frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Communism vs Capitalism [I already know the answer trust me]

LogicLogic 215 Pts
Each have their own good points to be honest, Lets take an unbiased look at them: 

Communism: Fair for the talented +
Communism: unfair for not talented -
Capitalism: Fair for most people [in some cases] +
Capitalism: Unfair for the talented -
billpassedbrexitnatbaronsrandalpassedbill
  1. Communism or Capitalism17 votes
    1. Communism
      47.06%
    2. Capitalism
      52.94%

Comments

  • billpassedbillpassed 58 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Capitimism is fair for veryone as long as they work hard. It is fair for the talented.
  • LogicLogic 215 Pts
    @billpassed  But talented people could be doing WAY better with communism.  
  • Capitalism is the highest form of economic freedom there is, provided the government does not stray too close to corporatism, which I am afraid we are currently doing. However, this is not the fault of capitalism, it is the fault of the government. The economic system itself is not perfect but it is better than communism, under which many opportunities have to be consequently shut down as a result of communism's function. This means that if combined with a corrupt government, it will be even worse
    agsrErfisflat
  • averyaproaveryapro 62 Pts
    I don't believe in communism because it almost discrimination against people that naturally aren't talented. The thing with capitalism is that it allows most or all people and you don't have to be talented in their society.
  • agsragsr 485 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @melanielust, good point.  The issue that we often see that communism is often coupled with Government corruption (Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba).  Is that by accident? I don't think so.  I believe that by nature, Communism relies on overblown centralized government that replaces religion with belief in the Government amd greater good.  Very little checks and balances, unless you look at the outside world.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • Another thing about opportunities and "talent;" under capitalism, there forms a natural wealth gap where there are varying degrees of richness. This means that there are always people who are trying to attain wealth, and trying to contribute to society, because they are at a disadvantage and strive to be advantaged like those at the top. In communism, if everyone is already economically equal, there is no standard to strive for, so the motivation to contribute to society is lessened if not completely eliminated. I will criticize capitalism because it is difficult to leave poverty if you're born into it, but communism isn't a viable alternative. First of all if one person is poor, that means everyone is poor; second of all , no matter how talented or qualified you are, under communism you must remain in the same place all your life. There is no movement. There's no room for growth or change. And that's just under the theory, not even the practice.
    brexitagsr
  • brexitbrexit 22 Pts
    This is a wealth gap in the system.
  • LogicLogic 215 Pts
    33% on communism? China has invaded debate island guys, It's time to pack our bags. 
    spandamagsr
  • spandamspandam 42 Pts
    Communism benefits many classes not just one class, but I stand with democracy due to it benefiting all classes and people who work hard.
  • LogicLogic 215 Pts
    @spandam  There's one main thing that's good about communism, But the rest is pretty unfair. That one thing is, Your money goes to you and you only. Not to the person who simply 'owns' the company. 
  • @Logic, in communism how does money go to you? In all known implementations of"communist/socialists" society pretty much everyone gets some sort of really low salary to keep peope near poverty line, regardless of performance.  
    Capitalism, on another hand, gives everyone an opportunity to become an entrepreneur and keep profits for themselves
  • LogicLogic 215 Pts
    @CuriousGeorge All the money YOU worked for, Goes to you. Even if it is a low amount [Which goes back to what job you work really.]  Not to the person who just 'owns' the company. 
    natbarons
  • agsragsr 485 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Logic, I would rather rely on market conditions to earn fair wages, than "all to me" sub-poverty communist wages.
    natbarons
    Live Long and Prosper
  • natbaronsnatbarons 36 Pts
    I agree with democracy not communism. If people work hard then they will earn more.
  • agsragsr 485 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @melanielust made an excellent argument that I  agree with. The key feature of commuism is lack of drive by the individuals.  Why bother get to the top if we already have enought of everything and we are not going to see fruits of our labor.  Meaning, some hypothetical "we" will see it, but it will be distributed so thin that it's not meaningful.  Progress, innovation, hunger to achieve is an exponential catalyst for improvement - you take that away and we may as well be in the stone age.
    One argument I do have with melanielust, is that a pro of communism is that it is difficult to get out of poverty under capitalism regime. That maybe true that it is difficult, but I would argue that we have a system of helping people to get out of poverty with education and other opportunities. It is up to the people though to have a will to take advantage of such opportunities.  It will not help everyone, and poverty is a reality under any regime.  Under communism, how many people live in poverty in China and North Korea - it's even more difficult for them to get out of it.
    love2debatemelanielust
    Live Long and Prosper
  • @agsr, I agree with your poverty point. I would also add that our issue with poverty that we continue to support welfare programs without forcing people to work and try their best to get out of poverty.  I also agree with @melanielust
  • LogicLogic 215 Pts
    Honestly, I agree with neither capitalism nor communism.  I agree with an old system the prophet made. The basis of it goes like this : 
    All the son of adam needs is ; Food, Shelter, Water
    And the government provides that. Well, back then there weren't many people, Sadly there is too many people for that. A new system needs to be made.
  • @Logic, sounds like your views are generally consistent with Conservatives - small government and let the people be.
    randal
  • randalrandal 59 Pts
    Capitalism allows everyone to have a fair opportunity of becoming successful.
    melanielust
  • Communism and Capitalism.
    Just more of the same old conceptual nonsense, that spews forth from the human brain.
    At the end of the proverbial day, it all depends on who's pointing the gun at whom.
  • 50% on communism? Would love to hear your perspective. If you voted for communism could you explain why.
  • @melanielust

