1. Hello and welcome to the brand new home for PlayDota!
    Please read through our Welcome thread to see what's new!
    Dismiss Notice

Socialism VS Capitalism and the compromises between them

Discussion in 'World News & Debate' started by Nezekan, Mar 5, 2017.

  1. Nezekan

    Nezekan Moderator Staff Member

    4,677
    396
    83
    Jan 17, 2011
    This topic is mostly motivated by what Jonathan Pie said some days ago. Most people think Capitalism has not failed and proudly call themselves one, without realizing that what we have today only has the name of capitalism and has been forever touched and changed by socialism, which was nothing but a compromise between Capitalism and Communism.

    There is of course people think Socialism and Communism are the same thing. I mean the president of United States called Bernie Sanders Commie/Socialist, implying both are the same. Well, it isn't. That's like saying Dog/Pigeon. Communism is pretty much the opposite of Capitalism whereas Socialism recognizes Capitalism results in inequality and Communism discourages hard work and advancement. So socialism is basically capitalism while advocating sometimes the state has to step in. In Socialism you still get to do business, make money and have ambitions. So when some make billions and others literally starve, the state is there to curb these excesses.

    Socialism is an ideology and has pretty much integrated into every modern society. Do you believe everyone, rich and poor, should have access to affordable justice system? Then you are a socialist because a few hundreds years ago, under pure capitalism this was not practiced and frowned upon and its main ideal of socialism. "You only deserve justice if you are successful" this is how it was under pure Capitalism. Welfare is an invention of Socialism and did not exist under pure capitalism. If you believe you should not go bankrupt if you are diagnosed with cancer, then you are a socialist because according to pure capitalism that existed in the same time as soviet union and communism, only the successful deserve advanced medical care.

    Most people are socialists without ever knowing it simply because of the facade that capitalism has not failed and that it was not fully transformed from the core after coming in contact with Socialism. Being the opposite of communism caused it to disregard anything coming from that system, but socialism was different and now exists in majority of countries. Funnily there are still communist countries out there (e,g North Korea) but there is not a single country that still has pure capitalism.

    In recent decades, Socialism has fully integrated with majority of economical systems as they have adopted major ideals from Socialism that has gained more and more traction over the years and it still does.

    I don't think capitalism has failed as hard as communism, but the idea of capitalism has failed and it could not have existed in this day and age without compromise between two extremes, that was the invention of Socialism.

    Discuss.
     
  2. lovestep

    lovestep Member

    614
    48
    28
    Jan 10, 2015
    How many hundreds of millions died under communism and how many died under capitalism to make capitalism even come close to "failing" as hard as communism did.

    But sure, rename the topic to socialism vs capitalism and we can all start arguing over it.


    My view is exactly the opposite, that too much government intervention to begin with is what damages capitalism and doesn't allow it to flourish and regulate itself. The fact that the government supplies college loans for instance is the exact reason that allows the colleges to charge the absurd fees that they do, knowing that people will enroll anyway since the federal government offers loans to help out with this.
    If the government does not step in to offer loans, the vast majority of students can no longer afford to enroll, the colleges make no money and they are forced to lower the fees. That's how a market regulates itself without the government stepping in. The same thing happened with the US and their "too big to fall" Wallstreet friends, bailing them out. In a healthy capitalism anyone should be able to fall no matter how big they are, that's how competition flourishes and the consumer benefits, but the federal government steps in and what happens? Recession.



    Here's a decent debate between a socialist and a capitalist, carried out by 2 very familiar figures Sanders and Ted.



    I suggest all should watch that to see the enormous difference in perspective.

    Draw your own conclusions from it but for me it's just painfully obvious how out of touch with reality the socialists always are.




    Some more decent arguments in favor of capitalism against the common misconceptions that the poor carry against it:


    Anyway, bottom line, my stance is that economically, socialism focuses on the weak and promotes mediocrity while capitalism favors the strong and promotes competitiveness.
     
