Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Capitalism v Communism v Socialism

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 46 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Right I am not entirely confident on the fundamental ideas of communism/socialism but I would appreciate some assitance

    I understand capitalism to be this in simple terms:

    - The bourgeoise own capital and means of production (machinery)
    - The proletariant are workers who have nothing, so sell their labour
    - The bourgeoise exploit their workers by allowing 'surplus labour'

    Now communism I belive would:

    - Remove these two classes
    - Wealth would be distriputed according to people's needs (despite whether you're a doctor or a rubbish collector)

    What confuses me is in a communist society, would wages be standardised? Would people only be given enough money to get by? Also how socialism different?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Communism has historically always made its citizens poorer than capitalist countries due to lack of innovation or at least motivation to innovate. As well as this the people sacrifice their economic and political freedoms for worse living standards. Many millions end up paying for it with their lives such as in NK now, and in the USSR, PRC and Cambodia in the past.

    Some communists might claim that the states mentioned in this aren't actually communist because they should have been democratic etc, however the economic model sucked bad enough for anyone with sense to have rejected the idea.

    I guess it depends what socialism you mean, everyone seems to have a different definition and as far as i am concerned socialism isn't really a clever economic model as its very expensive because as Milton Friedman explains, there are four different ways of spending money, and socialism is the least effective way. (i can link video if anyone wants it)

    I must conclude Communism and Socialism are ridiculously stupid 'ideas'! Capitalism has enriched the working classes much more that communism ever has or will. All 1st world countries on Earth are capitalist. We have private housing, private transportation, education, plentiful supply of clean and luxurious food, water, heating, electricity, clothing, pets, healthcare and literally hundreds of luxury goods such as phones and the very laptop i am writing this on now.

    EDIT: Negged by soap dodgers
    • Thread Starter
    • 46 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pr0view)
    Communism has historically always made its citizens poorer than capitalist countries due to lack of innovation or at least motivation to innovate. As well as this the people sacrifice their economic and political freedoms for worse living standards. Many millions end up paying for it with their lives such as in NK now, and in the USSR, PRC and Cambodia in the past.

    Some communists might claim that the states mentioned in this aren't actually communist because they should have been democratic etc, however the economic model sucked bad enough for anyone with sense to have rejected the idea.

    I guess it depends what socialism you mean, everyone seems to have a different definition and as far as i am concerned socialism isn't really a clever economic model as its very expensive because as Milton Friedman explains, there are four different ways of spending money, and socialism is the least effective way. (i can link video if anyone wants it)

    I must conclude Communism and Socialism are ridiculously stupid 'ideas'! Capitalism has enriched the working classes much more that communism ever has or will. All 1st world countries on Earth are capitalist. We have private housing, private transportation, education, plentiful supply of clean and luxurious food, water, heating, electricity, clothing, pets, healthcare and literally hundreds of luxury goods such as phones and the very laptop i am writing this on now.
    Thanks for the reply

    Would you say that communism is good on paper but cannot be executed in real life due to corruption, greed, and general misconception of where communism originated?

    Is socialism an economic model which revoles around state ownership like communism? I am unsure of there differences and how to tell them apart. Any videos and literature you could prove would be appreciated
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinda.college)
    Thanks for the reply

    Would you say that communism is good on paper but cannot be executed in real life due to corruption, greed, and general misconception of where communism originated?

    Is socialism an economic model which revoles around state ownership like communism? I am unsure of there differences and how to tell them apart. Any videos and literature you could prove would be appreciated
    I wouldn't even say communism is good on paper as it will NEVER work. However i will admit it was a nice idea if i had to say something as it was meant to help the poor, but it never has or will do that.

    When i first became interested in politics the first ideology that interested me was communism, however over time it became obvious it was a ridiculous concept and most communists will not accept any logic when you try to disprove them.

    From what i understand of Socialism is that it does require state ownership of industries (e.g. that is why Labour nationalised many industries following the second world war) and the removal of the middle class but the state never gets rid of currency. I think socialism is primarily a economic system where as communism is also political as well such as been very authoritarian. Some aspects of Britain are socialist such as the NHS and education as they are industries that are state owned and accessible for everyone.
    • Thread Starter
    • 46 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pr0view)
    I wouldn't even say communism is good on paper as it will NEVER work. However i will admit it was a nice idea if i had to say something as it was meant to help the poor, but it never has or will do that.

