Discussions
Capitalist or Communist? Today I need your view.
Posted by lostrose160 • 1/03/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: earn, money, politics
Mao
Tao
Lenin or
Money????
User Comments
-
lenin -
None of them. I love Budhahood!-
I love buddyhood
-
-
None. -
Standard of living (mixed economy). The countries with the highest standard of living are neither capitalist nor communist. -
Hegelian dialectics courtesy of the Illuminati. Capitalism is the thesis, communism the anti-thesis, and world government the synthesis. -
Ants are communist.
Men are capitalist -
I am for the progressive form of life. not for the same meal for all same status for all. I f we work hard...we have the right to go ahead
-
capitalist -
I prefer the aristotelian synthesis that goes "when looms would weave by themselves slavery would end." He was correct in his way, but we have we made a choice about the world which is social. We can produce what we need, but rather using it to create a free society without slavery, we enslave people in the name of our baser desires. The keys to a better society are already there, the freedom from labor and the true end of slavery are well past their time. Work hard for what reason? Why can't we work with our brain and make a smarter decisions.
-
Rational self-interest. (aspirationally anyway). Therefore capitalist. -
Capitalist or communist........either way, everyone in the graveyard votes the same!-
Making your little cross takes on a whole new meaning.
-
-
Neither. Both capitalists and communists are dumb.
If you were to ask a capitalist who deserves the most capital, (s)he would say, "The entrepreneurs, who run new businesses." If you were to ask a communist who deserves the most capital, (s)he would say, "The workers who power the workforce."
Most people think that those are the only two options. Communism or capitalism. Then it becomes "Americanism vs. Communism." Our side is good, the commies are bad.
Stupid stupid stupid.
Communism and capitalism are both equally flawed. Do you know who I think should get the most capital? The inventors, scientists, and talented artists. (The untalented ones can get bent for all I care.) The people who enrich society and industry deserve the most from society.-
I once read a book, a science fiction novel, that involved a merit-based society, where people were rewarded based on how important their work or efforts were, and how they effected the community. it was really interesting. I can't recall the name of the book, but i think it was the sequal to Beggars in Spain, by Nancy Kress.
-
Capitalism is actually a system whereby the producers own the means of production. It is a system whereby inventors, scientists and talented artists get the most capital if you can get the state and the slothful to leave them alone.
I'm all for rational self-interest and thus laissez faire capitalism. It works in theory and in practice. -
[It is a system whereby inventors, scientists and talented artists get the most capital...]
In theory. In practice, it's a system where some conniving entrepreneur bastard runs off with all the money.
[...if you can get the state and the slothful to leave them alone.]
Yeah. Problem. -
Problem of a mixed economy..
-
I'll give you example of Nepal where Maoist have just takenover.
They think they're communist??
People who work hard are under pillage. Tax tax tax... for everything..
poor people want the money and land from rich.they have started capturing rich people's land...
will this work...easy to get money -
If the inventors, scientists, and talented artists are intelligent enough, they'll be fine, acknowledged and given their due share. In a game of demand and supply those who deserve usually do get the reward.
However, in a communist/ socialist society, state has the authority to snatch things at its whim.
-
-
übercapitalist and if you want to know why, read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand or better: Human Action by Ludwig von Mises.-
Yes, two of my favourites. Although, Ayn Rand is not an economist. Nor a psychologist. Ludwig von Mises was a great economist.
Other favourites include David Friedman, Milton Friedman and Hayek.
Most of their idea can be found FREE (yes, capitalists do give away free stuff) on mises.org.
-
-
socialism-
The ism with the highest body count of all? Great idea..
-
Socialism != Communism
-
Kindly point out the difference to me?
Communism: # a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership
# a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society
Socialism: # a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
# an economic system based on state ownership of capital -
You said [The ism with the highest body count of all?]
Whether or not the ideas are almost indiscernible, the fact remains that your reference to isms refers to the name, not the idea.
Either that, or I misread something. -
OK, communism is the ism with the highest body count of all.
I rectify my original statement:
"The ism that is used as the basis for the ism with the highest body count of all? Great idea.."
-
-
Yo, Kobo, the Atlas Shrugged characters were extremes and not real people. They represent competing ideals. Everyone who has lived a while should realize that inflexibility is the real enemy and the absolute best system would combine the absolute best features of every economic philosophy.-
Except if you're right, then it is foolish to be flexible. You don't suppose we teach a little bit of evolution mixed with a bit of Quran and Bible study in science class? I mean, it combines the best features of both scientific and unscientific views...
The Fountainhead had better characters than Atlas Shrugged in my view. -
Loved both Fountain head and Atlas shrugged. Though yes, Atlas Shrugged is farther from reality than Fountain Head.
-
-
I prefer Rationalism as a pre-fix just like Bertrand Russel said.
Rational Capitalism, Rational Communism, Rational some other thing
All we need is Love and Rationalism at first -
Rational rationalism? Like, what Gödel used on Russell..
-
Yes that's exactly what i was trying to say
-
Glad you're rational about rationalism
-
-
I planted potatoes all my life. I work hard as well as my family to plant, harvest and take care of my crop. My neighbour does nothing, absolutely nothing all day long. Then, the 'government" comes and takes all my potatoes.
Do I have to share my potatoes with my lazy neighbour???
(not my words, but one of my professor's....)
Take your pick....-
Why does your lazy neighbor do nothing? What is the reason for their lack of motivation? With all their time, why not go to school and learn something?
Unmotivated people deserve nothing. -
Imagine a country where as much as 40% of your population wants the government to take your potatoes and give it to them.
-
Exactly my point, vooodooKobra. Thats why Communism fails, among other things. There's no incentive to improve oneself, the community, the country...no matter what you do everything is shared anyway so why should you bother?
Next year, no potatoes!
-
-
Those of you who would prefer communism might as well stop blogging because that would be the first thing to go under communism. Those of you who want socialism might as well give half of your paycheck to someone else because that is what happens under socialism. Those that are for capitalism might as well enjoy what we are facing today because we are in the downside of the cycle and times like this provide opportunities for the future.
Greed lives in each of these systems under communism the elite gather all of the money. In socialism the poor want what the rich have. In capitalism the freedom to make money can lead to the desire for more and more. -
what is there is communism?
a Mechanical life? no aspiration, no wish to progress and enjoy life.
I dont believe in tomarrow I live for today....so when will we enjoy life...when we're dead-
[a Mechanical life? no aspiration, no wish to progress and enjoy life.]
Only if you're a slave to the system.
Look at me: I'm a poor college student, but in 20 years, I'll practically own this world.
-
-
comment removed by the community.
-
Whatever state we live in communism or capitalism, the power is always held by the few and power is created by wealth. Power is almost always misused. We can't all have the same it isn't practical but it is awful where people are exploited too. It's a complicated subject but on the whole I agree with Voodookobra. -
If we have to choose an absolute, I'll rather have a capitalist society than a communist one. Although, ideally it should be a balance of two. The state should have control to protect those who are not smart enough. Not everybody is physically and menatlly fit to grow potatoes
-
Marx should surely be an option on this question?! We've never had a communist society because communism, as envisioned by Marx, must be a global phenomenon, not a national one.-
Marxism doesn't work on a small scale, why would it work on a global scale?
-
I'm not saying it would necessarily work, what I'm saying is that we have never had a communist society as proffered in 'Das Capital', where the term originated. What we have had are societies a lot like More's Utopia, whereby the internal philosophies are not maintained when dealing with foreign societies which do not share them... so we have ended up with insular nations that cannot adequately maintain themselves nor interact successfully with the rest of the world.
The only real barriers to the success of a global communism are personal greed and pride. -
The only real barriers to the success of a global communism are personal greed and pride.
No, the system is inherently flawed. If you wanted to have a 100 m sprint, and you told everyone they're only allowed to run as fast as the slowest participant, what is the point?
Communism does not cater for the variety we have in humanity. The natural way is evolution, not revolution. It was written before there even was a study like economics as an attempt to solve problems that the world faced back then, which we largely do not even have any more.
What's more, Das Kapital is not even completed. You want to base the world's socio-political system on a theory that is incomplete? More so, a theory that has been proven to fail time and time again?
That's not a good argument in my books. By the same token, you could argue that we've never actually had a capitalist system. We've only had mixed economies. -
I don't know if you've noticed, but capitalism hasn't really gone so well...
I also think the race analogy is flawed: who are we, as the collective human race, racing? I'm not talking about a 100m sprint, I'm talking about life, and I'd happily sacrifice technological advancement if it meant we didn't stand idly by while people starved to death on the other side of the world.
I'm not suggesting that society should be based on a single treatise, I'm saying that the core ideas of Das Kapital are sound, and that the societies who have attempted follow them have not really followed them at all. We cannot base the tenability of communism on the examples of the USSR, Cuba and China because they digress from Marx's ideology in more ways than they embrace it.
Communism doesn't oppress the variety in humanity, totalitarianism does. And I agree that evolution is preferable to revolution, unfortunately the people with the resources want to keep them, and the people without them have no way other than coercion to get them to share.
I suppose I should add 'apathy' to the list of barriers, because it seems to be a major factor. I just had a strong flashback to primary school...we were running a race and the kid next to me fell over, I stopped running and helped her up, and though I didn't win the race the teacher made more of a fuss about me than the winner. -
I'm the exact opposite in the sense that I would favor technological advancements over charity. After all, science/technology could lead to advancements that allow those people access to good food.
-
Das Kapital is not sound. It's not even completed.
I don't know if you noticed, but capitalism has actually gone very well. Look at the level of poverty in countries with market friendly policies. Remember that you can't have rich capitalists if you don't have affordable products for the poor..
And technological advancements does help charity. Think of how malaria and TB are combated in Africa. Where do you think this technology comes from?
China has been doing better and better precisely because they left Marx's ideology far behind and went for a mixed economy.
Cuba and the USSR have pretty much stuck with Marx's plan and got what they deserved. -
@kobra
That's illogical and you know it. Allow people to starve to death so that we can use our resources to feed them? The vast majority of people who are dying unnecessarily are not doing it because they couldn't be bothered to work hard, they are dying because they happen to have been born in countries that have suffered extremes of weather that have made life extremely difficult. Not to mention that the prospering nations stole what resources they had and stood on their shoulders to get where we are. We have more than we need, they have less than they need (and it's partly our fault) so it doesn't take a genius to work out what needs to be done. -
Um, I'm from Africa. We do not have extreme weather. It doesn't even snow here. We have third world problems like crime, cholera and totalitarian regimes. The problems here are not because of capitalism.
You are conducting a straw man argument. I suggest you school yourself in basic economics, then take another look at Africa. There are plenty of African countries who love Marx.
This is a great place to start:
mises.org/ -
So, there hasn't been any drought anywhere in Africa that has led to failed crops and lack of water? It's not hot anywhere in Africa?
I wasn't saying that capitalism in Africa is the reason for problems in Africa, I'm saying that the fact that nations are self-serving and uninterested in spreading the resources around so that the people who need them have them, is the reason there are millions of people starving to death right now, while we sit with full bellies.
I don't think one country should be communist. That doesn't work. That's what I was saying. It only works if everyone is invested in the wellbeing of people everywhere, not just those within the arbitrary boundaries of their country. -
[The vast majority of people who are dying unnecessarily are not doing it because they couldn't be bothered to work hard, they are dying because they happen to have been born in countries that have suffered extremes of weather that have made life extremely difficult.]
Send them U-Hauls. -
Seriously? you thought a joke would be appropriate there?
-
I challenge you to explain how a joke could possibly be inappropriate, without appealing to sensitivity.
And you have to admit, the idea has merit. If they can't grow food where they currently live, they should move to hospitable lands. -
@kobra
The joke is inappropriate because you are belittling the suffering of millions of people. I don't object to dark humour, I object to people distracting from serious issues with humour because it's getting a bit heavy.
Where are they going to move to? In our world with arbitrary boundaries and "every man for himself" philosophies, who is going to happily allow these people to help themselves to their fertile land? -
[I object to people distracting from serious issues with humour because it's getting a bit heavy.]
Fair enough.
[Where are they going to move to?]
Good question.
[In our world with arbitrary boundaries and "every man for himself" philosophies who is going to happily allow these people to help themselves to their fertile land?]
I hadn't considered the all-important detail of where they'll move to. Idea scrapped.
Here's an idea: Let's blow up a mountain! Or two. This will allow rain to move more easily to the area around the Sahara desert and counter the effects of desertification. It might not reverse it, but hey, no idea is perfect.
Here's a better idea: Let's genetically engineer wheat to survive in desert climates. Then do the same with other food products.
Whatever we try is probably better than what we're doing right now: Relying on the charity of citizens to help people that governments around the world should be concerned with. -
There I agree with you, this issue shouldn't be relying on the charity of individuals, but our capitalism is a major part of the reason why our governments wont do enough to help vulnerable people outside of our borders. When private enterprise is valued so highly as to be the basis of our economy how can a government justify taking money out of our economy to help foreigners?
Though...I don't think blowing up mountains is a very good idea... -
"who is going to happily allow these people to help themselves to their fertile land?"
Why do they need help in anyway? You are belitting some men by saying they rely on other's charity/ good will/ assurance for their survival. As long as nobody is directly interfering in their business, people anywhere in world should take care of themselves. -
I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
And, erm...not wanting to turn this into a sexism argument...but why only "some men"? Women do need people to look after them or they won't survive?
Anyway...my point was about people who are unable to provide for themselves because of their circumstances. If people would rather starve to death than accept help then people are more stupid than I thought. -
By men I meant humans... men and women.
And yes, trust me, people are more stupid than you think!!! But, in general, by instinct, any organism will get to any level to survive. In case of humans it means extraction, begging, asking for help, apart from producing.
-
-
Communism has failed worldwide...for the people living in the communist country...they ave suffered.
only china did, but with modifications.. -
@Poodle
Capitalism has gone very well? Have you read a newspaper recently?
"got what they deserved"?? what the hell is wrong with you? you don't have any compassion for your fellow human beings?
Yes, I want technological advancement, but I think developing a vaccine that saves thousands of lives while there are millions of people dying of starvation is not a reasonable trade.-
Um, yes. I have read the newspaper recently. That's not because of capitalism. That's precisely because of government interference in the economy. Can you say fiat money? Can you say credit-driven boom? Is it capitalist to inflate your money by printing more banknotes than you can afford to sponsor with your gold reserve?
You can feed someone with cholera all you like, but it's coming right out. Know what causes cholera? Dirty water. What cleans dirty water? Oh, yes. Evil capitalist technology. -
"Evil capitalist technology" ...yeah, because that's exactly what I said.
-
Communism must be based on basic assumption, "That humans are ideal. Everyone will willingly put their best efforts. Society will grow and develop as a whole, because each individual will grow and develop, there won't be any clash of interest." Quite good aim, undoubtedly.
Unfortunately, humans are far from perfect. Given any opportunity, they tend to cut corners. If they can get as much or more as others, without any efforts, they'll do that. And so communism is destined to fail as long as humans are selfish, unless some external force is applied in the form of inhuman Government interference.
Capitalism on the other hand believes that every human will perform best when he performs for himself. And is based on the "Every man for himself", a game of demand and supply and self interest. This is quite the way it was before civilization began, before the concept of community living was developed. But this also means the weaker, less capable would be unsympathetically removed from the system. -
And is based on the "Every man for himself", a game of demand and supply and self interest. This is quite the way it was before civilization began, before the concept of community living was developed. But this also means the weaker, less capable would be unsympathetically removed from the system.
That's actually inaccurate. The concept of community was there since the dawn of time. It makes more sense to invert that and claim that the further civilisation develops, the more privacy we get. In other words, more civilisation means being less reliant on the community and more self-reliance, and thus more individual freedom.
How much more communal can you get than our ancestors living in caves? Because they are completely dependent on the community, those that are incapable are unsympathetically removed from the system. Watch the Clan of the Cave Bear (or better yet, read the book) for a glimpse of communism in practice.
By contrast, look at the average level of income since the Industrial Revolution. Capitalism has made the world a better place. Communism has caused a large portion of the world to revert back to living in caves, so to speak. -
DON'T read 'Clan of the Cave Bear', read an actual anthropology book.
"those that are incapable are unsympathetically removed from the system"
You're completely wrong about this. There is considerable evidence that neolithic communities cared for their sick. There is evidence of attempts to reset broken bones and individuals who have lived for years with legs they could not have walked on. Read less fiction and more fact. -
DON'T read 'Clan of the Cave Bear', read an actual anthropology book.
They cared for the sick by knocking holes in their skulls to drive away the evil spirits that caused the illness.
By the way, Clan of the Cave Bear is based on actual anthropology. Can you say historical fiction?
Jean Auel's books have been commended for their anthropological authenticity and their ethnobotanical accuracy. However, recent archaeological research may suggest that some prehistorical details in the series are inaccurate and others fictional, and that specifications of prehistorical milestones are sometimes arbitrary and inconsistent. For example, the differences between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens may have been exaggerated or underestimated in the series; it has been found that Neanderthals had a hyoid bone and may thus have been capable of using vocal language and not as dependent on sign language as portrayed in the series (the existence of a Neanderthal hyoid bone wasn't confirmed until 1983, some years after the first book in the series was published)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_M._Auel
So, by all means, DON'T read Clan of the Cave Bear. Read actual anthropology works instead, and learn much the same thing. -
More civilization will lead to more privacy, may be. But, it may not lead to social independence. As long as humans are dependent on other humans for food or security they would depend on each other. Earlier the predators were animals or nature, now it more of fellow humans.
And by "Every man for himself" I mean more of apathy for others. Before civilization (which means before any social structure, whatsoever) people lived together out of need, not concern. Similarly, when humans are not obliged to look after each other(capitalism) they would be just taking care of people they need. -
@poodle
I'm sorry...did you read that paragraph before you pasted it in there? It says the book is inaccurate and fictionalised, and even if it said that the book was accurate it wouldn't be proof because every piece of historical fiction, no matter how far removed from the truth, somehow finds itself being praised for it's historical accuracy. You won't find the same information in a novel as you would in an academic work in the same way that you aren't getting accurate history from watching Gladiator or 300.
@earthwire you might find reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau of interest. -
@SiuilARuin:
I'm sorry, but exactly which part of Jean Auel's books have been commended for their anthropological authenticity and their ethnobotanical accuracy do you fail to comprehend?
Dishonest debate tactics like questioning motives, brushing off facts as opinion and ad hominem arguments is not supporting your position. In fact, it makes you appear desperate.
If you are right, give the facts and the logic. For example, if you could name one communist country that managed to work, you would greatly enhance your position.
In short, please stick to the topic. Here's a brief guide on how to stick to the topic:
www.johntreed.com/debate.html -
@poodle
Exactly what part of the following sentence do you not understand?
"However, recent archaeological research may suggest that some prehistorical details in the series are inaccurate and others fictional, and that specifications of prehistorical milestones are sometimes arbitrary and inconsistent."
If you will read back what I have said, I have never commended communistt governments or have ever claimed that a communist society has been successful. What I have maintained throughout this discussion is the fact that we have never had communism as defined by Marx because we have never had a global communist society.
Where I have gone off topic is to correct you when you have gone off topic. I'm not brushing off fact as opinion, you're stating stuff you learnt from a novel as fact when it isn't. -
There is considerable evidence that neolithic communities cared for their sick.
Where is this evidence you claimed? You have not backed up your claims. I was pointing out that you can't make such claims and that Clan of the Cave Bear has more accurate portrayals (which are backed up by the anthropological and archaeological evidence available at the time that it was written) of a Neolithic society than you could muster - even with its shortcomings.
Note that where Clan of the Cave Bear fails is with regards to its portrayal as Neandarthals as using mostly sign language whereas it is now thought that they were capable of speech too. This does not make Clan of the Cave Bear entirely irrelevant in its portrayal of Neolithic society, and certainly does nothing to better your position that Neolithic society had social health care.
If you look at current studies of Aboriginal people, they do have a witchdoctor, but this is a far cry from social health care. The weak are left out in the wild, because a communal system caters for the average and not for the exception.
This is nearly without exception how Aboriginal societies function. What's more, societies up to the Roman empire (read up on the Spartans) and beyond also commonly placed those who were not fit out in the cold. You don't even have to go as far back as pre-history to find the flaws in communal living.
There is considerable empirical evidence that communism does not work. Whether it failed on a global scale or on a very large scale is irrelevant - it failed. It is a flawed ideology - flawed in its conception by Marx and Engels, and flawed in every single implementation that has been attempted.
Would you get on an aeroplane with a 0% success rate of flying, when the pilot explains to you that it only failed 100% of the time because the engineers didn't build to to the specs, but he has built it to the specs this time? -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Pathology
"These fractures are often healed and show little or no sign of infection, suggesting that injured individuals were cared for during times of incapacitation."
"debilitating restriction of movement and deformity and is seen in varying
degree in the Shanidar skeletons (I-IV)."
I am well aware that Wikipedia is not a reasonable source but I don't have time to dig up journal articles for you.
I'm done with this discussion...I object to being told to "read up on the Spartans" when I probably know more about them than you do. Spartan society was unlike any other society of its time and anyone who has studied ancient history would know that. I don't expect people to know this kind of thing in general, but if you're going to make an argument based on your knowledge of history, you need to have more than "Clan of the Cave Bear" and the first scene of "300" at your disposal. -
Wikipedia is fine by me. What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, so thanks for attempting to back up your claims.
Also note that most Neanderthals seemed to have suffered from famine of one kind or another, as indicated by the high levels of hypoplasia. If your hypothesis that Neanderthals were Communists is true, their Communism and our Communism certainly seem to have one thing in common - a starving populace. -
Ok, I had to come back just to point out that it was YOUR hypothesis not mine. I didn't bring up Neanderthals, you did.
"How much more communal can you get than our ancestors living in caves? Because they are completely dependent on the community, those that are incapable are unsympathetically removed from the system. Watch the Clan of the Cave Bear (or better yet, read the book) for a glimpse of communism in practice." -
Yes, that was my claim. My apologies.
-
-
Hey Communist dont blog...for money...
put some public service ads...-
Was that addressed to me?
-
-
I Agree with earth wire
-
i came to know about the second word from my country people who call theseleves the follower of communism or whatsoever.. but after all what matters even for them is the money.. i have realised that and so i guess the money is also behind the principles of communism.. hehe-
Of course! Nobody gets involved in politics to serve the interests of others. It is every man for himself, whether it's a communist or a capitalist system, or a blend of the two.
-
"Nobody gets involved in politics to serve the interests of others"
This is very wrong and very stupid. Many people may be self-interested but certainly not all, and I don't think even the majority. -
Prove it.
-
-
prdps
which country are you from? -
Buddha with healthy belly -
Good question considering the present situation - maybe Lenin with a bit of Adam Smith, who knows?-
Lenin ir stallin
-
-
Politics...Economy is part of it.
So why people war on which side to break the egg from? -
Capitalism is a disease that spreads like plague...
sucks out the poor and rich busrt eating too much.,...while poor die of hunger.
we are human we must be equal-
certainly we are humans and equal by birth. This is how it was in the beginning. How do you think that some became rich and some poor ? All were provided with equal opportunities.
If one person works harder than other, he deserves do get more. -
we are human we must be equal.
Actually, no two people are equal. If your world view wants to treat everyone as the greatest common denominator, you're in for a surprise. I sincerely hope it's a pleasant one for you.
-
-
Communism, of course. Duh.
WOTW Unite! Viva la revolucion!-
OK, move to Cuba.
-
-
And Marx, Trotsky, Luxemburg.
-
Yes Metal boy move to Cuba. and worship Fidel Caistro....
-
Okay let me clarify.
There are two people. Born at same level and time.
One studied hard, worked ,learned, was intelligent and was important country man. he became rich thru his effort.
Other one didnot do anything, but started roaming aroung and gambled and lost everything. He was a porter later.
Now do both of them deserse equal wealth, and facilities in life?
now who'd work hard, what would inspire a hardworker, if both had equal opportunities in life..
Dear Communist brothers any reply to my question -
Communism is bad. Lenin is bad, Mao - worse, Tao - old irrelevant.
Marx's capitalism is no more. Actually Marx was right the old-time private capitalism morphed into publicly owned companies. So capitalism is no more. Communism failed (China is not communism but a funny bastard of market economy and medieval despotism bound to metamorphose into a butterfly or a monster). What we have (what we want to have) is market economy regulated by a liberal, democratic, accountable government respecting the rights of everyone. Money rules! The alternative is stealing. The Khmer Rouge abolished money, and morality.-
Exactly! Marx was solving problems of feudal society. We no longer have feudal society. Marx is completely irrelevant today.
-
-
Capitalism: A person can think and innovate if he is free, a society can flourish if there is no restriction...Everyone is actually a capitalist coz everyone likes freedom.Communism can't sustain for long and who the hell Government is? Its our money,our hard work and our innovative ideas which builds a society .A government can't control our money,thoughts and actions.. -
Karl Marx it is...-
Please motivate?
-
Motivation? You either agree or get a one way ticket to you know where.
If that's not a motivation I don't know what is.
-
-
are we talking about business or government?
i probably chose capitalism but if given a chance you can choose socialism the combination of the 2.
capitalism is a good practice for a reason that people or business should follow and abide rules of the country. even your part of the private sector. -
Yeah right. That makes it clearer.
