Rick2tails: @somethingsomething capitalism often has a complete disregard for human life. look at any oil spill, chemical plant explosion ,cigarettes, if a profit can be made on dead bodies theres people willing to do it. theres never been a policy of communism to murder people. In fascist or corrupt governments (which has unfortunately been every communist country thats ever popped up so far) leaders have killed anyone trying to stop them.Especially in the case of that psychopath Joesph Stalin.
lapma: @Rick2tails: Oh boy it came to this... I hoped this wont get all political. Capitalism is not about complete disregard for human live, its about profit, of course there will be some problems like oil spills or chemical plant explosions but nobody couse them on purpose, they are accidents. And cigarettes, sure they are bad for you but large part of humanity enjoy them and will enjoy them no matter who makes them, and from what i remember comunists allso made alcohol and cigaretts, and much worse in the communist countries gov sold them in (im not sure if i used good translation) monopoly shops.
And i think the most important aspect, comunism is utopia, it cant sustain its citizens, thats why there were huge problems with food in Ukrain in 1932–1933 that coused 6–10 milions deaths from starvation. You cant have well established economy and market if gov makes the prices. Because in reality something's value is not decidet by gov but by the amount im willing to spend on it and somoene ellse is willing to sell it for. Thats how free market works and that's what helps to fight monopols, while communism builds monopols runned by goverment. Sorry for any grammar mistakes.
somethingsomething: @Rick2tails: Oil spills and chemical plant explosions would also happen under communism, these are accidents.
Communism advocates for seizing the means of production. How will you seize the means of production? With force. There are millions of business owners in the US, all of them will have to die in order for communism to be achieved. Karl Marx even advocated for revolutionary terror.
Makkon: hey while you're all arguing over what system has killed more people, I interpreted this image as a declaration for gay rights in Russia, which currently do not exist, and simply existing while being gay puts your life greatly at risk. So while you guys are making a numbers game of it, living people today need your support. So like. Show some support, or solidarity, not a pointless flame war about your state's economic religion.
PermanentFace: Capitalism incentivizes disregard for 'moral' considerations of any kind, pursuing profit above lives and livelihoods. Malice may be absent from the equation, but capitalism is the cause of many terrible things, simply because it is cheaper to run damage control for every crisis than it is to do things in a safe, humanitarian way.
Communism incentivizes the consolidation of power, so that the human condition and the resources it requires may be efficiently orchestrated from a high vantage point. Consolidation of power in the hands of the few invariably leads to corruption. In the name of communism have been perpetrated more dramatically terrible crimes and travesties than capitalism has ever caused, but we cannot say merely because the Soviet Union was so astonishingly awful that capitalism is inherently good.
Also yes, Russia's gay rights need more support and I sense this image is making more of a cultural point than an organizational one.
somethingsomething: @PermanentFace: Actually we don't need the Soviet Union to show that capitalism is inherently good. Capitalism is the only system that has proven to work and lifts people from poverty everyday. Today even the poor has access to clean water and cheap food, they are far more richer than people were decades ago.
@Makkon: I don't know how you can interpret it as support for gay rights in Russia, considering that Russia is no longer the USSR your analogy kinda falls on its face. If Katia was holding a swastika to show solidarity for gays in Nazi Germany would you also want us to support it? Why should I support an ideology that has killed millions, my family members included?
somethingsomething: @Makkon: My great grandfather died in a work camp in the Soviet Union, I am glad you find genocide funny…
I am sorry I am not willing to support communism even if it means supporting gays.
PermanentFace: @somethingsomething: Some poor people still have food and water, but only because of state intervention on their behalf. Unregulated capitalism has seen people starve, and even now the system makes use of foreign slave labor and outrageous conditions. It is a flawed system, even if it's less immediately destructive than the fascism we've seen in communist states.
You don't need to support communism to recognize the problems with capitalism.
somethingsomething: @PermanentFace: Actually it's because food and water is so cheap. In the US obesity is a real problem, out of all the problems we could have, dying because we have so much food is a good thing. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/6/19/15819808/obesity-global-epidemic
What about regulated capitalism? I agree that extremes on both sides are bad but no countries actually have complete unregulated laissez faire capitalism. Places that have horrible conditions are run in countries with corrupt governments, that's not the fault of capitalism but rather the institution that uses capitalism. You say it's flawed, of course it is, we are imperfect so everything we make will be imperfect yet despite all its flaws it is the only system that has brought so much prosperity for humanity.
somethingsomething: That’s quite funny considering your first comment was an appeal to emotion. Support communist art to support gay rights in Russia even though such an interpretation doesn’t even make sense. Trying to hide a murderous ideology behind a lack of gay rights won’t make people want to support communism.
