Okay so lets face it, complete communism (complete public sector) and complete capitalism (complete private sector) would never work. But I had to decide between the two, I'd personally choose capitalism.
Any opions and reasonings?
2006-10-30 14:48:56 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Both are failures.
Do not confuse capitalism with free trade any more than confusing Communism with helping your fellow neighbor.
When you have to resort to violence to make a social system work, you are committing a mistake. Violence is the admission of being stupid. Any social system requiring violence is stupid. It is wrong. To keep offering it up as the only correct choice is wrong. We will never look for the correct social order until we realize what we have is wrong, not just flawed... wrong.
Free trade and helping your neighbor are good starts. Any system that avoids violence is a good start.
2006-10-30 14:56:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Either way both still lead to slavery.
Communism perpetuates slavery openly.
Capitalism perpetuates slavery covertly.
You support capitalism?
Nowadays, nothing is yours unless you're very rich. All your properties are under hire purchase so that means you're just a tenant - the banks are the real owner. And your cash is actually worthless under Fiat system because the Fed likes to print paper money excessively. Under capitalism you're a debtor because the banks love to loan money to you in the form of credit cards and charge you interest rates as long as you continue to live. If you can't pay, file for bankruptcy and the banks will take away all your cars and houses.
Under capitalism, if you don't work well enough, be fired. Even if you work well enough, you still don't gain much because inflation keep rising and your US dollar is weakening against Japanese Yen, Chinese Yuan and European Euro.
Under capitalism, crush or be crushed. You're 1 facing many. If you lose big, that's your problem. Free trade? Truly free trade has nothing to do with capitalism. Economy is about who win and who lose. For there to be win-win situation, money must be constantly created, which will ultimately reduce the worth of paper money. That's why Jesus said NO to interest-based economy.
2006-10-30 15:36:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im going to go against the grain for most of these answers
Pure Communism - one simple example of why i choose this
Say you have a get together at your house, you invite everyone to come over and bring a dish with them. Together you all come together and produce a great meal in which everyone helped to accomplish (teamwork) and its most likely a meal that you yourself could not have made. However in capitalism its more like you have to try to steal, cheat, or lie to get part of the meal that you dont have, You have mashed potatos, but no steak, or drinks. Much of the time you will only piss off the people you took advantage of to get your meal. Also adding to the problem is when you assemble everything for your meal, youll probably have way more than you really need, and end up throwing away extra. Making yourself happy, but the rest will be left hungry. I.E. ~80% of americans are overweight, and thousands of children in Africa starve to death everyday. Just like in sports teamwork will get you much farther than you yourself will ever go.
2006-11-03 10:23:32 · answer #3 · answered by shawnloveskat4evr 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is misplaced and not based on facts, so are the most of the answers. Communism is not synonymous with public sector and capitalism with private sector.
Therefore who so ever is answering citing erstwhile USSR as an example etc. are not answering the question. The qn. itself is wrong.
2006-11-02 03:25:32 · answer #4 · answered by navya 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This question is now outdated. Communism died with its apostles in the old Soviet Union. It always would have had to battle it out in the bigger field of Darwinian/Spencerian social economics and it would always have lost. The Soviet collapse did not occur because all of a sudden the Soviet government decided that Communism was not good. It collapsed in spite of perestroika, glasnost and all the other measures taken to shore up a state controlled economy.
2006-10-31 13:14:43 · answer #5 · answered by kolipoki 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i completely agree with u: communism and capitalism cannot exist without a little bit of each other
but if i had to choose, i would pick capitalism. why? because the ground reality is, money makes the world go round
2006-11-03 04:52:31 · answer #6 · answered by sushobhan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
total communism is a miserable failure as seen in Previous USSR. Half communists are trishankus like our Indian communists. Capitalism is bad but you have your own intelligence to compete at your own level and come out successfully. If you cannot become any thing else at least you can become a politician.
2006-10-30 18:03:58 · answer #7 · answered by Brahmanda 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Me too. Communism is for the proletariat. Also its responsible for millions of deaths, 10x Hitler's work (for real, I kid you not). Also this idea of everything state controlled is nuts. Thats a dictatorship. No freedom in the Red's way.
2006-10-31 09:54:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both systems pure would need a father figure, leader, or decider to exist with absolute power. Both systems pure would and do collapse from within.
2006-10-30 14:55:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Complete communism means the Govt. runs you life.
Complete capitalism means You run your life.
The US govt. falls somewhere in between. (I personally like complete Capitalism).
2006-10-30 14:55:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