  3. Jon

    Jon Member

    3,612
    334
    83
    Feb 24, 2012
    @lovestep Nezekan's point is that 'pure' capitalism can never exist in practicality, and if it does, it adopts some socialist aspects in order to continue. One can assume that pure capitalism (which as I understand would be like anarcho-capitalism, but correct me if I'm wrong) would cause the largest wealth disparities, and not provide any essential services (like healthcare) to the lowest economic positions, and so would cause many many deaths. As Nezekan's post already points out, though, there is no real world example to prove or disprove this assertion.
     
  4. lovestep

    lovestep Member

    614
    48
    28
    Jan 10, 2015
    Socialism and capitalism cannot exist in ideal form and will always borrow some elements from one another, even more depending how close you are to the center.
    Ancap is a very stupid concept imo, I've only ran into 2 real believers in anarcho-capitalism so far during my life and none of them managed to explain to me who will build and maintain roads in such a society. Authoritarian capitalism is also a very dumb idea, since it's basically just fascism and destroys competition.

    You can't have pure capitalism, but you can still have mildly regulated capitalism while preventing the government from manipulating funds. The point is it needs to be balanced out, and right now it's leaning rather hard towards fascism, too many dumb regulations and too much government intervention. I should know, I registered a business in the US.
     
  5. enrico.swagolo

    enrico.swagolo Member

    3,882
    42
    48
    Mar 23, 2014
    Communism did not "fail" in countries like North Korea or even China for the same reason capitalism hasn't "failed" in the US — the government and the military produce policies and interventions to keep these economic regimes intact. You can't really argue with someone when they are rolling tanks over our home. It's not just the US that enslaved other people or abused migrant labor... Russia and China have done the same thing. And the only reason why communism is considered a "failure" is because USSR, the enemy in the Cold War, ceased to exist as a political entity, even though its legacy is alive and well...
     
  6. Nezekan

    Nezekan Moderator Staff Member

    4,677
    396
    83
    Jan 17, 2011
    Well it depends really. I don't support communism at all, but then again economic system has little to do with how authoritarian leaders act. Hitler and Stalin had equal amount of power among their people and one came from a very capitalist country and the other from birthplace of communism.

    Not a bad idea actually.

    Government loans and similar solutions are simply half measures and for that reason can fall short. The government should either do nothing about the college, or make higher education free for everyone. Socialism does not advocate equality at all, only equal opportunity. You already explained what happens if the government doesn't step in, but if it steps in fully and makes higher education free (at least the first level) then more people get into needed jobs, their favorite jobs etc... Not to mention not everyone can academically advance. When higher education is free, there won't be low quality and cheap colleges handing out grades. Those who graduate from colleges have earned their degree. All this, in the long run, help the government as more people get out of streets and poverty and pay more taxes to the government. Of course for this to work, we need progressive tax system which is another aspect of Socialism. This is currently a system in Scandinavian countries, most notably Finland and Denmark and its a proof that it works. Also, progressive tax system is integrated in most countries regardless of higher education.

    The real problem here is trying to introduce Socialism to America really. While they also have some socialist elements in their country, its probably less noticeable than anywhere else. You do get bankrupt if you have cancer in America and welfare doesn't really cover anything and in many cases leads to abuse of free money. Is it so bad to advocate a fix for these? I mean you never gave the guy a chance.

    Thinking everyone should have a roof over their head with acceptable income is not "focusing on the weak and promoting mediocrity". Under socialism the competition is different. Say company A serves its own society better than company B, then that's when people flock to company A and company B loses. Serving his own society can mean better business practice, treatment of workers etc... which fall under socialism values. But in America you have corporate powers forcing their own market down people's throats and kicking out objectively better business with their unethical business practices and horrible treatment of their workers (Hello Walmart).
     