PermanentFace: @somethingsomething: The obesity epidemic does not invalidate the fact that many people in the united states go without food, water, and shelter, nor does it contradict the growing disparity in wealth that has emerged as a consequence of 'legal' capitalist practice.
somethingsomething: @PermanentFace: Many sources that say that Americans go without food or water usually measure it as ‘access to healthy food’. I wonder if American’s actually are going hungry since access to cheap food and water has never been easier. Like I said earlier, things aren’t perfect but capitalism has provided more wealth and prosperity then communism and doesn’t require a genocide to do it. Time and government regulation/policy will eventually fix these problems.
Makkon: @somethingsomething: I. Am. Not. Advocating. To. Support. Communism. If anything, communism has progressively stunted the eastern states which is why gay people don't have rights in Russia or China. When I suggest to show support, I mean solely for gay rights, not communist ideology. God damn, dude. You put so much effort into defending a system that wouldn't defend you if it was unprofitable.
somethingsomething: @Makkon:
“When I suggest to show support, I mean solely for gay rights, not communist ideology.”
I do not interpret it as showing solidarity for gay rights. Why would a homosexual hold up the hammer and sickle knowing full well what communism has done to them? The picture seems closer to promoting the ideology.
Either way perhaps this was a misunderstanding. If you truly meant it as support for gay rights then I have no problem, I just misunderstood your intentions. I still won’t like the picture though, since I don’t see it the way you do.
“You put so much effort into defending a system that wouldn't defend you if it was unprofitable.”
Because capitalism hasn’t killed any of my family members.
scoopski: @somethingsomething: "Capitalism hasn't killed any of my family members." Valid point, but on the other hand, what about other families who wish they could say that? Communism hasn't killed any of my relatives and yet I wouldn't defend it (unless we're in some kind of Star Trek-like universe where countries can implement it in a practical way that works, but that's kinda beside the point). But capitalism can still kill people if the higher-ups prioritize making money over saving lives. And I know for a goddamn fact that it does because it happened to one of my closest family members. As somebody who has been fucked over by capitalism more than Uncle Sam's favorite prostitute, I can attest that capitalism isn't a whole lot better to those who can't afford the benefits.
Kazerad: This conversation feels like a "grass is always greener" scenario, with the caveat that people who have been on both sides of the fence almost unanimously agree on which is greener.
somethingsomething: @scoopski: You keep attributing unintended deaths to capitalism. Like I said earlier the majority of human abuse is occurring in countries with a corrupt government. That is not the fault of capitalism but rather the institution. Every ideology would seem immoral if a corrupt government was in charge.
“I can attest that capitalism isn't a whole lot better to those who can't afford the benefits.”
It is better than the alternative of communism, the ideology that calls for genocide right from the start. Every attempt has lead to mass human suffering, every attempt to achieve the utopia has been a failure. With capitalism there is nothing stopping you from improving your life, the onus is on you and that is better than some collective telling you how far you can go in life.
AMKitsune: Wow, this is one political comment section. Might as well throw my hat into the ring to.
I'm not an expert in political regimes or ideologies but take a pretty simplistic view of these things instead.
Up to and including this point in history, there's no such thing as a perfect 'ism'. Certainly not as they're currently enacted at least.
For a start, healthy and happy societies tend to rely on the assumptions that everyone will act fairly and kindly towards each other. Unfortunately, this often isn't the case. If the multimillionaire business executive were to pay their factory floor staff a decent wage instead of choosing to amass a disproportionate amount of wealth for themselves (hence the whole 1% vs the 99% thing), there wouldn't be the massive difference in wealth that there is in the western world today. Of course people should be able to determine how much they're able to make by how much they work for it, but when the ability of a person to earn a wage is determined by another individual who also wants a larger slice of the pie, that's where personal greed can fuck the whole capitalism system up.
I believe that the same goes for the idea behind communism as well. If my understanding is correct, the general idea is that everyone receives pretty much what they need from the system and not much more while putting into the system what they can. An attempt to create a level playing field if you will. Again though, this relies on the groups in charge of maintaining the system to be honest and fair with how wealth and resources are distributed. To my knowledge, this rarely happens. Citizens live in relative poverty while the leaders of a nation who's job it is to ensure the prosperity of its people live in palaces.
This isn't limited to communism though by any means. How many other countries and organisations are there where the ones supposedly responsible for making the rules and distributing wealth end up becoming disproportionately wealthy?
secondly, life isn't fair. Any attempt by a government to make life fair is going to inevitably require unequal treatment/requirements of its citizens. Say, a person is born without arms. They can't provide for themselves as well as others will be able to through no fault of their own. Those are just the cards they were dealt. So what? Is it just accepted that they're going to have a harder life than everyone else and leave it at that, or is some of the wealth generated by other productive members of society siphoned off to help this less capable individual? Not everyone shares the same mindset with regards to whether this is good or not, so there's another problem. Is it fairer for it to be 'everyone for themselves' and to hell with those who can't keep up, or should the state step in to 'unfairly redistribute' wealth to those who haven't earned it as much as you have? Of course there are no solid answers for these questions. That's what makes matters like this so difficult to legislate for. So many different people have different opinions, yet you can't have a country that has different rules for different people (not a fair one at least).
There have been many varied atrocities caused by different governments of all different ideologies over time. In the argument of capitalism vs communism, one ideology will have produced more poverty and/or bloodshed than the other, but that's for a historian to say, not myself.
While arguing about which is better/worse though, just remember that the decisions that usually end up causing detriment to others (regardless of the political system) are often made by people who, strangely enough, find themselves reasonable well off and comfortable. Significantly more-so than the people they're charged with looking after.
Anyway, that's my uneducated ramble/contribution to the discussion.
lapma: @AMKitsune: I like what you wrote, but i think there are some things i would argue."Of course people should be able to determine how much they're able to make by how much they work for it, but when the ability of a person to earn a wage is determined by another individual who also wants a larger slice of the pie" Thats true, but its easier to negociate wage with boss than with government in case of communism(common ownership of the means of production). And 2cnd employee can always try to find other job if he/she is not happy with wage. While in communism worker prety much need to be a part of some kind of political organisation if he/she want to get good job/wage. Im from Poland so i can give some examples from my country. Meat and some of the other food products were only aviable to get with ration cards. Or for the example if somebody in your familly worked in the west and wanted to send some money back to Poland, government would take the money and in excange would give you a coupon that you could use in shop called Pewex (Przedsiębiorstwo Eksportu Wewnętrznego, in english
Internal Export Company and of course it was state enterprise) so you could not even have real western money. And by the way those coupons value was way lowwer than value of real money. And thats only a few examples of what communism is in practic. So taking into account fact that in communism country government is preety much in harge of what what you can or cant buy, I dont think that having a low wage as a worker with low qualifications(those are people earning realy low wages) is not such a big deal in comparisson to having much of your live decided for you by government. As usualy im sorry for any mistakes.
AMKitsune: @lapma: Well, this calls for a part 2.
While it may very well be easier to negotiate a wage and switch jobs in a capitalist nation, in many cases it's either impossible or very financially risky to try leaving an existing job and get another one (given the recent economic troubles and poor job market). People are technically free to do so if they wish, but being free to try negotiating a higher salary or switching to a better job can in some cases be akin to being free to step out of a speeding train. You're more than free to do so and nobody's stopping you. You just know that there's a dangerously high chance that you'll come out worse for taking the option. (Not the case for everybody, but with the job market as it currently is, that's how it is for many people. The fact that it's an individuals responsibility to find employment where there may not even be any in order to support themselves can make the prospect of a government having job opportunities for all of its citizens with a stable income seem rather appealing.)
The issue of preferential treatment if you're a member of a certain political party/peer group is a common problem all over. That's just a product of people in positions of power allowing their personal biases to effect how they treat others in official contexts (in short, corruption).
Speaking of limiting what can be purchased with earned wealth, there have been schemes like that in the west before as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip
From what I remember being told about it (I'm too tired to read a wikipedia article right now XD), employers like mine operators would sometimes pay their workers in a 'custom currency' that could only be spent at shops also owned by the mine owner (effectively creating a miniature enclosed economy where the workers couldn't buy from anywhere else. Kind of like a form of communism where the employer could have ownership of everything from the homes of the workers to the provision of the food on their plates. Like a little self appointed government). This practice is illegal in most developed capitalist areas now thankfully, but it did used to happen.
