Communism or capitalism?

[Alida & Syren]

yeh- and what good has nazi ideology done for anyone!

[Robespierre - P.R. of Debro]

You know the answer;nothing.

[deutschgarten]

Capitalist nations tend to be more productive.
Examples: USA, South Korea, England... etc

Communist nations tend to have high emigration (the fleeing of your country) rates.
Examples: Cuba, North Korea, USSR... etc

Capitalist nations tend to have more political freedom (people's input in the government), Communist nations have almost no political freedom because they are ruled by one party.

[Robespierre - P.R. of Debro]

Well, North Korea is not a communist nation. People there live in oppression, it's a paternalist, autocratic state, true, but not a communist one(You can call yourself Superman, it doesn't mean you ARE Superman....). This is true for the former USSR,etc.

You're right;capitalist nations are productive, this form of economy is producing more than their population can consume. Despite this fact, poverty is a serious problem in these states. See the point?(overproduction)

And yes, autocratic dictatorships usually ruled by one party/person. Public opinion linked the term 'communism' with 'dictatorship'. Sad.

[fgpr]

deutschgarten said:

Capitalist nations tend to be more productive.
Examples: USA, South Korea, England... etc

Communist nations tend to have high emigration (the fleeing of your country) rates.
Examples: Cuba, North Korea, USSR... etc

Capitalist nations tend to have more political freedom (people's input in the government), Communist nations have almost no political freedom because they are ruled by one party.

Exactly, it's overproduction. A Communist economy first manufactures what it's people need, then what it can export, nothing more. It simply doesn't need to. Meanwhile, in the US, we produce stuff just to sell it to whoever wants to buy it. We have a tremendous surplus of grain in thsi country every year, much of which literally rots away with no one to buy it. And while the grain rots, 12% of our population (source: CIA Factbook) lives below the poverty lines, not making enough to properly feed or clothe temselves because ofthe exploitatation occuring under a strong capitalist system like America's. Let me illustrate this further...

Let's say you work as a Box Maker. Now, you're a pretty good Box Maker, so let's say you're able to assemble 60 boxes in one hour.
The materials and labor, etc. that go into making one box are worth about $1. So each box, at it's core value, is worth $1.

In a capitalist economy, the corporation that employs you will, of course, not pay you $1 per box. There'd be no profit in it for them just to pay you exactly what the box is worth and then sell it again for that price. Instead, you are paid, say, $15 per hour (a good wage for a simple box maker, no?) for making your boxes. That's $15 per hour for making 60 boxes, or $60, worth of goods. At the end of your 8-hour day you take home $120 for all of your hard work. The Corporation, on the other hand, is left with $480 worth of goods that you've made. They then sell the boxes at a store like Officemax for $5 apiece. Assuming that they can sell all of these boxes to consumers, the Corporation has made $2400 in income for your one day of hard work and paid you only $120 of it. That, gentlemen, is capitalism and exploitation. Even if they paid you $100 per hour they would still profit substantially.

In a Communist economy, on the other hand, the situation would be quite different. And I mean a real Marxist Lenninist economy in this example. There are countless ways of socialist principles that could be applied here, but for the sake of argument, I'll use the most obvious example. When you come into work at the Box Factory, you'll receive a quota of boxes to make. Your country may only need 250 boxes for that day, so that's all you'd made. Maybe this takes you 4 or 5 hours. Then when your Box Making is complete, you go home. You've produced only what your country knows it needs to consume, nothing more, nothing less. As far as payment, you are paid by the government (centralized economy here) exactly what the boxes are worth: $1 per box. Once you leave work you then enter a world where everything is sold for it's exact amount of materials and labor required. A hamburger is worth 20 cents, a new car is sold for $5,000 instead of $25,000, a t-shirt costs $1, not $15.
You also have free housing, free schools, and free medical care.
Everyone is equal, everyone is able to live comfortably providing a service to their country and get all they need to live in return. That is the difference between Communism and Capitalism.

[deutschgarten]

Name one communist nation that works in the way you described above and doesn't have a one party government and I'll be swayed.

[fgpr]

deutschgarten said:

Name one communist nation that works in the way you described above and doesn't have a one party government and I'll be swayed.

