Quote:
Originally Posted by AidanRyuko
I just want to say this about capitalism and economic systems..
People confuse economic system with government system. When Americans think of Communism, they think of an evil dictator that ruins everyone's lives. This is not true about communism as a whole. They are thinking of Totalitarianism, a government system where one person has total power.
Yes, Communism and Dictatorships work well with one another, but a Democratic Communism is possible, but no one has taken the time to think about why capitalism is bad.
Capitalism is a flawed system:
- Market prices are determined by a few guys is corporate offices
- Rich get richer, the poor get poorer
- Greed runs rampant
- Companies ruin the quality of food and other goods because the new method is cheaper to make.
- Job quality is determined by salary (ex. Get treated by a doctor not making as much money as the others, you get killed, basically.)
- Education is impossible (or near) for the poor, no hope of poverty-stricken families to advance.
- Healthcare is almost impossible to afford and is flawed (Due to companies caring more about profit than the quality of life)
The list goes on. But the reason America bashed communism, and even went to war with it, is because Communism & Socialism are better economic systems. They must show the American people & try to show the world that capitalism works. It doesn't.
Why is Communism/Socialism better? Because the greed is controlled. If a company wants to stay in business, they must make their products better. Not necessarily cheaper, but better. The government controls Healthcare, Education, Emergency Services, Infrastructure, and many high-priority industries. Communism takes it a step farther and only does not moderate small farmer's markets. Everything else is controlled and made available to everyone equally.
The misconception people have in their minds is that capitalism stands for freedom. It doesn't. Capitalism DOES mean that you can start your own business from nothing, and have little or no intervention from the government. However, Socialism allows small businesses to run just as freely! Also, Communism has subsystems that allow Small businesses to run with little or no moderation.
Bottom line is that Capitalism IS a flawed system, and it will be one of the main reasons America will end up like Rome. Fallen.
|
Yes capitalism is a flawed system. It invites corruption and exploitation. However, it's a lot better than socialism. Too much centralized control negatively effects productivity and enivitably leads to a collapse of the economy. Not to mention socialism doesn't completely elimiante the corruption and exploitaion factors either. There is a reason nearly every socialist country has either collapsed or incorporated many aspects of capitalism, if not completely switched.
The ideal would be a hybrid economy where businesses are allowed pretty much free reign to do as the please, but with government control to ensure they dont' do anything to exploit the population. If you were to take the current economic system of the US and nudge it a bit more towards socialism, you'd have a good start. Pure capitalism doesn't work well, and pure socialism doesn't work at all. A hybrid system is the key to a successful and long lasting economy.
Also the US will eventually fall regardless of its economic system. All governments do eventually fall, though that doesn't mean the country itself will. Look at China. It's government has been overthrown countless times over the centuries, yet it still has much of the same land it did when it was first unified. Realisticly speaking there would need to be a sense of nationalism in the various regions for a nation to split up. As long as american people see themselves as americans first and New yorkers, Virginians, Texans, or Californians second there's not much chance of the country splitting apart even if the government does collapse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhamlaxy
How about you ask the southern half of the world how they like the global capitalist system? Or the millions of impoverished people living in capitalist countries? Believe me, there are a HELL of a lot more people who have been negatively affected by capitalism than those who have been negatively affected by communism.
Yuck. You are looking at capitalism at such a localized level. The global south has gotten nothing but poorer under capitalism. They have had their resources and capital sucked out of the country, low worker rights in order to maximize profit margin, and wars fought just to gain capital.
You're example is pretty bad. 50 years ago, televisions weren't as popular, were more expensive (with inflation taken into account), and the technology wasn't as widespread.
And you make a big concession- the gap between the rich and poor is growing. Since you argue that the poor aren't getting poorer, that means that the rich are getting richer. Continue this cycle going, and you have an extremely small social elite ruling over a vast majority of poor people. Sounds like fun.
And absolute environmental destruction, wars, and the widening of the rich-poor gap. Greed doesn't lead to lower prices, it leads to doing whatever it takes to make prices higher, and there are dozens of examples of this, from the artificial energy shortages Enron created in California, to the Debeers diamond cartel.
I disagree. The purpose of capitalism is to acquire capital. It is far from efficient. Capitalism is all about the commodification of goods. Capitalism wastes so much time, money, and natural resources on things that are unnecessary. Businesses produce goods based on how much money they can make off it, not the use of the item.
I think there are a few damning arguments that have to be addressed. I believe capitalism is responsible for a huge amount of ecological destruction, a majority of war, and all of the poverty in the world.
|
You're confusing the economic system with the government. Do you honestly believe if those same countries were communist the people would be better off? They'd still have the same corrupt regimes that don't invest in infrastructure and pocket the money earned in taxes. Thus the end result is the same for most people in those areas.
Your examples are evidence for more government oversight, but to say things would be better under communism is ignoring history. As I said before, a hybrid economy is the way to go.
Capitalism being responsible for all the poverty in the world? You're joking of course. A simple look at the former Soviet block will prove that incorrect. Better yet, drive through Seoul then drive through Pyongyang. Look at the difference communism and capitalism made after korea was divided following WWII. Granted some of that comes down to what i said about governments rather than economic systems, but you're taking 2 nations with a shared history until the forced seperation, and the results are evident for anyone to see.