When done right, the west has a pretty good analogue to the communist lifestyle in the form of the armed services (at least, that seemed to be the case back when my grandfather was in the air-force and my father lived with his parents in air-force accommodation.).
While they could interact with the rest of the economy like any other person could (buy stuff with real money), a great deal of their lives was managed and provided for by the military, including housing, schooling, e.t.c.
It's not a lifestyle that everyone would want, but for those who would, it was an option.
Of course, this is just based on what my father's told me about his childhood, so it's a personal rely of personal experiences and memories.
At the end of the day, my overly simplistic view of it comes down to people. Good, honest and well intentioned people can make a system fair and prosperous if they so choose and try hard enough. It only takes a few selfish, malicious or incompetent people in positions of power to make it hard (or impossible) for the common people to live well.
If I had to imagine, a communist state could work well for everyone if it were managed by such a hypothetical group of good people and if membership of the commune was voluntary. Alas though, as is so often the case, many people who seek power and status do so for their own reasons and not the selfless service of others (and for those who do have pure intentions, resisting the temptations that come with said power is another matter entirely).
lapma: @AMKitsune: About company scrip, sadly it used to happen, but it was an exception while in communism its close to being normal(especially that one of communism goals is abolishing of money). And about military as a analaogue to communism, military can work as it does, only because it is funded by taxpayers. Military produces little on its own so it has to be based on taxpayer money. Whole country can't work as a military because it would not be able to produce enought to sustain all of its citizens. I dont want to argue about ideals of communism(i still think that they are wrong, but i can see why someone would like it) but I simply think that communism is bad economic system, it is inposible to create working market while you only have state enterprise and government is deciding prices on any goods. And worst of all is abolishing of money. People have a diversed intrestings and while someone might want to spend his money on a car somebody else might be intrested in table top miniatures. How can a government ration all of those diffrent goods to peope with diffrent needs. Communism kills individuality and in place of individuality creates group mentality. But i came out of track, so going back to military, it can work with all of those government provided stuff because of the taxpayer money. And there would be no taxpayer money without strong market. And last but not least military is armed service after all, so its hard to expect it working like some kind of private company. Well i think i should draw something now, instead of talking about communism.
AMKitsune: @lapma: Part the third
I get that company scrip happened much less than the the communism equivalent My point there was simply that given the opportunity, individuals in capitalist nations have been known to enact psudo-communist practices for their own selfish benefit.
That's a very good point about the lifestyle provided by the military not being financially self sustaining. Honestly, the way things are progressing these days with regards to mass production and automation, the idea that there's a job for everyone is becoming less and less true. In the west at least, we seem to be entering an era where we don't work to produce things that we need, but to produce things that other people will hopefully want and buy. Jobs like food production can be handled by far fewer people now than used to be the case, so people have to try to find whatever source of income they can elsewhere (assuming that there are people willing and able to hire them).
As far as I'm concerned, there is no best system. Disregarding the fact that greedy people can turn any system into a nightmare, both systems have their up-sides and down-sides. Capitalism is great for those who can 'win' at it, but sucks for the 'losers' while communism is fine as long as you're ok just 'making do' and don't aspire for greater things in life.
Yeah, this has dragged on more that long enough. Time for more cats
lapma: @GrizzlyBear: That's kinda what you should expect posting any ideological symbol, especially if it represents extreme views like communism/national socialism/etc.
Describe This Image As Dramatically As Possible
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Путин - вор
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
And i think the most important aspect, comunism is utopia, it cant sustain its citizens, thats why there were huge problems with food in Ukrain in 1932–1933 that coused 6–10 milions deaths from starvation. You cant have well established economy and market if gov makes the prices. Because in reality something's value is not decidet by gov but by the amount im willing to spend on it and somoene ellse is willing to sell it for. Thats how free market works and that's what helps to fight monopols, while communism builds monopols runned by goverment. Sorry for any grammar mistakes.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
people are too sensitive these daysCommunism advocates for seizing the means of production. How will you seize the means of production? With force. There are millions of business owners in the US, all of them will have to die in order for communism to be achieved. Karl Marx even advocated for revolutionary terror.
- Reply
- Reply
Communism incentivizes the consolidation of power, so that the human condition and the resources it requires may be efficiently orchestrated from a high vantage point. Consolidation of power in the hands of the few invariably leads to corruption. In the name of communism have been perpetrated more dramatically terrible crimes and travesties than capitalism has ever caused, but we cannot say merely because the Soviet Union was so astonishingly awful that capitalism is inherently good.