  7. Lama051

    Lama051 Moderator Staff Member

    10,395
    84
    48
    Nov 13, 2009
    The so called "Pure capitalism" ended in 19th century (aka over one century dead) and it was not the best system, why should someone just because he was born to a certain family have all the privilege, while the other one should be kept from breaking out of his initial status? That is like cast system in India, it makes no sense whatsover. You should be rewarded based on knowledge or your skills, not based on your family heritage.

    Socialism has fully integrated with majority of economical systems.

    What? Socialism was what ruled over eastern block of the Iron curtain. So saying that it is fully integrated into most systems in countries is pure bullshit. Just some ideas of it are implemented such as maximum working hours per day, working conditions, minimum wage etc.

    About communist countries in the world, there is really just North Korea nowdays and that one is not really doing well. China is already in the transformation process, even though it is quite slow and limited it is already happening.

    What happens when government does not step in? Entire baking system collapses, people do not trust in the money any more etc.

    All banks are very strongly connected to each other, problems of few quickly spread over to others. There is no bank in the entire world that is capable of paying their deposits to all clients at once. None. As a result if the bank is in trouble it will pull its liquidity it has stored in other banks, if that is not enough to satisfy the demand of their clients than panic ensues. This panic starts to spread to other banks' clients. They also begin to withdraw money, banks have to repeat steps of bank that got into trouble first, pulling liquidity back to them. Now even more banks are in trouble. And the spiral starts. You cannot let big banks fail. That would be straight up disaster.

    Communism never happened, it is utopic idea that can never be achieved due to human nature.
     
  8. kamukag3e

    kamukag3e Member

    2,089
    87
    48
    Jun 11, 2009
    Very interesting topic, I would like to join in, even with my very limited knowledge of the matter.

    First I would like to say that I think about the three political systems as somehow similar.
    Even if they at first glance seem very different, in my opinion they aren't.

    If we try to simplify them to the core they should sound simple.

    Communism idea is that the elected government to control all the aspect of it's citizen as far as economy and welfare goes while giving them freedom and equal opportunities.

    Socialism is not going to interfere in the economy outside of taxes and a little bit of additional stimulus, while covering all of the welfare thanks to taxes and management of them as a resource. So promoting balance of equal opportunities and heritage success.

    Capitalism in it's core is advocating for strong independence of the citizen and nearly no control of them by the government outside of acting inside the law in said country.

    This is the simple I can put it, you can add a lot of other things and they will be right, but won't be simple.
    But we actually didn't have any Communist country, for everyone who think that USSR was - it was pure dictatorship, just it was a party instead of specific person in charge most of the time, when the president was not controlling everything (like Stalin was).
    Chine is far from communism as well, North Korea is fully pledge dictatorship with no communism involved.

    Socialism in it's variation is what we see all around the world in first world contraries, going more 'left' or 'right' in some cases.
    The USA is far on the right (going towards Capitalism) while Norway and some other northern European countries are on the far left. Central European countries being a little bit more to the middle.

    A lot of people are actually missing the human factor in their predictions, equations and understanding. Oppressed people like those in North Korea are easy to manipulate and a dictator can do whatever he wants. In more civilized countries no matter how much power you have, you at least have to indicate that people can riot if they thing it's right. If you switch from socialism to pure capitalism you will have a big problem, the middle class will go extinct by definition but no one will be trying to go to the low class and serving job, everyone striving to succeed will actually cripple the economy. We have a saying in my country 'too much Chief, too little Indians' (or too much officers, too little soldiers), because low payed jobs won't have health insurance and because of the 'not interfering in the private sector policy' even won't be payed enough to cover their expenses.

    So the whole point is that Capitalism in it's pure form is very bad. Communism on the other hand is somewhat of an utopia which goes against the basic human behavior.
     
  9. Eli_Green

    Eli_Green Member

    7,280
    1,012
    113
    Oct 29, 2013
    I'm actually glad both of you mentioned the human element. A lot of people try and have this conversation while trying to ignore it, which makes no sense given the basis of any given system's so called failure is exactly that.

