Capitalism VS Communism

[Deleted]

Hi everybody.

For a long time i wonder: what is the best (or the less worse) economic system? It 's a question that is much to think about if you stop to think: both have positives: capitalism has brought the bills, increasing the trade at the time it was theorized, gave a clear impetus for the emergence of industrial revolution, on the other hand communism assumes a free society, where everyone is equal and everything is equally shared. But you can not help but see the heavy negatives.Capitalism has brought liberalism and neoliberalism, justified colonialism, multinational companies still dominate politics, break the law and get away. Stirring up revolutions in peaceful countries, creating terrible conditions in third world countries and destroy the environment and man. But communism has made his own: millions of deaths in all countries subject to communism. Genocide perpetrated by these countries against their own populations. Just think of the USSR or to Cambodia. 90 million dead in one and two in the other one. Entire cultures wiped out in the name of cultural revolution, annihilation of the person as an individual. In light of this then, what is your opinion? If you had to choose between these two systems do you choose one? Or would you create something else?

[Avaerilon]

1. "... brought Liberalism"

So Liberalism is a bad thing?

2. Not all the things that have been listed can be blamed on purely economic reasons; things on this scale usually have more than three.

3. I support mild social capitalism. Essentially, the individual is allowed the freedom to make a profit; however there are such checks and balances to ensure the system is fairer, and that large companies do not dominate the market. Social capitalism can work very well with elements of a social democracy, in my view, or at least the kind I am aligned to. I do not like the idea of the state owning and controlling all of the economy; it can be an excellent regulator and balancer, which I support, but I do not believe it should have total control- in my view, that is somewhat undemocratic. Essentially, I hate big business and would like to do as much as possible to eliminate the terrible greed, environmental devastation and corruption that so often accompanies it. At the same time, I believe someone has the right to make an honest profit (what is an honest profit? Now that would take some explaining!) from their service,s if they so choose to offer them to others.

I believe both Capitalism and Communism can be good- in different ways, of course. I also believe both can be detrimental to society. Why not settle for the best of both worlds?

[Deleted]

1) Not liberalism. Liberism. I mistake to write. Sorry. Liberalism is what is closest to my way of thinking in terms of civil liberties and individual.

2) I know that colonialsm hasn't been done only for economic pourposes, but it has influecend it very well. But i think that for example the genocides in the communist nations has been done only for their ideology and economic system. Maybe i confused ideology and economic system, but they are integrated each other so.

3) Interesting.

[Administrator]

I agree to Avaerilon on the economics. The right to make profit from your own ideas is important. That said, the right to ruin lives for profit is wrong. Having one but preventing the other is the goal

[North American Republics]

I am happy that someone made this thread and now...

I happen to disagree with Avaerilon on the economic side of things. Capitalism, despite our best attempts to regulate it, always outdoes such regulations. We want to try to see the good things about it, and there definitely were, but we neglect the bad things. We neglect the fact that our labor is worth more than we are earning and that the power of the worker is continuously being eroded. Luckily, we are awakening and seeing the faults in capitalism once again (see the progressive era and then various labor actions/Occupy to some degree), but we are not attacking the root cause of the woes that capitalism does bring.

Genocide is not something ideology based, except for national-socialism based ideologies, but is primarily motivated by an extreme nationalism. And what is the point of nationalism in the first place, or culture even? Nationalism is a terrible thing. Someone please tell me why I should be proud or be supportive of my nation. I did not choose to be part of it and yet it is mine. It's like being proud to be prone to heart disease. Absolutely ridiculous. Now, preserving cultures through museums and documenting it well is fine and dandy, but attempting to preserve it, especially cultures that are inherently backwards, among the populace that practices it is terrible. Things change, and many times for the better, although new cultures need to grow organically and that is where capitalism once again rears its head. Capitalists have the power to make culture, to form it and grow it as they please. If enough money is thrown into the system, it becomes ingrained. We can take rap music here. Rap music, at its inception, was an organic music form which has now evolved into a large money-making industry. I personally think that the Cultural Revolution was a terrible idea in China because it could have succeed had it happened organically, although it would have taken a long time. I digress.