-
Shut your mouths
Capitalist. you know why people die, people kill...for money...
if there's no greed for money...world would live in peace
buddha try understand this... -
Shut your mouths
Capitalist. you know why people die, people kill...for money...
if there's no greed for money...world would live in peace
buddha try understand this...-
The primitive people didn't have money and still killed each other. Camgodian communists abolished money blew up the national bank and killed mercilessly millions.
Money brings peace. That's what we use for peaceful exchange. The alternative is club thy neighbor and take his ass
Yes it's not perfect but so are all human inventions we can improve and strive for perfection though.
Capitalism is in deep trouble right now but capitalism has brought us where we are including the net we are using to argue. -
Yes we know why people kill... to get something that is not rightfully theirs and people die to protect it.
Quoting Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged:
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?"
"Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
There is disturbance because some people believe that just because they are born as "Homo Sapiens", humans they deserve as much as any other human, without considering efforts/ intelligence/ dedication. Just the right of existence. Those who believe that the complete output is by the society for the society, ignoring the amount of work that one individual has done. Those who demand being a parasite at the expense of other human. -
"I Feel a Great Disturbance in the Force…"
-
-
Definitely Capitalist! we wouldn't be having the freedom to share our blogs or even surf the internet today if we become communists. At least today we enjoy our freedom more than others do. -
COMMUNISM : This is why China is the strongest and most developed nation. It is more developed than USA or any nation. This is the latest fact.
-
China is not a communist country any longer. If you want to be pedantic, China was never a communist country as Marx envisioned it because China never ruled the world.
China is also far from being the most developed nation in the world. What is your criteria for making such a claim?
-
-
No China is not a communist....it is a global Captalist in the name of communist...
China is exploiting its poor people to enrich itself....
everything needs balalnce....poor country with rich men is bad aswell but..
Rich country with poor human rights is the worst..
Do you all agree-
Rich country with poor human rights is the worst..
Yes I agree.. -
Rich country with poor human rights is the worst..
A poor country with poor human rights is the worst (which is the inevitable destination for any socialist/communist country, judging by history).
But I do agree that a rich country with poor human rights is worse than a poor country with good human rights practices.
-
-
"myselfist" is ok or is out of the boundaries of your discussion
and define capitalism and marxism before ...place such questions-
Aint that a question? makes us all laugh
-
-
Go with Pikachu dude...has the whole 'Electric spikey tail' thing going on.-
Now that you mention it..
-
-
Brexians,
There are many books on capitalism and marxism...
pleases refer one...of those...
I dont like answering question. -
I am a laissez-faire capitalist subscribing to the ideals of classical liberalism and Austrian economics.
"Within Marxism there is no place for free thought." Ludwig Von Mises
mises.org -
Show me a happy communist. -
Yeah Right
Show me a Happy Communist. -
Have u ever heard of Nepal? Most of them may not have heard about it. But you'll hear about it soon. It is gonna develop rapidly since maoist (a communist party) is running a government. This would shut u capitalist's mouth.
-
I'm neither capitalist or communist. I see both sides attract fools.
I'm a meritist, and I can't be silenced.
-
-
010081 www.blogcatalog.com/user/010081
"I'm from Nepal and we have 16 hrs of electricity cutoff per day".. -
The only way Nepal is likely to have rapid economic development under communism is if its leaders give free markets a larger role.
I think that the best idea Karl Marx had was that government should disappear after communism became established. Unfortunately, he didn't say how the autocrats would actually give up their power. Perhaps the only way is through giving a greater role to the free market (i.e. re-establishing capitalism) as has occurred to some extent in China. -
I'm in the middle somewhere. Communism doesn't work, but I don't want to have to get through a crowd of homeless people to try get into the casino either. -
If i could live in this world without money, communism would look real good to me. But this planet doesn't operate like that...so, it's capitalism for now. I've got bills to pay. -
I know Nepal
Nepali Communist leaders are known to sleep in rs 250,000 bed and wear 200,000 rs watches. They roam in Prado and Pajero and talk about communism.
And they dont earn from adsense or adbrite... they earn from people -
Capitalist communist leader... who want to impose communism hahahhahahahha
-
Yes that may be true...as heard but..
See... capitalist didn't do anything....and they owe 30 million to 100 million bux Houses in Nepal and...
People have an average per capita of 120 dollar a year. -
Okay Finally it seems... there was a great discussion...
There are many fans of communism....but capitalism seems to be popular...
any more to support any other economic principle???? -
Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together":
(On no matter what road you choose; the fascist will always be lurking).
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
