Capitalism Vs. Communism Vs. Socialism

Iron Maiden · **Posted:** March 6th, 2010, 3:09 pm

Rawrrrr...RANTING TIME!!!
I took a short break of RSBANDB lately, seeing there was not much activity, I'd thought I'd start a hot topic.
Which one do you think is better: Communism or Capitalism? Or Socialism?
You can also post others like Anarchism or Fascist (But I doubt you will.)
I decided to launch this debate because the other day in class, me and some of my friends were against THE WHOLE COMMUNISM CLASS debating about which one is better. At the end we sounded like a bunch of jerks wanting fortune.

I vote for Capitalism because I think it's fair that a doctor wins more money than a employee of McDonalds. Not to say that McDonalds Employee sucks, but simply that a Doctor went to school for a long time,studied and worked hard, so I think he deserves a higher salary.
I hate the idea about EVERYONE IS EQUAL, it sucks big time. it means I probably would not have more than one television,computer,game console,etc. It might seems harsh, but I would not like to be equal to people in countries where mans gains 50 pennies a year. Even tho the cost of life would have been considerably decreased, I just think it's bad. I like thing the way they are in USA or Canada. And I don't like the idea of EVERYTHING BELONG TO THE STATE. It's just...no! Hospitals,Schools,etc should belong to the State, yes so anyone could have education,health,etc. for free. (Like where I live) But nothing else. Your private entreprises should belong to «You» eh.

Discuss?

Adbot · **Posted:** March 6th, 2010, 3:09 pm

Dokter Bob · **Posted:** March 6th, 2010, 5:07 pm

hrmm to be honest with you i dont think there are any pro-communism people there are here :s

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

Let's double check that, Bob...

The other reason why you started this topic...

Duke Juker wrote:

Iron Maiden wrote:

<snip>

And I'm going for a total Capitalist world, communism sucks.

<snip>

The thing is, in theory, communism is better than capitalism. The only thing missing is incentive and the other factor skewing it is governmental corruption. I think communism would be better than capitalism if those two major issues were remedied (which would be virtually impossible). Capitalism doesn't have to worry about those problems as much and is, therefore, the current economic system of choice.

And though your idea of the survival judge actually sounds bad, in theory, it's not the worst idea. Decreasing the world population would decrease many other problems as well. But I'm sure there's a better solution to overpopulation than just killing people. :roll:

Iron Maiden wrote:

NO! I ARE NOT AGGREEEEEEEE

*Opens topic Capitalism vs. Communism*

By the way, my suggestion about judging who lives and who dies was simply a joke. You didn't really believe it? eh.

Duke Juker wrote:

Yes and no. Theoretically, it wouldn't be the worst way to run the world or solve world problems. If one person could make that decision, it would be a heck of a lot easier and efficient, but definitely risky and corruptible. Obviously, you could really never do it in this world, but theoretically, it could happen and work out ok. So in the end, no, I didn't take it seriously for the most part.

Second part is kind of irrelevant to topic, but relevant to Iron.

That's my stance, and I think it makes sense. Don't try to skew my words or their meaning either, please. To make it clear, I'm for capitalism, but I believe that in theory and in a perfect world, communism is the ideal system to use.

Warren · **Posted:** March 7th, 2010, 7:58 am

Dokter Bob wrote:

hrmm to be honest with you i dont think there are any pro-communism people there are here :s

Good thing I am pro anarcho-communism :s Don't want to be part of those people who don't exist here.

Pennstate315 · Runite Member 5-25-10

Capitalism, I'm surprised you didn't do Capitalism vs. Socialism

Iron Maiden · **Posted:** March 7th, 2010, 9:10 am

Pennstate315 wrote:

Capitalism, I'm surprised you didn't do Capitalism vs. Socialism

As your wish

Adbot · **Posted:** March 7th, 2010, 9:10 am

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

Pennstate315 wrote:

Capitalism, I'm surprised you didn't do Capitalism vs. Socialism

Essentially, socialism and communism are similar if not the same thing. In the grand scheme of things, I believe communism is considered worse, but they are almost the same thing besides some technicalities. :roll:

ryan1 · **Posted:** March 8th, 2010, 12:14 pm

The way I see it, capitalism is great as long as it is not pure capitalism. There need to be things like the United States' anti-trust laws to stop monopolies from forming. Unchecked capitalism essentially leads to slavery of the people to corporations.

The Communist Manifesto is a good read; there is some merit to communism if it were conducted properly, but everything about human nature goes against it. If we work harder or provide a more valuable service, it is only natural to expect a better compensation for our actions. People are greedy, and so communism will never be implemented properly in any state.