    This also essentially means that the system's people will choose and favour will end up drawing from multiple schools of political thought to build a solution that works for a given community/population. Although we tend to classify these such systems into predefined groups. The truth of it is that pretty much all system's are a mashup of schools of thought. Take China for instance. Many people simply call the PRC communist; but when you look at it critically you see that it has elements of capitalism, a few different types of communism and some of its own modifications made to all of these schools of thought in order to make it work for them.
     
  10. gen.Weekend

    gen.Weekend Member

    1,230
    32
    48
    Apr 4, 2012
    Ah yes... the eternal argument

    [​IMG]

    Socialism is the middle ground between capitalism and communism.

    I don't really like any of them... I get angry every time i see one of those anti-capitalism pro-socialism activists, it's always some limp wristed squeaky-voiced glasses wearing guy, it's like they know they can't survive on their own and they need to force the strong to carry them on their backs.

    I also dislike the kind of capitalism you lot got going on in the US... it's like every man for himself, literally no sense of community.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 7, 2017
  11. IHateLeavers

    IHateLeavers Member

    4,960
    14
    38
    Feb 15, 2012
    You shouldnt think about it as each of these systems was some sort of guidance for humanity problems.

    All those systems are just different forms of manipulations. First of, you need to realize few things before you want to discuss this topic further.

    1. Most of the things which humanity have today is mostly inheritance of the killing from the past. In oder to fully understand it you have to forget about reasons why people were killing each other and focus only on who lost/gain more, which is not always easy to guess by using official info only. It's not a secret that some people, companies or even whole countries benefit on a certain conflicts or regional crisis.

    2. Democracy is just advanced form of manipulation where cheating and PR means more than actual facts. Most of the regions over the world uses this "system" in order to make majority think that they have impact on the outcome. There's ofc some true in it, until you understand other aspects.

    Most obvious fact is that vote of a professor is equal to vote of a slacker who never worked in his life and survive only due to social system. The problem start when you realize that no matter how good and important your arguments are, they're still useless if you fail to convince majority of the people to NOT vote for populist. all of the people want to have good quality of life for themself and those they care about, but not all of them are able to achieve it, and this is where populist kick in.

    Socialist may claim they want to "balance thngs out" for the "greater good", but it doesnt necessary mean that they know how to do it properly. Many of those people have morality of a "double edged sword", which means that on one side they're empathic, but on the other side fo the sword, the same morality blinds those people to the point where they stop perceiving the line between reality and utopia.

    If you want good example, just look at Africa and people who complain about poor children dying from hunger and diseases. Sure, civilized and rich countries could easily feed them, but it wouldn't solve the main problem but only delay it, because most of those "satisfy" people would make even more children in the future and thus requiring more and more help. On top of that you get religious fanatics idiots claiming that every kid is a blessing from a god and ignoring the facts that region where those people life is not able to handle that many people.

    On the other hand, you get Capitalist who often believe that everything and everyone has price. They will fight over every part of our planet and resource, not just to get richer, but to remove any kind of chance of other humans existing outside of "their system". Even a deserts are under someone's control. Some of them made a lot of $ from the conflicts that humanity had in the past or poor rules that our system had in the past and thus allowed certain people to easily get rich. They would rather lose twice the money on buying the media for propaganda, than let some filthy socialist take money away from them via higher taxes or other regulations.

    There are ofc also good capitalist who dont mind sharing their money with other, but in the end it all comes down to who can convince majority of the people to vote for specific people. Convince them, not with facts only, but any kind of BS which majority will believe in.


    I wont write much about Communism, because it's pretty similar to socialism but with more nepotism and BS involved. Communism is bound to fail due to flaws in the design. System which is made on pure faith in kindness and honesty of people in charge, simply wont end well for normal people. The best proof are all the countries where commism is still a main model. The best of those countries (quality of life wise) is most likely China, and not because of great leaders, but due to stupidity and greed of Capitalist who founded them all the improvements and work for normal people by moving most of the production over there.