Avaerilon talks about an "honest profit." There is a lack of an "honest profit" nowadays and only socialism can deliver them. Profits are made on the back of the workers and those businesses out there that aren't cooperatives don't make an "honest profit." For a profit to be honest, the all workers who contributed to the profit must get the value of the work that they put in and nothing less.

If we are going to have a thread about communism vs. capitalism, I would expect a little more discussion of the various parts of each. ;) So, Avaerilon, please expand on what you mean by an "honest profit."

[Administrator]

Well, an example if I may. My brother works for the tech development division of Vangaurd Investments. He makes a living wage, starting, with ample benefits and support. He can opt in for legal coverage, life insurance, and the company puts in 14% of his yearly wage in a 401k automatically.

While it can be argued that Vanguard makes its money from investing and moving money, and that the people making the 'real' money are being screwed by the companies who invest via Vanguard, I disagree. Vanguard provides a service which is needed in the current system. In that, they are no different from any other service company. If one argues service companies are invalid they don't understand how the world works. In anyway event, if they can be ethical any business can.

Another point: my father owns a small business, which does lawn maintenance. It was his idea and his initiaitve 25 years ago. Last year he had to fire both of his employees; they had missed a day a week for over a year. In a communist system, he would be on equal footing with those guys and they could outvote him if he wanted to fire them. They would have run the company into the ground.

Forcing businesses to act morally is the answer; expecting them to in a pure capitalism is idiotic; expecting workers to do the right thing for the business in a pure communism is not any better

[North American Republics]

So are you trying to say that the workers will not work together to earn a better wage than they would have had under a boss? In any case, the very idea of business will be eliminated under communism. When one is in need of something, then they will be able to get it, not rely on money.

Going to your second point, did you ever happen to find out why they missed a day a week for over a year? In a communist system, and this is all hypothetical, your father and those former employees would probably be part of a larger, and in my vision, council organization that does lawn maintenance if he was really passionate about lawn maintenance. If he is good at his job, and I'm not saying that he isn't, then he can work his way up the ranks and be the "first among equals" of the organization in a true meritocratic fashion. Show that you can do your job and you do it well, you get promoted. Otherwise, there is a large pool of other people willing to do that. It can work this way in any other situation. All that would be needed is good quality targeted education and a shift in societal values.

[Avaerilon]

Analysis time!

Aug 23, 2012 21:30:39 GMT North American Republics said:

Capitalism, despite our best attempts to regulate it, always outdoes such regulations.

Really? 100% of the time? Every single business in every single country?

Aug 23, 2012 21:30:39 GMT North American Republics said:

We want to try to see the good things about it, and there definitely were, but we neglect the bad things.

In your view, what are/were the good things about Capitalism? Indeed, I agree many governments and NGOs ignore plenty of issues, but that's not to say the idea of capitalism itself is bad. Unfortunately, it has plenty of problems because people are people.[/quote]

Aug 23, 2012 21:30:39 GMT North American Republics said:

We neglect the fact that our labor is worth more than we are earning and that the power of the worker is continuously being eroded.

Not in every job. Possibly in numerous jobs involving intensive manual labour, but many tertiary professions that many people in MEDCs work in? I think that's debatable. I do not believe the power of the worker is continuously being eroded, although I live in Europe, where things are somewhat different. I believe it move in a cycle- the employer will begin as the most powerful, unfairness ensues, there is a gradual shift of power to the workers, unfairness ensues, there is a gradual shift of power back to the employer. A basic example, I know, but it does serve to illustrate a point that the workers are not consistently disadvantaged.

Aug 23, 2012 21:30:39 GMT North American Republics said:

Nationalism is a terrible thing. Someone please tell me why I should be proud or be supportive of my nation. I did not choose to be part of it and yet it is mine.