You're missing the point. No country in the world has ever been run exactly like this. What I've written is the Communist ideal. It is the last stage before total communism (like The Smurfs, really) that every true marxist movement ever has tried to achieve. It is an ideal--the end goal of revisionist communism. Everybody working together for the good of the community, the good of the country.

If you insist on an example of a country that did something like this, Yugoslavia from 1948-76 is a good example. They came quite close to achieving such a system before their rift with the Soviet Union and the eastern block began to really affect it's economy. It was a democracy too, if you insist on the notion that multi-party democracy is the holy grail of government (no matter how corrupt and exploitive one can be). Tito was elected by a free and fair vote every time he ran and his party, extraordinarily popular after single-handedly liberating his country from the Nazis, always won a large majority in parliament.

I am always unable to understand the idea of why so many people think that a multi-party (always a two party system in actuality, one right and one left) is the only true and effective way to run a government. There are other alternatives to better service the true needs of the people. People's councils (big town hall meetings), communes, community action and outreach programs, etc. are arguably better ways of getting local issues resolved than leaving them to elected officials who(more often than not) love to get kickbacks from spcial interest groups. Defending democracy and the people's right to choose their own destiny and government is a true tenant of socialism, but it often occurs in different forms than we in capitalist countries are used to. There are alternatives...

Furthermore, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I just want you to open your mind a little and see things from a different perspective. Doesn't the system I described above sound like a good one to live in? I think the 3 billion poor living on less than a dollar a day would think so. Isn't that a system worth working towards? At the very least from their point of view? Your way of life isn't the only one out there.

[deutschgarten]

I never said it had to be an american clone of Democracy. Just something besides a dictatorship. And what you're describing isn't reallly communism it sounds more like socialism. (And no, communism and socialism aren't the samething)

[fgpr]

It is socialism, a fairly advanced stage of it. If you want true Communism, go watch The Smurfs. Everybody working together to accomplish huge tasks, living in perfect equality, no money (only goods), hardworking, selfless, council democracy under the guidance of Karl Marx (Para Smurf), etc. That's Communism in it's truest form. Total equality wehere everybody performs the function that they're best suited for, all for the good of the community.

[Robespierre - P.R. of Debro]

deutschgarten said:

I never said it had to be an american clone of Democracy. Just something besides a dictatorship. And what you're describing isn't reallly communism it sounds more like socialism. (And no, communism and socialism aren't the samething)

Well, councils are organized from below - it's closer to direct democracy than the party system which centralize the power in the hand of the "choosen ones"(and often representing not the individuals but the interests of corporations and business sphere)

The left has a wide range - the goal is common(solidarity between people) the difference is only the way we should reach our goal.(And the level of solidarity,of course)

Mankind should stick together in the jungle of the market - the 'market' itself is so abstract - It is a crime to let people suffer or even die because some people "stronger" than others. It is illegal to kill someone - but you can chase somebody into a suicide in the name of socialdarwinism.

The left doesn't equal with dictatorship-FGPR's examples were excellent,i can agree with it.

What would you said if the question were "Socialism or capitalism?"

[fgpr]

Quite right, Debro. Let us not forget that capitalism descends into dictatorship just as often as any other form of economics can. Obvious examples are Argentina, Chile, the Phillipines, Spain, Portugal, etc. the list goes on and on. Communism is a form of economics and philosophy, anyhow, not a form of government.

[Neo Nibu]

Smurfs huh? Man I never wanna live in a communist nation if their is only one girl their. lol

[deutschgarten]

Wait a second, I thought we were comparing economic systems, not politics.

Communism is an economic sytem where the government controls the economy and it owns all of the businesses.

Capitalism is where supply and demand controls the economy and businesses are privately owned.

'nough said.

[Robespierre - P.R. of Debro]

Politics and economic system are close friends...one inducates the other

Yes, you're correct.

You're speakin' about an ideal market. In reality the market is never self-regulating. How can you say that supply and demand meets when millions starving to death, doesn't own a proper shelter...while a few other owns the whole GDP of a country?