    I believe in equality and justice and feel that Communism is the best approach to realising this.
    passedbill
  • Communism doesn't work, though. I mean, we've tried it for a century and it started, continued, and ended with the killing of its own citizens. 
    passedbillAlwaysCorrect
  • @DavidDebates , reasonable point.

    Communism is unable to eke and hasn't been experimented under many nations such as NK.
  • Communism doesn't work, though. I mean, we've tried it for a century and it started, continued, and ended with the killing of its own citizens. 
    I feel this post and much of this thread is trying to talk about socialism rather than communism.

    Just a friendly reminder that the various Soviet and Soviet affiliated states didn't even consider themselves Communist. Communism is a distinct socioeconomic structure from socialiam and was viewed as the end goal that socialism would eventually reach. The various national Communist Parties named themselves after the convention set by the Russian one, who specifically included it because that was the eventual end goal they wanted to achieve - not what they were actually practicing. I feel this causes a lot of confusion for casual commentators.

    Could say more but phone typing sucks.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 348 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Anarcho-capitalism for the win.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • agsragsr 485 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect, that is a fair point that there is a difference between socialism and communism.  I am not aware of any actual implementations of theoretical scalable "communism" societies.  All practical examples were socialist regimes "inspiring" towards communism.  IMHO, all current implementations weren't really successful.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • I was expecting a larger gap in votes...  This is bad 
  • @agsr

    Historical implementation of Communism would be on a much smaller scale. We're talking the Paris Commune, parts of Spain curing the Civil War and aside from that only very local implementations of Communism - small communes of a few hundred people.

    I agree with not really being inspired by the socialist nations we've seen - which is why if my country went socialist I wouldn't want it to do so in anything like the same manner as the USSR or similar.

    However I think there are a couple of key things to keep in mind.

    One is that by some metrics they were very successful. Communist nations have tended to see massive gains in areas like health, life expectancy and industrialisation. If you look at the work of nobel prize winner in economics Amartya Sen, it's worth taking note of his comparison of China and India. As they were both in a very similar position when one went Capitalist and one went Communist, they serve as a very good comparison. What's surprising is that India is the one with the greater number of excess deaths. Even with the massive amount of Deaths in China during the "Great Leap Forward", India still is responsible for more needless death overall because other than that 3 year period China's socialist focus on improving the lives of the poor and providing adequate health care to all as a social necessity - rather than a profit making business - helped vast amount of people who would have died in India. This results in India, the capitalist example in our comparison of two different countries going down two different routes, being responsible for a greater net loss of lives.

    Now of course that doesn't excuse the actions of Mao and others and I am obviously after a scenario which can provide the economic and social benefits of socialism without danger of a dictator, but then I don't really see anything excusing the deaths in India either. They are less dramatic - people silently starving or dying of disease steadily across an entire country - but if anything it is a point that is far more wrapped up in Capitalism than the loss of lives in Socialism is with it's economic philosophy. After all it's possible to have socialism without some abhorent dictatorship and any sane socialist nowadays would be advocating for democratic socialism. On the other hand the dispersal of commodities in a manner which maximises profit rather than which maximises the overall human good is exactly the point of Capitalism. 

    That's why even today backwards and embargoed Cuba provides the same life expectancy as the USA, the most technologically sophisticated nation on earth.

    The second point I would want to raise is that I view the issue of Socialist countries being authoritarian dictatorship type places as being correlational, not causational. Socialism is going to be the most attractive in poor, backwards nations who aren't benefiting from the imbalance in international trade and Capitalism. These are also the places that tend to lack a history of democratic rule and lack institutions which guarantee people's freedoms. The problem is geographic rather then socio-economic, I can point to plenty of nations in the same area of the world that didn't go socialist but still ended up as an authoritarian dictatorship. It also didn't help that the first nation to really try and go Soviet, the USSR, was then so much larger and more powerful and was able to then exert so much control over other nations.

    Look at Indonesia where the Capitalist dictator Suharto murdered a million of his own citizens, specifically targeting socialist and communist affiliated people. Or Chile where the democratically elected and peaceful socialist President Allende was overthrown my a military junta which then went on to torture and kill the population (Indeed there was a bit of a sudden rise in Latin dictatorships at the time).

    The nations that ended up socialist dictatorships are ones where if they went capitalist we would have just expected them to be capitalist dictatorships instead. Hell look at Russia a few years before the revolution - it was actually even worse then. The Russians had no history of democracy and no institutions which would stand up to a leader exercising dictatorial power. I wouldn't expect the same result in a modern Western nation.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch