From the time of Cold war the Capitalist's and communist's were contravene each-other.But whose Ideology and main motto of work is good.

Views: 250

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Neither. Both lead to extremes. Stalinist Communism and Lenonian Communism are both a failure. Currently we live in a country where we are following Crony Capitalism which pretty much is corporate oligarchy and plutocracy.

I rather go for reformist democratic socialism with anarcho syndicalism. It seems to be in the middle of capitalism and socialism

Anarcho syndicalism? I'm not familiar with that.

Random ruler-less small clusters of people with common interest.

Which is better?

Define better... What does better mean when we are discussing a political ideology? What is the purpose of the system? What is the purpose of a society? Would "better" mean better fulfilling those purposes?

If the purpose of society is to provide for the population, communism is clearly a better choice. Whoever is in charge just orders things around until everyone is provided for. In practice, this has stereotypically resulted in a ruling elite and a starving populace. The other side of the coin is capitalism, where nothing about the ideology says people should be provided for: epic fail as far as our purpose is concerned. In practice, capitalism is what we have and the most effective countries in terms of our purpose are the ones where the government steps in and provides (or at least assists with providing) basic human services like health care and education.

Personally, I would like to see how a direct democracy would work. I don't want elected officials to speak for me, I am educated and informed and would like to speak for myself. I would also like to live in a utopia where everything is free. With no need to support a family, people could pursue things that actually interest them. Farmers can farm, engineers can engineer, etc.

A pox on both, with the greater pox on the current corporate screwing of the western world.

If the basic tenet of communism could be really implemented, that is the way I would go.  "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs."  Notice the word each.  there would be no more welfare parasites.  Everyone would have to contribute.  

Everyone would be assured of enough food, shelter clothing.  We wold get rid of this totally inequitable distribution of wealth.  Just look at some of the super wealthy.  Let's  take a billion dollars as a measure of wealth to consider.  You can't convince me that anyone on this planet has earned a billion dollars.  You just arent' worth that much.

How can a sports figure be worth 20, 30 million dollars for a year of hitting , carrying, or catching a ball?  It's ludicrous.

So I agree with Adam who is for a reformist democratic socialism.  THat would at least have a chance of being fair to a child born in Africa, or a child born to a crack mother here in the US.  At least the baby would have a chance.

If the basic tenet of communism could be really implemented, that is the way I would go.  "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs."  Notice the word each.  there would be no more welfare parasites.  Everyone would have to contribute.

And who is going to be in charge of deciding when you have contributed enough?  Who is it that people will have to go to when they need something?  I sure hope that person has a shitload of integrity and doesn't use that power for his own gain, either monetarily or just to accumulate power.  His job will come down to dispensing favors, to deciding that YOU get a house, Joe, and Bob, well you don't, you will settle for an apartment, and the decision maker will be the absolute dictator.  Some system.  It will inevitably come down to people exercising political pull, because absolutely every decision will be a political one.  If you hate wrangling with theists over what a political system will dish out to whom, all of your life would be like that under this system.

How can a sports figure be worth 20, 30 million dollars for a year of hitting , carrying, or catching a ball?  It's ludicrous.

He entertains millions of people, each of them willing to pay some relatively small amount of money to watch him do it.  I don't particularly like it, but he is giving value for that money; no one is stealing it for him (leaving aside taxpayer subsidized stadiums, which the electorate insists on approving when they are asked).

Hmm the intenet ate part of this somehow.

Just look at some of the super wealthy.  Let's  take a billion dollars as a measure of wealth to consider.  You can't convince me that anyone on this planet has earned a billion dollars.  You just arent' worth that much.

Really?

How much would someone have to offer you to get you to give up your computer, or Ipad or whatever it is you do your internet on?  That's how much value is added to your life by that device.  You surely paid much less for it, or you wouldn't have paid that much; it adds more value than it cost you.  Multiply that by the hundreds of millions of people who use those devices and the people who invented, got manufactured, distribued and marketed the devices have easily added trillions of dollars of value to the world, and that would not have happened without a few key people at the top innovating.  And you want to begrudge them a tiny fraction of what they have added to the world as a reward, just because it's a lot more money than you make?

I read over and over again people with the attitude that they'd rather be starving in abject poverty than not be starving but see someone else make a hundred times what they do.  I put it to them like that as a hypothetical and they choose equal misery over unequal prosperity without fail.  (But make no bones about it that is the actual choice reality offers.)  I find this incomprehensible bordering on psychotic.

that would not have happened without a few key people at the top innovating.

You think the people who are innovating are the people who are getting rich? how quaint...

Our current system sucks.  (On the other hand a lot of other systems suck far, far worse.)

But it's not in fact capitalism.  It's government dispensing favors to politically favored individuals (many of whom happen to run businesses), and harassing others (also many of whom run businesses by the way, or are trying to), and sometimes they help and harass the same person at the same time.

The fundamental problems with that concept won't disappear just by changing the list of who is politically favored and who isn't.  Which is what discussions like this usually come down to.

Better ? Better how ? better for the majority of those in society, better for those at the upper end ? Better for the planet and ecosystem ? Better for the individuals ability to THINK freely and creatively ? Or my own personal favourite, better in which to allow my children to develop into compassion hamn beings ?

Dump both, find another way, be creative.

That is indeed a very interesting question.

I alluded in an earlier comment to a rather interesting (and to me inexplicable) phenomenon:  People who would rather all be equally miserable than unequally prosperous.  If equality of wealth is an overwhelming value to you (you cannot stand the thought that someone else might be ten or a hundred times richer than you are even if the other option is you are both starving to death) then you will be unable to tolerate capitalism; it makes no claim to equality of outcome, it just makes a claim to a better average one, and even a better lower end than the average of other systems.

They are equally good and bad.  Capitalism is good because it is a better economic engine for creating wealth. Communism is good because it is a more humane philosophy that says all people deserve a substantial piece of the economic pie. Communism is bad because it usually requires an oppressively authoritarian system of controls.  Capitalism is bad because it often stratifies society, thus creating a deeply poor underclass.  Both suffer from the same fundamental weakness: GREED.

But there is a third option: socialism.  Ask just about anybody living in Canada, Sweden, Finland, the UK, Norway, France, and any number of countries which would be their choice among those three options and they would nearly all choose socialism.

Personally, I have a strong preference for socialism, which is a balance of the two extremes.  There is a reason that, in virtually every survey ever done on the attitudes of people around the world, socialist countries always come out on top in terms of perceived happiness.  That is because everyone is guaranteed a decent level of subsistence; and people have NOT been brought up, as have
Americans, to worship the accumulation of wealth as the ultimate objective.  In socialist countries, most people adhere to the idea that we are all our brother's keeper. 

RSS

Forum

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Davis Goodman 2 hours ago. 48 Replies

Awe struck

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Davis Goodman 3 hours ago. 26 Replies

The Shinto Flower among the Weeds of Religion

Started by Cato Rigas in Advice. Last reply by Ward Cressin 10 hours ago. 7 Replies

Blog Posts

A Life-Changing Confrontation

Posted by Belle Rose on October 23, 2014 at 2:55am 2 Comments

Life Condensed

Posted by Cato Rigas on October 19, 2014 at 8:30pm 3 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service