We stated that communism is not equal with dictatorship.Then what's wrong with the governmental control when the control is good for the individuals and maintain maximal civil freedom?

[fgpr]

deutschgarten said:

Wait a second, I thought we were comparing economic systems, not politics.

Communism is an economic sytem where the government controls the economy and it owns all of the businesses.

Capitalism is where supply and demand controls the economy and businesses are privately owned.

'nough said.

If we're going to keep this simplistic then...

Communism is where the government (of the people) controls the economy. This is called a Command Economy and the government sees the needs of the people for that month (so many cars, bushels of wheat, pairs of jeans, etc.) that the people need and utilize the means of production (the farms, factories, mills, and whatnot) to make what is required, no more and no less. The government, therefore, acts as an administrator.

Capitalism, on paper, lets supply and demand control the whims of the economy. THe reality of this system is that the highest bidder always wins and the true demands of the people are often not met. The 30 million Americans who live below the poverty level (and billions worldwide) want (or DEMAND) the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, and shelter. Unfortunately, their demand is only met when they have the money to purchase what they want. These billions of poor and starving are in situations where they can't simply earn the money they need to and they are forgottena nd swept under the rug while privately owned corporations cater to those who can pay. This results in excess production and the worship of consumerism. There is also strong favoritism towards the uppers classes at the expense of the lower class.

In a communist economy, it is recognized that everyone only needs a certain amount of goods to live comfortably, and so these are all that are produced and all that are consumed. There is no such gross excess and all people live and work for their own equality and for the good of all people, not just themselves. In this type of economy, there are no poor, starving, forsaken masses. All are equal and content. We prefer this system because every gets what they need. Nobody is swep[t under the rug, forgotten, or exploited. It is true fairness and equality. That's all we've been trying to say here.

[teivostan]

How about something in-between communism and capitalism? It doesn't have to be left or right wing. What about the most important companies that produce things such as water, food, medicine, electricity, oil, public transport etc. be controlled by the state so that they can be distributed and controlled properly and other companies that produce luxury items be privately owned. Taxes get very high the more wealthy you are. This type of government would have the benefits of both communism and capitalism, the equal distribution of necesary goods and the chance to "make" yourself into something. In my opinion that would be ideal.

[Archaix]

I'm not sure if there's a specific term for that, but I know what you mean. The state owns the 'commanding heights' (eg, railways, healthcare, heavy industry) while small businesses are allowed to flourish, the country still works on a money economy, and there is a progressive tax system in place.

This is what I think the UK should be moving towards. Once we have that, and people can feel the benefit, we should move towards council communism by strengthening local councils and reinventing them for administration.

I'm not sure how it goes with Ireland; I'm not familiar with the economic or political structure.

[Robespierre - P.R. of Debro]

Side note: after the revolution in '56,stalinist Rakosi's successor, Kadar, introduced a new system in hungary. It was called "mankind-faced socialism". The principles were:

The state owns the 'commanding heights' (eg, railways, healthcare, heavy industry) while small businesses are allowed to flourish, the country still works on a money economy, and there is a progressive tax system in place.

Yes, the same. The system worked well, but the state collapsed in the 80's. Reasons:corruption,international pression, and the nonexistant democracy. Neverthless, this soft-socialism led to the bloodless hungerian democratic revolution(opposed to the bloody romanian, for example)

What i want to say?In my eyes, capitalism must be erradicated totally, and at once. Hard to achieve?Almost impossible.

[teivostan]

I'd much prefer to live in a well run, real communist country (excluding the banning of religion because people have a right to believe in something) than in the very capitalistic country I'm in now, but don't you think wiping out capitalism totaly is a bit drastic? Sometimes the people need something to call their own, something to be proud of. In my opinion a well run country would be a communist one with small hints of capitalism.

[Republicas Gloria]

W000 Communism! Sure I am still... abit undecided to put my full trust into communism (without banning of religion, Religious organizations are cool in my book and only they can be the wiff of capatalism). Maybe include instead of the government handing stuff out, a government issued credit that only works at government shops and religious places? If a person still has money good for them, it will become an antique soon.

I guess Communism is for me... after all Jesus believed in a form of Communism...