lets do this cold war style. Me and my friends and teachers get into this debate alot, cause im a Socilist and My friends arnt. sooo lets do it
They would both be good if they worked well for the people but unfortunately they dont in real life. Theoretically they are both good though except for the no religion parto of communism.
Whats a Socilist 
I think communism/socialism would be wonderful, however, people need to want it and not be forced into it…which is why it would probably never work for an entire nation.
That’s why I think communes are a good idea!
Capitolism maybe could be wonderful too, and not just for the “haves and have mores.”
But people might should want it too, and not have it forced it on them by the have mores, huh?
+1
Capitilism vs. Capitalism
If you’re going to use an online source for your report on captilism, be sure to spell check it before you turn it in.
Capitalism and communism can be separated by one thing, and that is property. In capitalism, you own the product of your labor. In communism, someone else (the community) owns the product of your labor. The product of your labor is property, whether it’s received in the form of a monetary instrument or some other property. If you don’t control the product of your labor, you are a slave because you do not own yourself as your own property.
So, take your pick: Slavery (communism) vs. Freedom (capitalism).
In communism, all property is controlled by a central authority, whether it’s the community or some other entity. Since all rights are derived from property, the inherent problem with this is that people will want to have the rights to certain property, and the only way to really achieve this in communism is to seek control of this central authority, and therefore communism on a large scale always results in fascism. Communism could work in a very small community, because the product of your labor has a bigger effect on yourself. But the larger and larger the community gets, the less effect you have on it, so you either do little, or you seek the control. You’re going to follow the reward. There isn’t really any other choice.
In capitalism, since the product of your labor is yours and only yours, you have sole rights to that property. You have control over your own property, which means you may extend privileges to others, usually in exchange for privileges to their property. You may also trade property. You have unlimited right to contract. Reward is directly the result of your own efforts, so you have incentive to put in an effort. Fascism can happen, but in a true capitalist society, the chances of achieving that is difficult because there is no central authority to overtake. You have to gain control of the economy and then use fraud to buy up all property. Of course doing this usually means convincing people to implement aspects of communism, which is the current state of the US.
The US is a fascist country. People are working harder and harder and getting less and less in return. Oddly, this aids the fascist movement in that people then turn to government to help them out and implement aspects of communism. Progression towards more fascism feeds on itself because of this.
You could look at it that way, but that’s rather pessimistic…the way I see it, you still own the product of your labor, you just share it with everyone else. Likewise, you own the product of everyone else’s labor, because everyone else is sharing it with you. However this must be regulated somehow, and the way a national government would do it (or has done it in the past) does indeed bear amazing similarities to slavery…like I said in my last post, a huge country can’t operate under a communist government for this reason, and so a commune of ten or fifteen people who all actively contribute and all actively receive what they need would be an ideal society…Even better than capitalism. I think so, anyway.
Russian intellegance, are you mad?
Austin, the cold war is over, we won.
oh, yay Capitalism.
Each has its good and bad points. One of the big problems with the socialist model, beyond the more obvious ones Gilby pointed out, is that you may end up in a situation where everyone gets equal pay for the same job, even if they’re not doing equal work. Two guy work in a large office with the same job. One is twice as productive as the other, but both are paid the same as the system isn’t flexible enough to recognize this. Problem.
Capitolism has problems based on greed. Greed has its upside and downside. The upside is how it can make people strive to achieve more. The downside is trying to have it all, even if you didn’t earn it or shouldn’t have it.
I think the best solution is somewhere in the middle. America is somewhere in the middle, but it’s a very big middle and there’s always various opinions on what’s better. In conclusion, had Det-riot started out with an actual question, my answer would be that neither is better, and the success level of both depends entirely on execution, not the basic philosophy.
In my opinion, the problem with capitolism, is that the country is ruled by rich white men(with a few exceptions). The problem with that is that most of the country is NOT rich white men. So i think the US would be better off with a salary cap of $15 million, because why should anybody have that much money, when some people dont have food even. Also whaat i dont understand is why do we pay some people $2 million+ annualy to throw a ball through a hoop, or to hit a ball with a stick, when we have docotrs unable to finish potentaly life saving research due to a lack of funds
Ah, capitolism, not capitalism… got it. I didn’t think the first was a word, but I can assume it means a central authority – the capitol!
Rich white men are the rulers? When a society is ruled, that is a tyranny, or fascist government.
Like I said before, the US is not a capitalist society, it’s a fascist society. Yes, there are elements of capitalism, but the capital has central control and many other things we may have thought we owned, we don’t, such as our car, house, land, etc. Take out a piece of money from your wallet and see what kind of note it is. The people who own shares in that private organization are our rulers. About a year ago, they stopped publishing the M3 money supply figures, which tells us how much US currency is in the system. Why are they hiding it now? We’ll probably find out soon enough, but this organization controls the money supply and therefore they control the value of much of the capital we hold. If they inflate the money supply, they can then buy up businesses and other assets, because the rest of us are now desperate. We then become even more enslaved to them. This is what caused the great depression and they sold it to the American people as a reason that communism was needed and got FDR elected President.
Why $15 million? Just a random number? If I make $15 million, should I stop working for the rest of the year? Or even the rest of my life? Could I not still be productive after creating $15 million in wealth? What if my wealth were created by teaching people without food to fish? As a result of me teaching them to fish, they catch 10 fish that first day, so they pay me 3 fish, and then I move on to teach another person and another… If I made $15 million worth of fish teaching many people to fish, should I stop teaching people to fish? I’d have less incentive to teach people to fish if I get little reward, so I’d likely choose to do less productive things and therefore all those starving people that don’t know how to fish will go hungry. Putting a cap on income reduces productivity. If I had incentive to be productive, meaning no limit to my own wealth creation, I could create more wealth and trade my wealth for things that others created, thereby creating a market for their services and they are better off.
There is no limit to wealth. Just because one person makes a lot of money, it does not mean that wealth is being lost by that person. In fact wealth is always created. The examples you mentioned are entertainment. This does create wealth, though not directly. Wealth is created here because those who watch and enjoy it are benefiting from it. People need entertainment to make them happy, and happiness helps them be more productive at whatever they are skilled at. Thereby, they are able to create more wealth for their efforts. In exchange for this benefit, these people are willing to pay to see this entertainment, and therefore, the entertainers get paid for the benefit provided.
Wealth is the taking of raw materials and your skilled labor and making something from them. So if you took some wood and some nails to build a house, you are creating wealth, because the house is more valuable than the wood and nails were to begin with.
When others control the result of your labor, you have little rights to it, and by majority rule, the rest could vote your rights away from you to use any property as you might want. You have no freedom in a communist society. A democratic society is a communist society.
This thread is too scary for me to step into…
Phhss. this is why we have unicyclists
Religion or lack there of has nothing to do with communism.
They’re both inherently flawed.
Pure Communism ignores the fact that people are greedy and will take control of the strong state required and slack off on the work that is for the ‘common good’.
Pure Capitalism ignores the fact that people like security and will push for expansion of the state, and that businesses too will try to get their own little monopolies protected.
Unfortunately, we’ve got an absence of political theories that perform better in practice than the mishmash that we’re stumbling around with.
It is highly unlikely that there will ever exist any form of gov’t that will really benefit most. We destroy what we really need, and we raise up what destroys us, regardless of the type of society we live in.
The constitution we have set up in the US is supposed to protect that. The sole role of the federal government is to protect individual’s rights and provide a common defense. Unfortunately, after over a hundred years pass, the people forget what was being fought for when the constitution was made. The problem isn’t capitalism itself, it’s the lack of people defending their freedom.