Define what you believe "nationalism" is. I am proud of some of what the country my bloodline is mostly tied-to has achieved; I am equally appalled by other things. I can choose to be proud of whatever I like. I'm proud of British achievements in science, philosophy and culture to name a few. I'm proud of the Welsh language, and the English language as well. At the same time, I am appalled at some things. Nationalism can b a bad thing. I don't like seeing the Union Jack flying from people's homes when some big, national event (which I will probably choose not to be interested in) takes place; it makes me feel uncomfortable. But people waving the flag at the Olympics- why not? People of different backgrounds are united in supporting other people of different backgrounds who are competing under one flag. War, however, is where I don't like nationalism. But then, that's my personal definition.

Aug 23, 2012 21:30:39 GMT North American Republics said:

It's like being proud to be prone to heart disease. Absolutely ridiculous.

;D

Aug 23, 2012 21:30:39 GMT North American Republics said:

Now, preserving cultures through museums and documenting it well is fine and dandy, but attempting to preserve it, especially cultures that are inherently backwards, among the populace that practices it is terrible.

Define "backwards," please.

Aug 23, 2012 21:30:39 GMT North American Republics said:

Things change, and many times for the better, although new cultures need to grow organically and that is where capitalism once again rears its head. Capitalists have the power to make culture, to form it and grow it as they please. If enough money is thrown into the system, it becomes ingrained. We can take rap music here. Rap music, at its inception, was an organic music form which has now evolved into a large money-making industry.

If people want it, they'll pay for it. Marketing, peer pressure and the media do contribute, but at the end of the day, people are still people.


The Avaerilonian Dictionary:

Honest Profit:

When an individual or company of like-minded individuals with a common goal wish to sell a product or service, they sell their product at a price which allows for them to recover the cost of whatever was put into the product (raw material, labour, time, etc), with a modest addition to allow for possible modest expansion (based on how many products sold over a period of time) and ensuring that the individuals(s) have a salary that allows them to live comfortably.

(It'slate at night, and I'm busy :P So, sorry for not answering in full- or if I made no sense :P )

[Administrator]

I'm not saying the worker's shouldn't work together to get a better wage, or that they wouldn't try to do so. And no matter what you call it, there will be people working and will receive payment. In communism they just cut out the intermediary step of involving money. Essentially every worker organization producing goods (essentially a worker owned business) will be working, for an analogy, on a 'non-profit' model.

And I do think that making worker conglomerates cuts out some of the individual initiative inherent in a market socialist/capitalist system. If you have a good idea, run with it. Meet success. You do not need bureaucratic control from a worker collective in order for it to be allowed. If it is a good idea, it will be adopted across the industry. And, before you agrue the point, any large organization of people meeting together and voting on policies will end up being a political or bureaucratic institution eventually

[North American Republics]

No, it made sense. I'll respond back to most of it tomorrow, just about right when I wake up. I tend to get most of my work done by then for some reason. I'll respond to your "honest profit" point, however. I'm fine with the individual part. I meant to say it before, but I guess that I edited it out for some reason. We then come to the "like-minded individuals with a common goal." Is this group working together and did they accept the terms of work established by all who work there? If so, PINKO COMMIES!!!! :P If not, then your honest profit point becomes moot.

Let's say that me and you decide to go into business together selling...shoes. We both make the shoes by hand/with a machine and we both work the shop and we love our job. We decide to set aside a portion of the proceeds for potential later expansion and to cover potential costs and we then split up the rest of the money based on how many shoes were sold and by whom. Some time passes and now we have saved enough money to expand the shop a bit. Let's say that we hire one more person to make shoes who is passionate about making shoes. We all split the money as before with the number of sales per person setting how much you take back with some set aside for future expansion and unexpected costs. After some time at this, we become larger and we no longer need to work. We hired a few more people to make shoes and the first person we hired was made foreman of our new factory. We leave some money on the side for expansion and other costs, but now we pay some people for selling shoes, others for making them and then ourselves for managing the whole operation. As managing this whole operation is hard work, we pay ourselves a bit more than the foreman who in turn is paid a bit more than the factory workers. We also pay those who sell the shoes based on how many shoes they sold. A few more years pass and we had to layoff a few people and we had to hire a few people and it all balanced out. We are still earning more than anyone else, but the disparity is not too bad. We continued to grow a bit more every year, for the most part, until the point where we have multiple factories dotting the country and we are a nationally recognized brand. We are now earning drastically more than anyone else in the company and we don't want to lose it. The money is just too good. The workers also now want to unionize and we know that that will reduce our profits. We won't be able to give ourselves a bonus greater than or equal to last year's for great work and we can't let that happen, so we decide to move operations to a state/country/county that promotes open shops.