Pennstate315 · Runite Member 5-25-10

Duke Juker wrote:

Pennstate315 wrote:

Capitalism, I'm surprised you didn't do Capitalism vs. Socialism

Essentially, socialism and communism are similar if not the same thing. In the grand scheme of things, I believe communism is considered worse, but they are almost the same thing besides some technicalities. :roll:

same thing, there different because communism is also a political system, not just a economic one

Evelyn · **Posted:** March 8th, 2010, 7:40 pm

Pennstate315 wrote:

same thing, there different because communism is also a political system, not just a economic one

No. Communism is only an economic system. It's just the fact that a totalitarian regime always seem to come with it.

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

The thing is that communism doesn't really coincide with politics. If your country was communistic, you wouldn't really need a government to handle your needs. The people could figure it out on their own without government. From previous models, it's easy to see how communism and government officials/political entities only lead to corruption and unfairness. Thus, it wouldn't make sense that communism and politics/government should exist in the same place at the same time. It wouldn't be necessary or needed theoretically.

Ret Steel · **Posted:** March 16th, 2010, 9:41 am

One thing that people do not seem to take into account is the fact that unchecked capitalism leads to a communistic type of loss of freedom, except worse because the quality of life for the people on the bottom is just about zero. I think that certain things should be capitalistic, (god I am addicted to istic,) people should definitely have the ability to get ahead, but there need to be some sort of safety nets for people who dont get lucky and sift to the top. I think everyone should get food, education, and healthcare, if they attempt to contribute. One think that I hate are people who leach off of the few weak things that we do have. I have an uncle who doesn't work, doesn't look for work, and frankly doesn't want work. Not only that, he has set an example that has caused one of his kids to already claim some week excuse of a mental health disability that causes him not to be able to work (ADHD, anyone who has that, such as me, knows that you can be fully functional, it just causes one to have to set aside more time for boring things.) I digress, people who don't attempt to provide for themselves should not have access to public facilities, provided that they have the ability to provide for themselves. It may sound cruel, but people inherently want to have more for less, and if that means that they can get something for nothing, then they will.

The main thing that I am trying to say is that neither one works, and we need to find a middle ground. You don't have to look to far nowadays to see an example of how wrong each of these can go. [-X

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

One of the things I cannot stand in today's society is the belief of entitlement. In the old days, they didn't use to have social or government programs in place to help to along the way. It was mostly every man for himself with some exceptions. I believe no one is entitled to anything in this world besides the right to live and survive. Everything else in life is really unneeded. Imagine if everyone in the world was sent back to some time with the neanderthals. There is no need for technology, money, fame, or anything superficial. If all you could do in life is stay alive, survive, and grow a family, nothing else would matter. Though this is an extreme thing to considered, it does really put into perspective where humans have come from. Imo, hard work and perseverance should be the only way to get ahead in life. If all was fair and right in the world, you could (by merit) get ahead in life and by your example show others how to live. But because today's society is focused on helping every person who is going through hard times, few never learn the lesson of hard work and piggy back off everyone else to get by in life. I am frustrated, too, Ret, by that kind of thing, and perhaps there is a middle ground by which it could be solved or remedied. Still, there's really no exchange for hard work and perseverance .

Ret Steel · **Posted:** March 17th, 2010, 11:14 am

I have one question, how can you justify letting human beings suffer unnecessarily? I mean, I know that it could be considered an infringement on people's rights to have them forced to contribute to the health of others. However, when someone has the means to help another, and refuses to, I think that some actions have to be taken.

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

Well, there are a lot of stipulations in answering that question. Depending on your moral beliefs, there are many explanations to this answer. From a Christian standpoint, people are called to help others and to treat other people as they would treat themselves (aka "The Golden Rule"). If that is the correct moral thing to do, then there is an obligation to help someone in need. Granted, that doesn't mean you help them every time, but only when they need it and grow from it. If you assert to the belief there is no objective morality, then there really are no morals or rights for humans to follow and as such, then there would be no problem with the situation you are describing. There are many different thoughts about moral objectivity and rights of human beings, far too many to talk about and to explain. But, you should be able to see how an answer to that situation has underpinnings for a lot of things. Anyways, I firmly believe that regardless of whoever you are, all humans have a sense of morality and can tell the difference from right and wrong innately. Even if you can't define what right and wrong is, you still have a sense of what it is or isn't when you see it. Only an opinion.