    Good system should always be based on rational rules, because even normal people need to learn how to survive and make smth on their own when their best leaders die or fail due to corruption or other reasons.


    PS, i'd like to get a bit more in to the topic but this post is getting way too long and im a bit tired. Sorry for all the grama errors, cba to bother with it atm.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2017
  12. Petique

    Petique Member

    2,912
    47
    48
    Sep 4, 2013
    The first fallacy you make is that you simply conclude that capitalism has failed because no country has an ultra capitalist, free market absolutist system. That's completely ridiculous because we don't have such a system since the 1890s, in some countries regulations and social security in work places have been legislated even earlier. However that doesn't in any way mean that capitalism has failed, it means that capitalism has evolved, just like every ideology has over the time.
    No that's completely wrong, socialism doesn't recognize that and is in no way related to capitalism. Socialism is in short, owning and controlling the means of production and a "fair" redistribution of wealth. The problem is that government decides what is fair and what isn't by basically assuming the role of an arbiter which I find utterly ridiculous because no man has the authority nor knowledge to determine how should wealth be distributed among the citizens. It starts from the idea that " I breath, therefore I deserve" and a socialist government applies this idea by the use of force aka by taking away a big sum of the fruits of your labor, imposing high taxes on everything that has a more significant value so that they could maintain the welfare state.
    On the other hand capitalism is the complete opposite, it is basically "I either starve or I will provide the service that society needs", it is a consensual relationship between consumer and manufacturer or employer and employee because if you make shitty products, no one is gonna buy them or if you provide shitty work conditions no one is going to work for you. It requires a consensus because without it your business will fail or you either look for different opportunities but the fundamental difference between these two ideas is that capitalism gives you the freedom what to do with your life and money while socialism intervenes in both of the aforementioned spheres in the name of combating income inequality. However income inequality is a minor issue it is just being over exaggerated by socialists which still wouldn't necessarily be a problem if they wouldn't be trying to solve this issue the wrong way.
    See, they believe that by imposing higher taxes on the rich and by making them less rich, poor people will have a better life but that couldn't be farther from the truth because as it turns out giving free stuff doesn't make the situation easier for them if they can't find jobs. Bill Gates has created hundreds of thousands of jobs by inventing and developing stuff that the society likes and needs which means that he as a corporate owner alone has helped more people get out of poverty than any socialist government in the world combined. So the point isn't making Bill Gates less rich, the point is giving people more jobs and more opportunities so that the economy could grow.
    Notice how countries' economy stagnates and degrades under socialist governments which can not only be examined in Venezuela but also in Nordic countries. I know a lot of socialists view the Nordic countries as some sort of paradise on Earth but as always, the reality is much more complex and much less ideal. Socialist, social democratic systems which were introduced in the Nordic countries in the 80s which they could afford only because they had enough capital to invest into creating welfare states. However it turns out, such systems can only be maintained for a certain period of time because as I have mentioned previously, economy started to stagnate, profits were getting low and maintaining the ever growing needs of welfare beneficiaries (whose number has also risen significantly) was becoming a problem. Hence, why in the last 10 years the Nordic countries are again shifting from social democratic governments to conservative capitalist ones. Except for Sweden, which is unsurprisingly having the most problems as a result of that. With that said, the swedish government still claims that there is no problem and the economy is strong even though they are raising taxes even more, taking more loans and cutting welfare. Waiting times in hospitals in Sweden are nowadays among the worst in Europe because migrants put such a pressure on the healthcare system that it is struggling to fulfill the needs of the ever growing beneficiaries of the system. The country sustains itself from loans and housing which is not what I'd call an example for a stable, growing economy.
    You know the funny thing is that you and the overwhelming majority of people who advocate for socialism are the biggest beneficiaries of the capitalist society. You are an upper middle class guy who has the privilege to study at a renowned university and live in one of the most prosperous countries in the world yet you are advocating for a socialist system in the name of helping the poor. The minor inconvenience in your story is that no one believes you because just like every socialist, you don't want to help the poor, you just want to punish the rich because god forbid they own more money and wealth than you and it must mean that they are the oppressors. So quit this story, we all know what you want and we all know thanks to history how it will end.
     
  13. IHateLeavers

    IHateLeavers Member

    4,960
    14
    38
    Feb 15, 2012

    This can only work if there's enough competition and regulations. If you have monopoly, you can sell very low quality of products and provide work in very bad conditions but people will still accept them due to lack of alternative options. This is why most biggest companies move productions to countries where you can build with the cheapest cost. They dont care about people who cant help their firma with intellectual improvements.

    Capitalism by default aim to conquer the market, it doesnt have any self limits of healthy competition. This is why socialism became popular in the first place. There was a lot of people doing the most basic work who felt that everything around them was improving except quality of their life, and because of equality of vote power, they could easily choose new leaders who're willing to change things in their favor, even if it would only last for a short time.

    There's simply not enough smart capitalist, who understand that gain needs to be spread somewhat equally, so everybody can feel that their effort was worth it.
     
  14. HHHNNNGGG

    HHHNNNGGG Member

    17,166
    220
    63
    Sep 21, 2010
    Both capitalism and communism are ideologies that, obviously, can't work in practice. Because if they did work in practice they would not be "ideologies".

    Capitalism cannot work 100% because its utopian idea will just destroy itself. Free market with zero state intervention will create greedy corporations and monopolies that curb off any newcomer, starve off the proletarians and in turn destroy free market status itself.

    On the other hand, communism is impractical due to the same human greed. You can't expect people to sacrifice themselves for the others without receiving an equal payment in return. Communism's ideal is a classless, moneyless and stateless society, which in turn has no motivation, no trade, no social bond, and no order.

    What people are seeking is actually classical liberalism, where personal liberty is the main cause. A minimal state is required as the neutral party to ensure all the cogs of a free society to function properly, and protect everybody equally. Market is left to regulate itself within a limit that does not make market go off track. In the end we have to return back to John Locke's and Adam Smith's model.
     
  15. Ostarion

    Ostarion Member

    3,038
    55
    48
    Jun 24, 2012
    Communism is the belief that everything is owned by all the people in a given society, and that everyone gets paid equally. It has never been implemented anywhere and it will never work because it is impossible.

    Capitalism is the belief ownership is in the hands of a single person who gets more out of it than the people working for him. It is just another word for slavery or feudalism and has been the default setting for most of history. The elite profiteering from the masses. The only difference is today we are working voluntarily for them.

    Huh, sounds like what is happening today, and has been for quite some time.
     
  16. HHHNNNGGG

    HHHNNNGGG Member

    17,166
    220
    63
    Sep 21, 2010
    Oh yes, can't deny on that point. But there are also big guys who got wiped out, because they could not keep up with changes and new competitors. Do people here even know about Kodak? You guys might be familiar with Nokia and Yahoo, btw.

    Roosevelt (not FDR) once curbed off some cheating monopolies who used their massive wealth to dominate the market. Maybe the US needs another Teddy, but I don't think that the state should intervene more than necessary. Private sectors should be the main actors in market, not the state.
     
  17. Nezekan

    Nezekan Moderator Staff Member

    4,677
    396
    83
    Jan 17, 2011
    Sure, if you want to call "borrowing" core socialist ideals "evolving" but we both know its not true. I will get into that in below parts of my posts. But if you knew core ideals of socialism you would know. Income, welfare, healthcare etc... is forever and touched and changed by socialism.

    Actually you are completely wrong, because here you assume there is authoritarian leader in the socialist government, as you claim "no man" can know what's fair. There is no "man" here, there are congresses and parliaments and voice of the people. That's why socialism works better with democracy. The people decide what's fair and the society shuns unethical business practices without the help of the government. Walmart in America is a very good example of this.

    Except this model never worked. Shitty products, shitty work conditions, low income and forced marketing has plagued America more than anywhere else on west because they have been very late to pass socialist reforms and by the time they did, these shitty companies were already protected by the constitution. Walmart, McDonald, you name it. They will forever remain as atrocities of uncontrolled capitalism.

    Socialism never advocates for equality, but equal opportunity. There is a big difference but based on this paragraph, you haven't grasped it yet.

    Last I checked, Bill gates was only providing jobs for people with degrees from expensive colleges. He was doing nothing special. The people with those kind of degrees would have been able to find jobs anyway. I will give you an example of a socialism system that currently works perfectly in Germany. You are a person with no job or degree. You go to a special center and apply for job training. It can be anything as long as its not something too professional, such as being a doctor. (Some colleges are free who take care of these, we are talking more immediate jobs here). You choose to be a mechanic. The government pays your training fees and you become a mechanic. Then you start your job as a mechanic and each month you pay tiny bit more taxes to repay the training fees. The tax is so small, it won't even matter. You can, at anytime, pay the fee upfront and quit your job. Now this is helpful. And for whatever its worth, Germany has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the western world. Germany doesn't officially have a socialist government, but its more similar to socialism than capitalism in terms of welfare, healthcare, education etc...


    Last I checked Norway and Denmark still have this system. It doesn't have to be officially called socialism. Affordable justice system for everyone never existed in capitalism and its one of core values of Socialism. Take that away and the whole ideology falls apart. Same goes for healthcare. Not losing all your fortune and going bankrupt because you are diagnosed with a serious illness is also a core value. Because human life > human gain. The meaning of capitalism gets lost when vast majority of its original ideas are gone, severely limited or outright replaced by values borrowed from Socialism.

    Oh really? So you are basically generalizing and discrediting me for personal reasons. OK, exactly something a losing side would do. "All socialist are X". You can't even entertain the idea that half the countries in the world have moved towards socialism with their regulations, tax systems, healthcare, welfare etc... The only thing missing is the name.

    Now that you mention it however, my University was free if you didn't know and I worked two jobs when I was studying. The rich don't get less rich under socialism. They simply get slightly richer in opposed to getting richer and richer in capitalism. Its not punishment, its hive mind mentality. They earn from the society and need to return to it. They earn money because of the work people do for them and because of the protections and options the government provides for them.

    So in a way, socialist aspects helped me more than capitalist aspects ever did.
     
  18. Purdurabo

    Purdurabo Member

    466
    0
    16
    Apr 30, 2014
    It is the greatest lie of the modern era that communism has failed. Communism has never even been seriously attempted on a large scale let alone failed.

    Now before anyone points to the USSR, China or Cuba I would like you to stop and think for a second and then explain to me how those countries where ever communist in anything other than name? Just it seams that everytime that someone points out an example of communism failing what they are actually pointing to is an example of authoritarian dictatorship on the political spectrum coupled with state capitalism on the economic spectrum having failed.
     
  19. Jon

    Jon Member

    3,612
    334
    83
    Feb 24, 2012
    I think what you're missing is that these don't prove that "Communism fails hurr durr" but that the inevitable conclusion from attempting to usher in communism (which obviously wouldn't have a central government at all) is that the authority that wants to do the ushering will become corrupt and totalitarian instead of keeping on track with their original goal (whether the goal was real or just a facade in the first place, it doesn't matter.)

    EDIT: For the record, I think communism is stupid, not only for the reasons I've already mentioned, but also I feel that scientific advancement is essential for a successful society, and communism isn't really interested in that.
     
  20. Eli_Green

    Eli_Green Member

    7,280
    1,012
    113
    Oct 29, 2013
    Humans prevent communism in its truest sense from ever being achievable friendo