Keep in mind that this little story/extrapolation is with a base in the United States and it attempts to model your "honest profit" and where it goes once a business grows beyond those "like-minded individuals with a common goal." Feel free to criticize any/all of it.

[North American Republics]

I can't believe that that took me nearly half an hour. Okay, Azerzia, I'll respond to your point too.

If you have a good idea, why don't you share it with the people at the council. You will have a say in the project and could even lead it. Political institutions are not a problem. It's when they try to have power over an individual's body is when they become a problem. Decentralized planning via councils provides a good way to both govern society, redistribute goods to where they are needed, and provide services to anyone that needs them. They are also much more responsible to the community they represent and so long as that is all that they do, then they are nearly perfect.

[Administrator]

My response to NAR's response to Ava: That is how a capitalist system works, but not in a market socialist or simply well-regulated system.

Make the amount of money one can earn be based upon the minimum the full-time employees are paid and mandate that after x period of time a worker must be considered full-time (so we don't get people working 39 hrs/wk to beat the system). That restricts the lining of one's own pockets as a driving factor. If you are to make more money, your worker's do. It forces a more natural balance.

In addition, have penalties for sending stuff outside to less regulated states/countires/etc and rewards for staying in the regulated system (tax breaks or what have you). The workers maintain a living wage, the people who's idea it was in the first place keep their right of initiative and minimal changes to the existing system are needed.


For NAR's response to me:
But what if they don't like the idea? Or what if they like it and just don't like you? The idea of everything you do needs to be about the community, rather than yourself or your family or your friends, weirds me out a bit. I like doing things for me; that does not make me selfish, it makes me self reliant.

Also of importance is the lack of regulation on how much each service or product is worth. Who gets to decide? If we go based on natural regulation, we end up with worker collectives attempting to screw each other to get the best value for their service. If we go to a larger scale, some representative body has control over the entire economy. If that is not a temptation for corruption, I don't know what is

I do not think we will agree on this one; I believe a society of classes is the natural system and imposing other things is unstable and synthetic. That is not to say that the upper class should be allowed to horde the wealth. Equal opportunity (real equal oppurtunity) must be allowed, and support given to those who fail.

[North American Republics]

In any case, people can and will still beat the system by having people work just less than the x period of time. To fully end beating the system, you might as well make it part of the system and control it from there! You also seem to be assuming that all states have products for export as states like China, Vietnam, and certain Latin American states do. Then comes the morality part. I do not believe that it is moral to force capitalists to do something as the state wants. It not only deprives the capitalist of his own personal liberty, but it strengthens the position of the state. Either fully take over the business and control it via the state, city, council, etc., or let the capitalist be, and I choose the former.

You are kind of right. Society is composed of classes that arose out of the material conditions that society found itself in at different points in its existence, so in a sense it is a natural system. Classes, however, are not absolute and can be changed if the material conditions create a favorable environment for that change. As to equal opportunity, I do not think that we need equal opportunity, but equal benefits from production and the freedom to do what the heart aches to do (that is to say something that you are passionate about).

---

Oh edits, how I detest thee. :P

If they don't like the idea, and that would mean that a good portion (perhaps 75%) of everyone participating in the council would have to not like it. What does liking you have to do with the idea? Again, that would mean that a good portion of the council would have to not like you and that seems like it would be pretty hard. There wouldn't be bribes, as there wouldn't be any money, so...

I do like doing things for myself and I am sure that there would be (or at least I would vocally support it) an opt-out system for those who don't want to do certain things for the community or a way for you to make up for the opting-out.

Once again, you seem to be missing the local scale. It does not have to be a syndicalist society, a free market socialist, nor a statist one, but one based around...town halls for instance. The town halls (councils) govern their local unit and are generally free to do what they want, as per the populace's wishes who control these town halls. These town halls communicate with other town halls and organize with several others to transport goods where they are needed.

[Avaerilon]

One thing NAR: what about the tertiary sector involving nothing of a material nature?

[Deleted]

Whilst I'm not "anti-communist" I am very much opposed to communism.

I'm a native of Singapore (although I now live in the UK). Along with Hong Kong, Singapore is basically the poster child for capitalism. It's skyline blossoms into the heavens as steel and glass beacons of capitalism. It's the definition of how successful a place can be with capitalism. Or is it? There is an underbelly to Singapore many don't see. Whilst poverty is relatively low and lifestyles relatively opulent, there are still many, MANY have-nots in Singapore. That said, I still believe capitalism, despite its faults and flaws, to be far more superior to communism.

China, the world's foremost communist state, only became the economic miracle it is today because it was forced to embrace capitalism (well that and the fact it can force people to work for little-to-no wages). Had it kept to the ways of Mao's cultural revolution, there'd still be 50 million dying of starvation today.

[North American Republics]

I hope this answers your, "analysis time" post, Avaerilon. I just woke up, so if there's anything weird about it, point it out. :P

ANALYSIS TIME!

"Really? 100% of the time? Every single business in every single country?"

Sorry, I phased it incorrectly. Many businesses that now operate seek out ways to increase profits by disregarding regulations and then using the capital that they have accumulated to hire excellent legal teams to drag out a trial as long as possible and then negotiate a smaller settlement instead of the trial being concluded.

---

"In your view, what are/were the good things about Capitalism? Indeed, I agree many governments and NGOs ignore plenty of issues, but that's not to say the idea of capitalism itself is bad. Unfortunately, it has plenty of problems because people are people"

It brought us inovation, liberal democracy, and it was the next step of society. The economy and politics are intertwined and ignoring an issue can have a dramatic effect on how the economy operates. Going back to the above, settlements are an example of capitalists being able to buy out the government so that it can ignore what they did prior to the settlement.

---

"Not in every job. Possibly in numerous jobs involving intensive manual labour, but many tertiary professions that many people in MEDCs work in? I think that's debatable. I do not believe the power of the worker is continuously being eroded, although I live in Europe, where things are somewhat different. I believe it move in a cycle- the employer will begin as the most powerful, unfairness ensues, there is a gradual shift of power to the workers, unfairness ensues, there is a gradual shift of power back to the employer. A basic example, I know, but it does serve to illustrate a point that the workers are not consistently disadvantaged."

Yes, in every job. In the primary and secondary sectors of the economy, definitely and I'm glad we could possibly agree there, but also in the tertiary sector. Being subservient to a boss after years of education is an erorsion of your own power, if you are in a higher level position, and spending your day asking "Can I help you?" and not being able to advance is an erosion of your power. You are right, however, that it is a cycle. The tendency of the rate of surplus value to fall will create that cycle as capitalists try fight it. The company is raking in ton of profits and is able to pay its workers a good wage. As the years go on, the workers want more money, costs increase, and people have to be laid off to make sure that the company remains profitable. The workers now have to work harder to make sure that they are not fired, but they get angry when the work is just too much. They protest and the company either disregards labor laws (if they exist) and fires everyone to hire cheaper labor, or they give in to the demands, but under a contract so that the wage is secured at a fixed level and it disregards inflation, which can benefit the employer. Gradual shifts.

---

"Define what you believe "nationalism" is. I am proud of some of what the country my bloodline is mostly tied-to has achieved; I am equally appalled by other things. I can choose to be proud of whatever I like. I'm proud of British achievements in science, philosophy and culture to name a few. I'm proud of the Welsh language, and the English language as well. At the same time, I am appalled at some things. Nationalism can b a bad thing. I don't like seeing the Union Jack flying from people's homes when some big, national event (which I will probably choose not to be interested in) takes place; it makes me feel uncomfortable. But people waving the flag at the Olympics- why not? People of different backgrounds are united in supporting other people of different backgrounds who are competing under one flag. War, however, is where I don't like nationalism. But then, that's my personal definition."

