Capitalism or Communism? (1 Viewer)

[_dhj_]

it wont last forever, people will want to overthrow the dictator and it will become mob rule

The dictators will be the faceless multinational corporations that everyone works for anyway.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

EDIT: Gh3y, Socialism and Communism may have their similarities but they're still quite different from each other. Communism is basically the "final level" - Socialism is the lead up to Communism. It's still quite liberal.

You're an idiot.

 

[bassistx]

You're an idiot.

It is a political ideology which rejects religion.
You are an idiot. Ffs use google.

 

[Matt1120]

The dictators will be the faceless multinational corporations that everyone works for anyway.

yeah i'll believe that lol... but like all leaders eventually the public will lose confidence in them and cause a revolution......then oneday australia will be a monarchy again...then back to democracy...then dictatorship and so on...the cycle will happen forever

 

[bassistx]

Schro, think utilitarianism

 

[Enteebee]

Schro, think utilitarianism

You're going to assume that we can do some 'simple' utility calculus with lives?

 

[bassistx]

Best for the most still justifies government x to slaughter a bunch of people in the name of the will of the people.

It's not the way to go.

Democracy which is one vote, one voice, does have its flaws, but having the government providing all services and having those kind of life and death decisions forced onto party hacks who seek to better themselves disgusts me.

Best for the most in purely economic terms would be a truly free market, wouldn't it?

You don't have to kill people. Some communist leaders, after rising to power, turned into dictators. This is where the killing came in. Frankly, they gave communism a bad name/image. It really isn't meant to be that way. It's all about the people. A self-less government.

If you think about it, it is free. To an extent. You still have business opportunities, selling etc, but health care, education, and other necessities are free. I think this is a right of every human being.
That's just me. Majority rules. Whether it's democracy or not, majority rules. Afterall, whoever gets the most votes wins, correct? Funny how we vote in pencil though.

 

[Enteebee]

Yes and no. In terms of raw output yes. In terms of utility, its highly contentious, but I would argue no. Due to the diminishing marginal utility of money I would argue that if there is radically unequal distribution of wealth this results in less total utility than if there is less total output but greater equality.

Yea this is where the real debate is regarding free market economics imo. I can see a decent argument for both sides of the coin, however I tend to imagine that as our society moves forward technologically our governments ability to manage our society might be lessened (whereas I suppose against this, there would be some things that would help assist the government in dealing with our society).

 

[joshau-k]

Communism failed in 1917
The countries that have been known as communist have never been the classless societies by which communism is defined, there have just been less classes and more division between the two.
Communism will never succeed so long as it is called 'communism'

 

[Enteebee]

Communism will never succeed so long as it is called 'communism'

We should rebrand it 'Awsmism' ?

 

[Matt1120]

Whatever you call it, it just wont work..unless we all wake up one day not feeling the urge to be greedy and make ourselves b etter than everyone else is the day that communism has a chance

 

[arae]

I think you can talk all day on it but really in the present day it is moot - Communism is exceedingly moral but not plausible.

This coming from a socialist.

 

[bassistx]

I believe there's hope. But the main issue is eliminating social classes. That's a good place to start.

Is a job a necessity? Is housing a necessity? Is income a necessity? Is a car a necessity? At which point do we draw the line between the indulgences of modern life and that which people require to live.

......You get a job, duh. Nobody said you were going to get fired or whatever. But your boss's income is capped. I reckon that's fair. And that money is spent on things like health care and education to make them free. I know that sounded funny, but it's still "free". I hate seeing people earn billions each hour and do nothing. They gave $1mil to charity maybe once. Alright. But that's for publicity, everybody knows that. If they have so much money, why don't they share it? It's not fair seeing people prance around in designer clothes, $8000 flip flops and kids don't even have a bread crumb to eat.

You are incorrect. Populism rules, majority does not.

In this case, it would win anyway if you rounded up enough workers.
The Communist Revolution. That's almost an oxymoron. I'd like to see it happen.
There's more of the working class.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

If they have so much money, why don't they share it?

Because they worked for that money. Why should you feel like you have to share around the money you work for with other people? It might sound awful, but other people's circumstances are not your problem to fix. If Person A earns a six figure salary, he shouldn't have to give any of it to Person B who works a different job or no job at all, just because Person B earns less.