    When i first became interested in politics the first ideology that interested me was communism, however over time it became obvious it was a ridiculous concept and most communists will not accept any logic when you try to disprove them.

    From what i understand of Socialism is that it does require state ownership of industries (e.g. that is why Labour nationalised many industries following the second world war) and the removal of the middle class but the state never gets rid of currency. I think socialism is primarily a economic system where as communism is also political as well such as been very authoritarian. Some aspects of Britain are socialist such as the NHS and education as they are industries that are state owned and accessible for everyone.
    Helpful response
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The way you have described capitalism is a bit misleading because obviously most people work and own assets. Its not the middleages where a few own the land and do nothing while everyone else works on it and doesn't get the rewards. Now most inequality is because of differences in wages. That means the rich ones are the most productive so they either work hard or have better skills.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Never equate Socialism with that abomination: communism.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pr0view)
    I wouldn't even say communism is good on paper as it will NEVER work. However i will admit it was a nice idea if i had to say something as it was meant to help the poor, but it never has or will do that.

    When i first became interested in politics the first ideology that interested me was communism, however over time it became obvious it was a ridiculous concept and most communists will not accept any logic when you try to disprove them.

    From what i understand of Socialism is that it does require state ownership of industries (e.g. that is why Labour nationalised many industries following the second world war) and the removal of the middle class but the state never gets rid of currency. I think socialism is primarily a economic system where as communism is also political as well such as been very authoritarian. Some aspects of Britain are socialist such as the NHS and education as they are industries that are state owned and accessible for everyone.
    That's not Socialism. That's Marxist socialism.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion both of them are wrong. Capitalism create people to wage slavery. Communism is a dictatorship in which people are controlled by a country to keep "harmony".

    I guess the best of all is the middle of them. We need an economy which orient towards mankind's needs instead of capitalism's ones, and we need an one in which solidarity and harmony is possible without observation.
    • Thread Starter
    • 46 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    That's not Socialism. That's Marxist socialism.
    Does socialism (not Marxist socialism) emhpasise state ownership of industries then? How does it differ from traditional communist economics (in terms of distribution of wealth, state ownership etc)?
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinda.college)
    Does socialism (not Marxist socialism) emhpasise state ownership of industries then? How does it differ from traditional communist economics (in terms of distribution of wealth, state ownership etc)?
    Only certain public services. It may regulate industries and it may regulate finance. I do not think there are any communist economies, and if there are then, compared to Socialism, Communism is very undemocratic.
    • Thread Starter
    • 46 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    Only certain public services. It may regulate industries and it may regulate finance. I do not think there are any communist economies, and if there are then, compared to Socialism, Communism is very undemocratic.
    Thanks for clearing that up
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kallisto)
    1. Capitalism create people to wage slavery.
    2. Communism is a dictatorship
    3. best of all is the middle of them.
    4. We need an economy which orient towards mankind's needs
    5. instead of capitalism's ones,
    6. and we need an one in which solidarity and harmony is possible without observation.
    1. Of course, though that isn't accorss the board. But communism, any time, also condems people to slavery of some kind, anarcho-communists vow that if you don't work then you shall not receive your basic needs from the council authority, which is everyone. As long as productivity, or the need to produce to survive exists, there will be slavery, it is impossible to avoid. Unless you have robots do everything for you, which is idiotic because it is science fiction based, and the fact that even if this did happen, trying to meet the needs, or interests, of the whole planet, is impossible because there are so many contrasting variables and desired outcomes.
    2. A dictatorship is a dictatorship. Communism can be a dictatorship, so can capitalism, look at various Arab and African nations.
    3. And what is the middle then? Because the old "capitalism is at one end, communism at the other, socialism is in the middle, and takes the best of both" is completely retarded, ahistorical, and trivialises centuries of philosophy and reality.
    4. I'm pretty sure that the economy you are expiriencing right now caters for your needs. Communists want to meet peoples needs, and capitalists do, though in different ways.
    5. Capitalism doesn't have needs, its not a person. Capitalism is an outlet for the pursuit of human interests by definition.
    6. Those are just words.
    • 38 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinda.college)
    Right I am not entirely confident on the fundamental ideas of communism/socialism but I would appreciate some assitance

    I understand capitalism to be this in simple terms:

    - The bourgeoise own capital and means of production (machinery)
    - The proletariant are workers who have nothing, so sell their labour
    - The bourgeoise exploit their workers by allowing 'surplus labour'

    Now communism I belive would:

    - Remove these two classes
    - Wealth would be distriputed according to people's needs (despite whether you're a doctor or a rubbish collector)

    What confuses me is in a communist society, would wages be standardised? Would people only be given enough money to get by? Also how socialism different?
    Yes you have the basic concepts.

    Socialism was originally 'utopian' and 'primitive' before being defined as 'scientific socialism' by Marx and Engels in the 19th century. They as you have stated, saw the unacceptable exploitation of workers by the ruling classes and the alienation from our natural altrustic and co-operative human nature by capitalism and thus sought its abolition. Nevertheless, Marx saw that capitalism was a much better innovation than feudalism, yet any attempts at 'reformist' socialism through parliament would be engulfed by 'bourgeois concessions'. Essentially, the values that Marx extolled in the Communist Manifesto were 'collectivism, fraternity, common ownership, a classless society, pure democracy and an equality of outcome'. As you have paraphrased, Marx called for redistribution of wealth in terms of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.

    However, Marx saw that the changes that were necessary had to be incurred through revolutionary means, i.e. revolutionary class consciousness in which the working classes would take control of the state ( a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat) for as long as it took to supress the ruling classes and transition to a stateless, communist society. The modern anomaly is that all 'socialist states' have become largely totalitarian as Marx never stated when capitalism would collapse or when the state would have the right conditions to 'wither away'. Lenin adapted socialism to be headed by a revolutionary party- the Vanguard which Stalin later centralised as power base- the antithesis of Marx's communist principles.

    'Socialism' now broadly refers to the 'parliamentary, statist, reformist' approach of Bernstein in the 19th Century and all Labour governments since 1924. Arguably, Labour have never been socialist (see the Ralph Milliband 'Labourist' thesis), but their nationalisation of 20% of the economy by 1951 embodied the 'democratic socialist' principles of state ownership and social justice. Modern socialists or 'social democrats' have basically abandoned hopes for nationalisation and defending the working classes, instead class based analysis of society are antiquated and instead they confer with Gidden's thesis on structuralism and the need to emphasise values, not institutions like trade unions. Therefore, socialism is broadly the wellbeing of society through the redistribution of wealth, inequalities can be justified if the worst off benefit (Rawl's- theory of justice).

    Capitalism, on the other hand, is seen to be the only feasible economic system for it has 'triumphed' in the west- Fukuyama thesis. Alternatively, Antonio Gramsci saw that capitalism has become the only feasible economic system only in a sense of false consciousness and it being the dominant ideology. The failure of totalitarian communist models in the USSR and North Korean incompetency in constrast with the capitalist propensity of boom to bust in accompaniment with often synonomous liberal democratic political and economic freedoms have basically dispelled any hope for socialism in the west. The Nordic nations represent any relic of socialism but even those who claim to be socialists within Europe are largely centre, centre-left with commitment to retrenchment and economic orthodoxy.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    (...)
    4. I'm pretty sure that the economy you are expiriencing right now caters for your needs. Communists want to meet peoples needs, and capitalists do, though in different ways.
    5. Capitalism doesn't have needs, its not a person. Capitalism is an outlet for the pursuit of human interests by definition.
    6. Those are just words.
    Groceries are one of the aspects in my thoughts. It's okay to produce them, but there are industrial countries which waste them all the time. Everyone in Germany for example throw away over 81 (!) kilograms groceries per year! people produce more than they need no matter if groceries or other materials. And that's why I stick to it: people don't produced for themselves, they produce for capitalism. Capitalism has a simple slogan: more and more and more and more... although people don't have enough time to consume all kinds of goods in their lives. People need no robots, they are ones! people spend to much time at work, ignore their needs and leisure time more than before. Faster and faster, more and more, without enjoyment of life...What a poor life!

    You are right, capitalism is not a person, capitalism is an idea in which materials are produced time and time again. But I think the idea of mass production is wrong by now. And mass production is the idea of capitalism. And we are still working to get one, although we have more than enough. That's why I claim that we are working for capitalism's idea, not for need.

    In my opinion people have forgotten to live. Most of them just exist. Just poor!
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kallisto)
    1. but there are industrial countries which waste
    2. people produce more than they need.
    3. people don't produced for themselves, they produce for capitalism.
    4. although people don't have enough time to consume all kinds of goods in their lives.
    5. People need no robots
    6. capitalism is an idea in which materials are produced time and time again
    7. Just poor!
    1. Of course, every country wastes, but this is not escapable, communist countries would waste, cetrally planned socialist countries wouldn't produce enough and eveyone would starve (as they always have), anarcho communist and socialist countries would waste, and the biggest wasters on the earth are often countries which are state socialist, namely China.

    2. I agree, but the point it forcing people (as communists would) to not produce for their, or others wants, and only for need, is completely inhuman, anti-freedom, and I don't care if this is an ad hom, but that laptop/PC you are typing on, you don't "need".

    3. People produce for other people, and capitalists and capitalism is such an outlet.

    4. Define consume?

    5. The robot reference I was making was aimed at the "Zeitgeist" project which is Centrally planned socialism with robots. Those people are rediculous

    6. No, production is an idea where materials are produced over and over again, capitalism isn't restricted to secondary sector manufacturing.

    7. Oddly enough, it is the Western industrialised nations who aren't poor mainly because of our rediculously high productivity compared with the rest of the world. Take out the fact imperialists have hindered the growth of many places, it is our productivity that has made us rich, and the reason why many nations are Poor. Western Imperialism hasn't devastated every nation, I could pick some random poor or undeveloped country and show how low its productivity is even when we haven't oppressed/plundered/ransacked/corrupted it.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pr0view)
    Communism has historically always made its citizens poorer than capitalist countries due to lack of innovation or at least motivation to innovate. As well as this the people sacrifice their economic and political freedoms for worse living standards. Many millions end up paying for it with their lives such as in NK now, and in the USSR, PRC and Cambodia in the past.

    Some communists might claim that the states mentioned in this aren't actually communist because they should have been democratic etc, however the economic model sucked bad enough for anyone with sense to have rejected the idea.

    I guess it depends what socialism you mean, everyone seems to have a different definition and as far as i am concerned socialism isn't really a clever economic model as its very expensive because as Milton Friedman explains, there are four different ways of spending money, and socialism is the least effective way. (i can link video if anyone wants it)

    I must conclude Communism and Socialism are ridiculously stupid 'ideas'! Capitalism has enriched the working classes much more that communism ever has or will. All 1st world countries on Earth are capitalist. We have private housing, private transportation, education, plentiful supply of clean and luxurious food, water, heating, electricity, clothing, pets, healthcare and literally hundreds of luxury goods such as phones and the very laptop i am writing this on now.

    Could you link the video please?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    "Surplus value" is a heterodox doctrine long since abandoned by serious economists. Wages are just proportional to productivity.
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinda.college)
    Right I am not entirely confident on the fundamental ideas of communism/socialism but I would appreciate some assitance

    I understand capitalism to be this in simple terms:

    - The bourgeoise own capital and means of production (machinery)
    - The proletariant are workers who have nothing, so sell their labour
    - The bourgeoise exploit their workers by allowing 'surplus labour'
    You do not have a bloody clue. I bet you do not even understand the labour theory of value.

    Capitalism is best defined as an economic system of free exchange and private property.

    What you are rambling on about is not only complete garbage, but is also a result rather than a framework.


    What confuses me is in a communist society, would wages be standardised? Would people only be given enough money to get by? Also how socialism different?
    A Marxist communist society is basically just anarchy where by some miracle we produce stuff and then distribute it around without any government or market mechanism. Complete clap trap.

    Socialism on the other hand can basically be defined as government control of the factors of production.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LarrikinLibertine)
    Could you link the video please?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 10, 2012
New on TSR

Halloween 2014

Spooky tales from this year's fright night

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.