This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Capitalism is better than socialism?

Poll

Capitalism or Socialism

Is the free market the way forward?

or

Is the security of communism something we need?

Reminder: This thread is to debate ideas and open them up, not to bash those who believe them so keep it clean.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 1

||TheUnknown||

17

Communism may be secure but it dont think it really helps living standards :redface:

Reply 2

thefatone

6

Original post by neb789

Is the free market the way forward?

or

Is the security of communism something we need?

i don't understand what socialism does?

Reply 3

999tigger

19

Hasnt pure socialism failed utterly? Not a case of capitalism v communism any more its what sort of capilatlism.

Reply 4

Alesha1991

16

I think extremes of either usually turn out pretty badly. Probably the real question is what is the best balance between the two.

Reply 5

Youngmetro

2

Compare the success of Hong Kong with the USSR. I think it definitively proves that free market is more successful with minimal government intervention.
USSR failed because it was impossible to allocate resources efficiently and living standards plummeted.

Reply 6

SuperStar#7

3

I think we all knew this in 1945

Reply 7

RF_PineMarten

18

The extreme of either is bad - extreme capitalism would mean no state funding for things like healthcare and the welfare system, with the state funding just a few things. We'd have people starving to death on the streets and dying due to curable diseases. Not to mention other things like having pretty much no environmental regulation ("free market" types tend not to like environmentalism). On the other hand, communism infringes on personal liberty in a big way and is not a good way to run an economy (people have less motive to work harder).

The debate should be about what sort of balance we should have, rather than a choice between two extreme ends of the spectrum.

Reply 8

ckingalt

14

It has already been said that the debate is really about drawing the most productive and fair balance. People who seek pure equality fail to understand human nature. I would hate to live in a purely equal society. I am highly motivated improve my level of independence and privilege. An overly equal society would deny that opportunity. We should seek to ensure enough equality that individuals can succeed at improving their status, but never so much that they are unable to distinguish it.

Reply 9

AlmightyJesus

5

compare north korea with south korea, or west germany and east germany pre-velvet revolution - the dictatorships had basically nothing to do with the poor economics. if you take away incentives, at whatever rate, then you will get bad consequences.
and to you guys who think norway or sweden is a good representation of "socialism", 1) they have pretty low corp. taxes compared to some countries (e.g. USA), and 2) sweden, for instance, used to be the most economically free nation in europe and one of the richest ones as well, until the 70s, and then, for *some* strange reason, they started getting progressively and comparatively poorer than the more capitalist countries...
and by the way, I can definitely claim that norway is doing as well as it is because of its oil, because it's a mutha****innnnnn fact

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 10

username1177050

20

definitely this is not a republic!!!!!!!

Reply 11

Fenneko

20

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, so capitalism, obviously.
Corbyn would say communism.

Reply 12

Farm_Ecology

12

Original post by 999tigger

Hasnt pure socialism failed utterly? Not a case of capitalism v communism any more its what sort of capilatlism.

No, dictatorships have failed utterly. Socialism was a resounding success.

Original post by neb789

Is the free market the way forward?

A free market is great when things are going good, and terrible when things go bad.

Original post by neb789

Is the security of communism something we need?

Communism's selling point isn't security, it's appropriate allocation of resources.

Reply 13

Thomb

14

Pure communism is the whole world being communist not having law or government. No ones going to do that really?

Pure capitalism doesn't exist either.

Reply 14

neb789

OP

14

Original post by RF_PineMarten

The extreme of either is bad - extreme capitalism would mean no state funding for things like healthcare and the welfare system, with the state funding just a few things. We'd have people starving to death on the streets and dying due to curable diseases. Not to mention other things like having pretty much no environmental regulation ("free market" types tend not to like environmentalism). On the other hand, communism infringes on personal liberty in a big way and is not a good way to run an economy (people have less motive to work harder).

The debate should be about what sort of balance we should have, rather than a choice between two extreme ends of the spectrum.

What balance would you seek then?

Reply 15

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by Farm_Ecology

No, dictatorships have failed utterly. Socialism was a resounding success.

A free market is great when things are going good, and terrible when things go bad.

Communism's selling point isn't security, it's appropriate allocation of resources.

Define appropriate.

Reply 16

MezmorisedPotato

18

Extremes of the two, I personally think, wouldn't work out. So perhaps a certain level of capitalism mixed with good socialist policies can work out well. Look at our British parties. Are any of them that far right or left ( Maybe BNP or UKIP)? So a balance is required to satisfy all people although that never really happens in reality.

Reply 17

banterboy

13

Original post by Farm_Ecology

No, dictatorships have failed utterly. Socialism was a resounding success.

A free market is great when things are going good, and terrible when things go bad.

Communism's selling point isn't security, it's appropriate allocation of resources.

I've studied the socialist history of China in detail and USSR in less so. This is bs. People didn't starve in those countries because of the evils of Mao and Stalin (though they were) but because despite governments doing everything they could within socialism to create prosperity, the system ineluctably created bad allocations of resources and so people died.

inb4 "that was communism not socialism" no socialism IS authoritarian communism. Communism is supposedly where the people do it by themselves and skip into the sunset with ponies ala marxist analysis.

Reply 18

VV Cephei A

6

Original post by Farm_Ecology

Socialism was a resounding success.

One despairs at the kind of brain rot that must be present for someone to seriously hold such an opinion

Reply 19

Gwilym101

17

Well the extremes of either are disasterous, extreme capitalism you get Rapture from Bioshock, extreme communism you get basically get insect hives.

Original post by VV Cephei A

One despairs at the kind of brain rot that must be present for someone to seriously hold such an opinion

You are aware that anything funded by tax money and government run not for profit is socialist right? The police, the NHS, public education, infrastructure? None of these ringing a bell?

Capitalism is better than socialism?

Capitalism or Socialism

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you