If you go and get the education and take the opportunities and get the jobs and work the hours needed to get where you want to go in life, nobody should be able to take that away from you in the interests of 'equality'. If you want it, you have to go get it. It's tough, but that's life.

 

[bassistx]

Because they worked for that money. Why should you feel like you have to share around the money you work for with other people? It might sound awful, but other people's circumstances are not your problem to fix. If Person A earns a six figure salary, he shouldn't have to give any of it to Person B who works a different job or no job at all, just because Person B earns less.

If you go and get the education and take the opportunities and get the jobs and work the hours needed to get where you want to go in life, nobody should be able to take that away from you in the interests of 'equality'. If you want it, you have to go get it. It's tough, but that's life.

I hope you realize that not everybody can afford to go to school.
And think about people in the 3rd world. Should we just ignore them? Your argument is completely void of any moral or ethical values. And that's what makes us human.

EDIT: Also think of the kids of the guys who don't earn as much. What did they do to deserve it? They have to have a poor quality of life because of their parents. How can you justify that?

 

[ccc123]

I believe there's hope. But the main issue is eliminating social classes. That's a good place to start..

While egalitarianism is theoretically utopian and all, for a society/government to run efficiently, wouldn't you agree there needs to be some sort of hierarchy? I think trying to alleviate the disparity between social classes should be pursued, but class stratifications can never be elimiated completely.

 

[boris]

Man you're so stupid.

Why should social classes be abolished? If I work hard for my $X then why should I be the same class as somebody who doesn't work as hard, or who isn't as educated and therefore well paid?

Not all people are equal. This is a fact. Get over it.

. If they have so much money, why don't they share it? It's not fair seeing people prance around in designer clothes, $8000 flip flops and kids don't even have a bread crumb to eat.

Why the hell should they? If you google the top 500 richest people in the world, you will find that only a tiny percentage of them have inherited their wealth. A lot of todays billionaires/millionaires are self made. Why should they be expected to share their wealth?

Example; the founder of IKEA furniture was a college drop out. Now worth billions.

I hope you realize that not everybody can afford to go to school.
And think about people in the 3rd world. Should we just ignore them? Your argument is completely void of any moral or ethical values. And that's what makes us human.

EDIT: Also think of the kids of the guys who don't earn as much. What did they do to deserve it? They have to have a poor quality of life because of their parents. How can you justify that?

People in third world countries aren't my concern. I don't care. I care about numero uno. I'm not going to go to uni and get a job so that I can then donate my money to people? Rich people pay taxes, and they pay a hell of a lot more tax than low income earning people. I think they pay their dues.

 

[bassistx]

The hierarchy is the government.

They get rich because they avoid tax. Dumbass. That's clear.

My goal is charity. I'm not as heartless. And they didn't work that hard - most of them didn't even complete secondary school. I don't call that hard work. They simply took a shortcut and got lucky.

 

[boris]

The hierarchy is the government.

They get rich because they avoid tax. Dumbass. That's clear.

My goal is charity. I'm not as heartless. And they didn't work that hard - most of them didn't even complete secondary school. I don't call that hard work. They simply took a shortcut and got lucky.

Fuck you're even dumber than I thought.

If the government is a group of people elected by the people, and if there is no other class system or hierarchy, how can you justify the government being the be all and end all?

They tried this, it doesn't fucking work. In order for it to work, the government would have to be made up of benevolent people. These people do not exist. Communism fails.

 

[ccc123]

Because they worked for that money. Why should you feel like you have to share around the money you work for with other people? It might sound awful, but other people's circumstances are not your problem to fix. If Person A earns a six figure salary, he shouldn't have to give any of it to Person B who works a different job or no job at all, just because Person B earns less.

If you go and get the education and take the opportunities and get the jobs and work the hours needed to get where you want to go in life, nobody should be able to take that away from you in the interests of 'equality'. If you want it, you have to go get it. It's tough, but that's life.

I see where you're coming from with Protestant work ethic and all, don't you think it needs to be acknowledged that now all are given equal opportunity to education, work etc? A person's socio-economic circumstances aren't the product of their own actions solely. There is no simple causal relationship between working hard and 6 figure salaries. There are external determinants that will influence your socio-economic status.