NationStates Jolt Archive

So, the big rift in the world

Communism vs Capitilism in the economic showdown of the millienium.

While one bolsters more personal freedoms, the other offers manditory equality. One promotes top end performance, while the other eliminates the bottom end.

But why then are the communists fighting the capitilists? Isn't it like two grown men fighting over weather it is better to own a sports car or a well built, sturdy and efficent sedan?

The problem is the modern conception of both communism and capitalism have become so twisted from the origional ideas that it is impossible for either side to view the other without severe and often unnecessary bias.

Like the statement "Communism doesn't work." Of course it does, just only if everyone in the state believes in communism. Capitilism is more addaptive, since it doesnt require one to prescribe to any notion. The simple fact that we can have this argument is proof of that, since a large portion of society does not believe in capatilism yet it functions properly.

Another issue is the way that both sides have been polorized into camps that act toward eachother much the same way that opposing military forces would. Since the American government did and continues to wage a war against communism, and since America represents Capatalism worldwide, its easy to see why the communists hate Capatilism (and America). Communism has had the unfortunate hate campaign smeared against it, and has the faces of Mao, Stalin and Popot(i know its not spelled correctly) promoting it. This makes people afraid of it, and they tend to hate what they fear, especially when they are ignorant of it.

So both economic ideologies are taught that hatered of the other is a tennant of its system, and since they hate it, they normally become ignorant of any positive attribute that either system may have. They focus only on the negative, and NEVER have they tried to meet half way. Socialism is the closest thing I have seen thus far, and even it is more about re-allocation of tax dollars rather than elimination of class distinction.

So, what is to be done? Well, rather than focusing on negative issues here, we will focus on what each economic system brings to the table and how to possibly eliminate the abuses caused by either system.

I've tried to get the ancoms and ancaps on this forum to realize that both systems have problems and getting all uppity about your preference when its just as bad in a different way makes no sense. Of course, they're usually to busy shouting past eachother to listen to little old me unless they think I said something remotely unfair about their system and then they get all defensive even when there's no reason to.

Damn the above sentences went pretty long without a comma.

So both economic ideologies are taught that hatered of the other is a tennant of its system, and since they hate it, they normally become ignorant of any positive attribute that either system may have.

Communism does not teach hatred, it teaches fraternity with ones fellow humans. Capitalism teaches hatred by promoting the 'virtue' of competition, inevitably leading to a system of winners and losers.

Also, an 'economic ideology' is an oxymoron as an ideology inherently involves political and social modes of organisation.

I've tried to get the ancoms and ancaps on this forum to realize that both systems have problems and getting all uppity about your preference when its just as bad in a different way makes no sense. Of course, they're usually to busy shouting past eachother to listen to little old me unless they think I said something remotely unfair about their system and then they get all defensive even when there's no reason to.

Damn the above sentences went pretty long without a comma.

I hate to be picky but you have used a comma.

I hate to be picky but you have used a comma.

I didn't mean to imply that there was no comma, just that the sentences ran on for a good bit in some places whereas usually I have more commas than that. I'm hungry and not making much sense, aren't I?

While one bolsters more personal freedoms...
One? Perhaps you haven't noticed, but BOTH capitalists and communists defend personal freedoms - or, to be more exact, some capitalists and communists defend personal freedoms, while other capitalists and communists oppose them.

You have libertarians and authoritarians in both the communist and the capitalist camp. Go see the political compass (www.politicalcompass.org) for God's sake.

Personal freedoms have nothing to do with economic systems such as capitalism and communism.

...the other offers manditory equality.
There is no such thing as "mandatory" (or "forced") equality. In order to force equality, you need some people with the power to do the forcing, while the rest of the people don't have such power - in other words, in order to force equality you need inequality. Thus, "forced equality" is a self-contradictory concept and cannot exist.

The only way to have equality is if the majority wants it. Not everyone has to want it - just the majority.

But why then are the communists fighting the capitilists? Isn't it like two grown men fighting over weather it is better to own a sports car or a well built, sturdy and efficent sedan?
No, it's more like two titans fighting over the future of Humanity.

Like the statement "Communism doesn't work." Of course it does, just only if everyone in the state believes in communism.
Not everyone - just the majority.

Capitilism is more addaptive, since it doesnt require one to prescribe to any notion.
Capitalism also requires the approval of the majority. If the majority of the people were staunch anti-capitalists, I think the capitalist system would last about 10 seconds.

But the majority of the people are quite apolitical...

I've tried to get the ancoms and ancaps on this forum to realize that both systems have problems and getting all uppity about your preference when its just as bad in a different way makes no sense. Of course, they're usually to busy shouting past eachother to listen to little old me unless they think I said something remotely unfair about their system and then they get all defensive even when there's no reason to.

All systems have problems. Some have more than others, though.

All systems have problems. Some have more than others, though.

Of course, when you take a particular viewpoint based on a set of values, the other system that other people try to justify on a very different set of values is not going to look as good to you because you are judging the other system based on your values. In order to be objective in saying that "some have more than others" you would have to hold the values that other people use to justify the other system in addition to holding your own, which you do not.

Communism does not teach hatred, it teaches fraternity with ones fellow humans. Capitalism teaches hatred by promoting the 'virtue' of competition, inevitably leading to a system of winners and losers.

then it is compleatly coincidental that communists hate capatilists and the entire capatilist system?

Also, an 'economic ideology' is an oxymoron as an ideology inherently involves political and social modes of organisation.

symantics. I think when it comes to economics people can have a belief. I hold my personal beliefs about how a states economics should be run and you have yours. If you dont like the word I used, pick another.

Personal freedoms have nothing to do with economic systems such as capitalism and communism.

I'm sorry, I should have specified personal economic freedoms. See, in communism, when you do your work, you are given the means you need to live. You have no freedom to try and gain more should you want to.

Most communism also trys to eliminate currency. This reduces the freedom one has as to what they do with what they earn from their contribution to society. ie, with money you can buy what you want but with the state giving you bread to eat, you are pretty stuck in that idea.

There is no such thing as "mandatory" (or "forced") equality. In order to force equality, you need some people with the power to do the forcing, while the rest of the people don't have such power - in other words, in order to force equality you need inequality. Thus, "forced equality" is a self-contradictory concept and cannot exist.

The only way to have equality is if the majority wants it. Not everyone has to want it - just the majority.


The fact that the statement is contradictitory is why i used it, kind of like a pun and a small shot at communism. It is forced equality, once again economic equality and once again I should have specified. People are forced to earn a certain wage so that they are equal with everyone else.

And if its only a matter of the majority, it isn't equality its mob rule. You are rqual so long as everyone says you are? No, thats not even how the AMERICAN bill of rights works.

Capitalism also requires the approval of the majority. If the majority of the people were staunch anti-capitalists, I think the capitalist system would last about 10 seconds.

probably, though I would be willing to bet that corporate greed and financial interest would stabalize an economy in such a turbulent time much more successfully than the communist would. Thats just speculation based on how easy capatilism is to manipulate by the rich.

But the majority of the people are quite apolitical...

We do agree