Capitalism, Communism, Socialism?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Norsefire, Feb 24, 2008.

?

Which is the best economic policy and society?

  1. Capitalism

    43.8%
  2. Communism

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Socialism

    56.3%
  1. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Since I don't know where exactly this would belong (I was thinking either economic or politics), well, here it is.


    I can't believe there are people out there who seriously think Communism is good, and good for the economy. There is no economy in communism, because there's nothing being offered, no service.

    No, I am supportive of pure capitalism. I think a man who is hard-working, intelligent, and dedicated shouldn't be "equal" with some bum on the street. I think they deserve the sweat of their brow. In Capitalism, a man is as valuable as he makes himself, the way it should be.

    So, strictly as an economic policy and society (egalitarian, class-based, etc), what are your opinions?

    Peace
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    If i had been you i would have put it in science and sociaty (keep the nutcases from politics out of it that way

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    As for the best economic policy you do realise that comunisum ISNT an economic policy? Its a polictical model in its strictest form (ie ALL the people vote on everything or at least the big issues rather than a representive democrasy)

    Comunisium has never actually been tried (well as far as i know anyway) what has been LABLED as comunisium was actually SOCIALISUM.

    However thats beside the point, i dont think either model (socialisum OR captilisum) taken to the pure form works. Look at england and eroupe for example. Its not a perfect captilistic sociaty having aspects of the wellfare state (which is an example of socialisum) for things like disability and unemployment benifits, the health care system, roads ect

    If you had a perfect capitilistic sociaty you would have NO goverment projects at all, in fact im pritty sure that if you take it to its exstream then you have a lasa fair system of goverment
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    You need to take elements from both, A extreme of anything is bad.

    Eg. Healthcare, many have federalized and social healthcare, and are better off than others. This is a aspect of Socialism in capitalist societies.
    However, capitalism taken to the extreme results in various groups being disadvantaged.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sandy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,926
    I think communism and socialism are hideous. I support capitalism.
     
  8. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Actually, meritocracy (or something like that) seems to be increasingly the most logical and healthiest "economic policy" there is.
     
  9. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
     
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    norse fire those countries were SOCIALIST not comunist. Just because a country or a group of people name themselves one thing doesnt make it true.

    Pure capitalism CANT work, its been shown to be exploitive and already been thrown out (ie pre WW2 England for example, actually taken further you could say the middle ages). There are some eliments of the socialist ajender in ALL sociaty. Roads are free to use by anyone, thats socialisum. Health care is paid for through tax thats socialisum. Restrictions on what companies can and cant do is socialisum. Its just a matter of how far along the spectrum you want to go and where each system works better.
     
  11. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Yes, but pure capitalism CAN work in which everything is privatized, but there would probably be little to no government, but it could work.
     
  12. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    IMO, Humans are naturally empathic, Capitalism presents a too impersonal sort of system.
     
  13. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    actually norsefire capitalism in its pure sence would be the end of sociaty. No police, if i want to kill you and can aford the ammo i can ect

    This would end life more effectivly than anything else ever proposed
     
  14. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    That's simply it, no it wouldn't. Because I would have a massive cash flow, massive influence, and alot of control over a certain area which I own, and then I can hire body guards, and personal armies.
     
  15. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    so you would rather we went back to the middle ages?

    ok off you go then, the rest of us like to have goverments
     
  16. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    I never said that. I said pure capitalism can work, not that I wanted it. But yes generally a free market and competition does wonders for the consumer and for development.
     
  17. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    actually it doesnt, all it does is mean that whoever has more power wins. For instance take the housing market. In a compleatly free market there would be no rental contracts because there would be no legal system to enforce them. So the owner could do whatever they wanted and the only thing the tenate could do is set fire to the house when he was kicked out

    The house would burn to the ground because there would be no fire service and if there was then the fire service would be more like the marfia walking around forcing people to pay protection money or setting there houses on fire. There would be no insurance because people wouldnt trust the insurance company to pay out when the corupt fire servce burned your house down and you would have no savings because the greedy bank would have stolen them
     
  18. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    But that fire service could be supplied by yet another economic market, a force, a power.

    All is done by the people on that land, they all hold their share of power, and the flow of power would be from wealthiest to poorest, but it would still WORK.
     
  19. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    no there is your mestake. In this system of goverment the flow of power is from the weakest to STRONGEST

    This is EXACTLY how feudel lords came about because there was no system of goverment

    This is what we are talking about you know, little kings that will work people to death and the people cant resist because everyone else is the same. There would be no laws against slavery because there would be no laws at all
     
  20. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    The "laws" would be set by those who owned the most, the people with the most money, most economic power. So a mega-corp, could build their own roads, cities, hire their own colonists, their own services, and then compete with others, that mega-corp would set the "law"
     
  21. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    exactly my point total facisum, the end of any civilising we have done since the renaconce
     
  22. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    But not the end of civilization, it can work
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The Amish, in the US, are sort of communistic - more so than most other farmers.

    And the Mennonites, in their way, are somewhat communistic - again, more so than most other farmers.

    Both of the these groups are successfully expanding their farming population (more than doubled, in the Amish case. ) and prosperity, while their more capitalistic neighbors have suffered severe forced attrition and declining numbers of farms and farmers.
     

Share This Page