Capitalism. As you can have State Capitalism.
The fact that communism does not exist throughout the world and in the places it does run terribly it does not work or beat Capitalism, look at it through a survival of the fittest lens with ideologies. Im not saying all Marx ideas where wrong but from practice Communism sucks, maybe socialism is better France isnt to bad. however for this debate the evidence suggest, Capitalism trumps Communism.
trying to stay on topic, the 1960a is a hotbed a whole discussion in itself. You had war, the world was in shatters sti recovering from WW2 while America and Russia stood bipolar.
Communism is an extreme form of socialism.... Sorry about that. Had a brain fart while typing
Let's start with basic definitions.
Communism is an extreme form of Communism. Laissez-faire is an extreme form of capitalism.
I'm sure you can Google that if you don't believe my claim.
Tax rates were higher in the 1960s so you could make the argument that moving away from wealth redistribution actually hurt us.
Interesting claim, some back up please?
America has a duel system or atleast shifting, closest description in my mind would be socialism like France.
But it is not the same as Communism vs Capitalism which is what the debate is about. if this system is superior the combination, then why has America declined (debt mostly, Asia and Russia creeping up) compared to its Golden Age of Capitalism as sociologist have described of the 60's. I get there are loads of variables and its not the main point of the debate, just a thinking point.
I would contend that capitalism, in its purest form, has failed as well. Laissez-faire failed miserably...
The best system is a system composed of both.... Like we have here in the states for example. We have welfare systems, labor laws, etc...
A Capitalist free market system is superior to Communism.
Foremost, contempoary society is built on the ideals of Capitalism. We are the wealthiest society in history, no food shortages, descent housing etc. The proof is in the pudding.
Secondly, communism cannot work economically. I base this on a historical arguement, Lenin a communist who lead the Bolshevik revolution, introduced the New Economic plan, a form of Capitalism when he took power due to the failures of War communism policy. Even under Stalin who went full Communist with collectivisation, peasents could not even leave the land they had to work, they returned to being Serfs for the state. Industrialisation caused the itroduction competition and rewards to motivate workers such as the stankovites provoding better housing. Thus, from this example and more throughout the communist era state ownership did not create a communist utopia of equlity but totalitarianism.
Currently, China has been described as being more Capitalist than America, (Cato policy report). personally not sure what to make of this but its argued than China supposedly communist country turned Capitalist. There are no succussful communist countries, north Korea, Cuba not doing to good.
Summing, Capitalism has shown to be the most successful system we have had sp far, I concede it has flaws, however communism is not the alternative as it has proven to be unsustainable. I get this is a highly debated topic and I have missed probably lots of stuff out so let me know
Superior in what sense?
Yes for the few rich who exploit and profit from it.