Also yes, Russia's gay rights need more support and I sense this image is making more of a cultural point than an organizational one.
@Makkon: I don't know how you can interpret it as support for gay rights in Russia, considering that Russia is no longer the USSR your analogy kinda falls on its face. If Katia was holding a swastika to show solidarity for gays in Nazi Germany would you also want us to support it? Why should I support an ideology that has killed millions, my family members included?
- Reply
I am sorry I am not willing to support communism even if it means supporting gays.
- Reply
You don't need to support communism to recognize the problems with capitalism.
What about regulated capitalism? I agree that extremes on both sides are bad but no countries actually have complete unregulated laissez faire capitalism. Places that have horrible conditions are run in countries with corrupt governments, that's not the fault of capitalism but rather the institution that uses capitalism. You say it's flawed, of course it is, we are imperfect so everything we make will be imperfect yet despite all its flaws it is the only system that has brought so much prosperity for humanity.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
“When I suggest to show support, I mean solely for gay rights, not communist ideology.”
I do not interpret it as showing solidarity for gay rights. Why would a homosexual hold up the hammer and sickle knowing full well what communism has done to them? The picture seems closer to promoting the ideology.
Either way perhaps this was a misunderstanding. If you truly meant it as support for gay rights then I have no problem, I just misunderstood your intentions. I still won’t like the picture though, since I don’t see it the way you do.
“You put so much effort into defending a system that wouldn't defend you if it was unprofitable.”
Because capitalism hasn’t killed any of my family members.
- Reply
As somebody who has been fucked over by capitalism more than Uncle Sam's favorite prostitute, I can attest that capitalism isn't a whole lot better to those who can't afford the benefits.
- Reply
“I can attest that capitalism isn't a whole lot better to those who can't afford the benefits.”
It is better than the alternative of communism, the ideology that calls for genocide right from the start. Every attempt has lead to mass human suffering, every attempt to achieve the utopia has been a failure. With capitalism there is nothing stopping you from improving your life, the onus is on you and that is better than some collective telling you how far you can go in life.
- Reply
I'm not an expert in political regimes or ideologies but take a pretty simplistic view of these things instead.
Up to and including this point in history, there's no such thing as a perfect 'ism'. Certainly not as they're currently enacted at least.
For a start, healthy and happy societies tend to rely on the assumptions that everyone will act fairly and kindly towards each other. Unfortunately, this often isn't the case. If the multimillionaire business executive were to pay their factory floor staff a decent wage instead of choosing to amass a disproportionate amount of wealth for themselves (hence the whole 1% vs the 99% thing), there wouldn't be the massive difference in wealth that there is in the western world today. Of course people should be able to determine how much they're able to make by how much they work for it, but when the ability of a person to earn a wage is determined by another individual who also wants a larger slice of the pie, that's where personal greed can fuck the whole capitalism system up.
I believe that the same goes for the idea behind communism as well. If my understanding is correct, the general idea is that everyone receives pretty much what they need from the system and not much more while putting into the system what they can. An attempt to create a level playing field if you will. Again though, this relies on the groups in charge of maintaining the system to be honest and fair with how wealth and resources are distributed. To my knowledge, this rarely happens. Citizens live in relative poverty while the leaders of a nation who's job it is to ensure the prosperity of its people live in palaces.
This isn't limited to communism though by any means. How many other countries and organisations are there where the ones supposedly responsible for making the rules and distributing wealth end up becoming disproportionately wealthy?
secondly, life isn't fair. Any attempt by a government to make life fair is going to inevitably require unequal treatment/requirements of its citizens. Say, a person is born without arms. They can't provide for themselves as well as others will be able to through no fault of their own. Those are just the cards they were dealt. So what? Is it just accepted that they're going to have a harder life than everyone else and leave it at that, or is some of the wealth generated by other productive members of society siphoned off to help this less capable individual? Not everyone shares the same mindset with regards to whether this is good or not, so there's another problem. Is it fairer for it to be 'everyone for themselves' and to hell with those who can't keep up, or should the state step in to 'unfairly redistribute' wealth to those who haven't earned it as much as you have? Of course there are no solid answers for these questions. That's what makes matters like this so difficult to legislate for. So many different people have different opinions, yet you can't have a country that has different rules for different people (not a fair one at least).
There have been many varied atrocities caused by different governments of all different ideologies over time. In the argument of capitalism vs communism, one ideology will have produced more poverty and/or bloodshed than the other, but that's for a historian to say, not myself.
While arguing about which is better/worse though, just remember that the decisions that usually end up causing detriment to others (regardless of the political system) are often made by people who, strangely enough, find themselves reasonable well off and comfortable. Significantly more-so than the people they're charged with looking after.
Anyway, that's my uneducated ramble/contribution to the discussion.
- Reply
Internal Export Company and of course it was state enterprise) so you could not even have real western money. And by the way those coupons value was way lowwer than value of real money. And thats only a few examples of what communism is in practic. So taking into account fact that in communism country government is preety much in harge of what what you can or cant buy, I dont think that having a low wage as a worker with low qualifications(those are people earning realy low wages) is not such a big deal in comparisson to having much of your live decided for you by government. As usualy im sorry for any mistakes.
- Reply
While it may very well be easier to negotiate a wage and switch jobs in a capitalist nation, in many cases it's either impossible or very financially risky to try leaving an existing job and get another one (given the recent economic troubles and poor job market). People are technically free to do so if they wish, but being free to try negotiating a higher salary or switching to a better job can in some cases be akin to being free to step out of a speeding train. You're more than free to do so and nobody's stopping you. You just know that there's a dangerously high chance that you'll come out worse for taking the option. (Not the case for everybody, but with the job market as it currently is, that's how it is for many people. The fact that it's an individuals responsibility to find employment where there may not even be any in order to support themselves can make the prospect of a government having job opportunities for all of its citizens with a stable income seem rather appealing.)
The issue of preferential treatment if you're a member of a certain political party/peer group is a common problem all over. That's just a product of people in positions of power allowing their personal biases to effect how they treat others in official contexts (in short, corruption).
Speaking of limiting what can be purchased with earned wealth, there have been schemes like that in the west before as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip
From what I remember being told about it (I'm too tired to read a wikipedia article right now XD), employers like mine operators would sometimes pay their workers in a 'custom currency' that could only be spent at shops also owned by the mine owner (effectively creating a miniature enclosed economy where the workers couldn't buy from anywhere else. Kind of like a form of communism where the employer could have ownership of everything from the homes of the workers to the provision of the food on their plates. Like a little self appointed government). This practice is illegal in most developed capitalist areas now thankfully, but it did used to happen.
When done right, the west has a pretty good analogue to the communist lifestyle in the form of the armed services (at least, that seemed to be the case back when my grandfather was in the air-force and my father lived with his parents in air-force accommodation.).
While they could interact with the rest of the economy like any other person could (buy stuff with real money), a great deal of their lives was managed and provided for by the military, including housing, schooling, e.t.c.
It's not a lifestyle that everyone would want, but for those who would, it was an option.
Of course, this is just based on what my father's told me about his childhood, so it's a personal rely of personal experiences and memories.
At the end of the day, my overly simplistic view of it comes down to people. Good, honest and well intentioned people can make a system fair and prosperous if they so choose and try hard enough. It only takes a few selfish, malicious or incompetent people in positions of power to make it hard (or impossible) for the common people to live well.
If I had to imagine, a communist state could work well for everyone if it were managed by such a hypothetical group of good people and if membership of the commune was voluntary. Alas though, as is so often the case, many people who seek power and status do so for their own reasons and not the selfless service of others (and for those who do have pure intentions, resisting the temptations that come with said power is another matter entirely).
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
I get that company scrip happened much less than the the communism equivalent My point there was simply that given the opportunity, individuals in capitalist nations have been known to enact psudo-communist practices for their own selfish benefit.
That's a very good point about the lifestyle provided by the military not being financially self sustaining. Honestly, the way things are progressing these days with regards to mass production and automation, the idea that there's a job for everyone is becoming less and less true. In the west at least, we seem to be entering an era where we don't work to produce things that we need, but to produce things that other people will hopefully want and buy. Jobs like food production can be handled by far fewer people now than used to be the case, so people have to try to find whatever source of income they can elsewhere (assuming that there are people willing and able to hire them).
As far as I'm concerned, there is no best system. Disregarding the fact that greedy people can turn any system into a nightmare, both systems have their up-sides and down-sides. Capitalism is great for those who can 'win' at it, but sucks for the 'losers' while communism is fine as long as you're ok just 'making do' and don't aspire for greater things in life.
Yeah, this has dragged on more that long enough. Time for more cats
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply