The debate "Is communism better that capitalism" was started by
October 22, 2016, 4:17 pm.
By the way, nick is disagreeing with this statement.
8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 22 people are on the disagree side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 11 arguments to the agreers part.
Yanksxx21 posted 8 arguments, neveralone posted 2 arguments, Blue_ray posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 1 argument, jack_tim_45 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, historybuff and 6 visitors agree.
nick, Blue_ray, Yanksxx21, jack_tim_45, Bodaciouslady16, Tobibroek and 16 visitors disagree.
please note how no definition of communism involves an authoritarian dictator or a lack of freedom for people.
there have been no communist nations to compare capitalism to. communism won't work. it's naive. but as an ideal, it is far better than capitalism.
btw yanks. you are clearly ignorant of history as democracy was a failure for millenia before it eventually worked and revolutionized the world :)
I can agree with that.
Here we need to define two terms so these arguments make sense, and since many people dispute the definition and it is impossible for me to actually find it, here is just the first one that pops up on google:
communism-a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
capitalism-an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Obviously both definitions are very vague, and in these raw definitions there could be very good nations that come from either side, but there are a few reasons why capitalistic countries tend to be better.
1. It is basic human psychology that humans tend to perform better during competition, working harder and using more of their skill to make more of a thing or a better thing in order to get more money, to be able to get more luxuries and own more things for themselves.
2. Communism is based on working for your own abilities and needs, and pretty much everyone shares all the luxuries. This causes a lack of motivation and competition, therefore making less productive society and a slow economy. Also, while I bet equal ownership sounds great to the needy, the non talented, and their sympathizers, it doesn't sound good to a lot of the people who worked hard and earned the luxuries they own, which will cause them to either revolt or just move to another capitalistic country.
I do believe that if there was a better currency balance among the people that capitalism works better, because that means more people are working to a more achievable setting (pretty much everyone knows they're not gonna be Bill Gates), and what is going on in the United States is not right, but overall that is why capitalism is better than communism.
History repeats itself as is evident with Communism, and why it never had nor will work.
Our Govt is not perfect as it is, but our form of rule surpassed and exceeded communism in the Cold War..
It dosent work and It will never work, no ones ever going to do it right, as it is not right. The enforcment and the restrictions of the people make the Govt extremely powerful with no say for the people. If the Govt has too much power it forms a tyrannical state..
well if u go with https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism it's socialism. though it sounds great it can easily turn into anarchy
If communism is so great and so efficient, give me one country in history that the people benefited from.
what is the government in communism?
that's a lot of control for the gov.. though I will say with the proper person on top or the right restrictions it could work for the better.
can you explain why communism is susceptible to corruption?
it's how we make sure their is not too much power in ones hand.communism in ideal form could work but it seems to be too easy to be currupted by that power and stop caring about what the people want
what does checks and balances have to do with capitalism?
why would communism not have checks and balances?
check and balances make sure they don't get that complete control
and what's to stop power from going to someone's head in capitalism?
as long as it did that and power goes to no ones head I would agree it's best
indeed. I'm not saying implement. that would be bad. but why not adopt the spirit of it and promote policies that enhance the life of everyman, short and long term.
I'm saying power goes to peoples heads way too often for me to be comfortable to do that. if it was me and a group of experts I could trust to try and better us then this won't be bad.no I'm just saying caution. don't leap before u look.(Trump.haha)
why are you assuming we are gonna do stupid things? are you saying we should stop trying cause it's probably going to be stupid?
no thank you.
have u ever done something stupid and while u are doing it do u think this is stupid? no,except when ur trying to be. I think the same applies here if u dont look ahead.
I do exactly that.
I don't I just think about what might happen good or bad.
and what does regulation have to do with communism? communism is the people own the means of production. one does not regulate oneself
regulation is a capitalism policy.
the slippery slope argument?
why won't we be able to stop ourselves? we have regulations now, does that mean we are already to stop the cycle?
why not judge regulations based on their individual costs and merits instead of demonizing the very idea of a tool that you cannot deny, is essential.
even in your reply you said that bad, misguided regulations are bad, but then why do you demonize all regulations when you know good ones are great?
all it takes is a pebble to start a landslide. in other words sometime we start out with a small regulation and if not carefully studied and thought out it could rise to more until there is nothing free about it. for example, if u restrict the drinking limit to 40 year olds it might make crime on drinking and driving go down and/or it might lead to more crime and violence. so u need to think about the long term vs the short term.
I think the idea is nice but not realistic until u take out the current and u know they won't go out without a fight
I'm not saying I want to limit it's capabilities but to proceed with caution.t he strong and loudest
why are we less free from regulation? it's typically the right that try to regulate the actions of people, like who you can marry things I'm sure you agree with, but others dont. therefore where is their freedom?
the left regulates businesses so they don't destroy the environment or your health. "We the People" is who our government is run by, it is our tool, to voice our concerns, and to implement our vision of our nation. why limit it to arbitrary non interference restrictions?
if the founders made this government for the people, by the people, then who would want to limit it's capabilities? who wins when the masses are weak? historically speaking.
the more u regulate the less free we are. regulations need to be tempered with freedom and wisdom so we can figure out what it will do in the future
what about them? those are guaranteed by the constitution.
what ever happened to our freedoms?
I was not that 1, but I'll be #2.
communism is an ideal system that doesn't work because of our own nativity and shortcomings. whereas capitalism is a pragmatic system that is built around greed as the prime motivator and is made to be abused if not under constant regulation.
i wonder who agreed. 1 agree and 10 disagrees. wow.
if backed In a corner most people will fight. I'm not saying that it's wrong I'm just saying usually there's a dif. way but not all the time
what I am saying is that before the modern era, violence was the only way to win rights as a representative government was not existant.
and I'm certain it has happened repeatedly, perhaps not often in prominent parts of history. the various tribes that were one of the factors leading to the end of rome, although not often portrayed as fighters of rights, Rome was oppressing them and they fought back. the macabees (jews) against Persians.
I'm not saying violence is the best way to attain rights, I'm saying we shouldn't look down on past attempts that use violence as we are judging from a privileged position from within a representative government that listens and respond. something previous people may not have dreamed of.
I can definitely agree with u on that.
I'm not saying there aren't exceptions. but the vast majority of violent insurrections dont work out that way. in fact other the American revolution I'm not sure I can think of any that quickly lead to freedom.
i suppose you could argue that ultimately the french revolution lead to freedom. but they had alot of years of tyranny in between.
so it depends on preference
you can do it nonviolently, but violence has been successful in the past as well.
what about MLK? he did it nonviolently
not true. Americans fought for their freedom, they achieved it without tyranny.
violence is often the only way to get change (historically)
when you use violence to get change, freedom very rarely is the result. usually it just results in more violence and oppression.
that were in a diff. situation.
I'm not sure what your referring to there.
I know I was just saying this has happen almost every time if not every time.yes we do get to put the president up there but after that we don't have nearly as much say in what they do unless we impeach them which has been almost thought of as an evil word but it shouldn't be.
they had no choice. they didn't have a representative government through which to voice their complaints, desires, and ideas. we are in a different situation.
it's kind of funny how people raise the flag of communism to overthrow a gov. and get a dictatorship instead
communism involves putting the people as a priority. none of your "examples" show any sign of putting the people, on an individual level, first. in fact it is often the people who are used and abused to strengthen the state in those nations. that is fascism, the opposite of communism.
communism is not a dictatorship. communism has an actual definition. just cause someone calls themselves communist, does not make it so.
As will I this coming week.
I haven't been on the app much this weekend. I have better things to do then try to explain why a taped confession should matter. I am certainly not beat, just busy.
You know when your beat, I respect that.
lol ready to correct me here, yet have up on the trump argument, adorable..
and no part of that description is in any way communist. it's pretty much as far from communism as you can get.
Fine it's A
old Stalin style, semi fascist, monarch state
north Korea isn't Communist. but nice try.
North Korea or United States your pick