Nationalism: excessive patriotism

Sorry, once again I minced up my words. I meant to say patriotic, not proud, although I'm certainly neither for the US. Nationalism, as embodied by the reactionaries and conservatives of my country, is a terrible thing when they decide that things must be done in our national interest, or whenever I hear things resembling "USA FIRST!" Using the idea of a nation to justify events that no one has a say in or promote a xenophobic, isolationist view of the world. Nationalism is, in any other case, ridiculous.

---

";D"

Proud was intended here. :P

---

"Define 'backwards,' please."

Okay. A culture is "backwards" when it places one group of people - be it race, sex, sexuality, etc. - over another, when it promotes a illiteracy, or when it promotes war as necessary for the state/tribe.

---

"If people want it, they'll pay for it. Marketing, peer pressure and the media do contribute, but at the end of the day, people are still people."
When you have been dulled down enough and when there is science that shows companies the best way to target the brain for it to be receptive to advertisements, it is really hard to say no to buying things. Who controls marketing? How does something require peer pressure? Who controls the media?
- Capitalists
- Capitalists in cases of peer pressure for material goods
- Capitalists

[North American Republics]

Welcome, Pilaw, to the debate. :D

Please don't say the phrase "communist state" ever, it doesn't exist and will never exist as communism is the doing away with the state, much like anarchism. I don't know about "economic miracle" either, when it comes to China. They were not forced to embrace capitalism, but Deng Xiaoping felt that it was their only resort to restore China after the Great Leap Forward (which should have never happened as you cannot advance a peasant society into a socialist one with state programs). I still say that communism is superior than capitalism.

[Administrator]

As NAR said, a true communist state has never happened for two reasons:
1) The states the occurred in were agraian for the most part. This limits the effectiveness of traditional communist ideas, and one would then need to BS it on the fly. It also is less likely to see exploitation, as many of the farmers likely own the land they work. Forcing them into a farming commune creates resistance (Stalin's genocide/policies in the Ukraine)
2) The revolutions were led by a vanguard, not by the workers. The vanguard immediately feels superior, that they are doing this for the poor, uneducated worker. This creates a sense of moral righteousness even if they make no progress. The power held by the vanguard after the revolution also attracts the power hungry and the ambitious, who would have been the worst of the capitalist exploiters in capitalism. Now the only way to power is through the 'temporary' transition government of the vanguard. They gain control and thrive in it, changing the purpose from a worker's state to a state with a government controlled economy. In short: vanguard led revolutions lead to dictatorships

[North American Republics]

Vanguard parties do not always lead to dictatorships of the modern sense. Only when the vanguard party aims at attaining power in the name of the workers does it become a dictatorship. A vanguard party made up of not professional revolutionaries, but mostly of awakened workers also eliminates some of the possibility of a dictatorship as they know the plight of the worker better.

[Administrator]

Give me an example of the vanguard not becoming a dictatorship. I think revolt by a small group nearly always leads to dictatorship, even without the economics going with it. It would require mass revolt, a la the Arab Spring, focused on a goal. In the Arab spring, it was democracy. In a hypothetical communist revolt, the goal would need to be an economic shift. While a small core may be involved in doing it, they need to actively keep the worker's included and not just imagine being their guides. The act of keeping the worker' included has never happened adequately and efforts to do so fail

[North American Republics]

But even the Arab Spring was comprised of a vanguard. What else was the National Transitional Council militias? What else, the rebels fighting against Assad? These groups are lauded in the west as revolutionaries attempting to topple the old, corrupt, regimes and, as far as I know, the vanguard of the National Transitional Council of Libya has not resulted in a dictatorship. Further more, it cannot only be an economic shift, but also a societal shift, or else it falls apart. The people need to be re-educated away from the traditional capitalist values towards more community-based values.

[Administrator]

The thing is the vanguard became the leadership of the revolt. They did not instigate it themselves. And forgive me if the idea of forced re-education disturbs me slightly

The closest thing to what you want is the Paris Commune or the original French Revolution. Both faired poorly, though admittedly for different reasons

[North American Republics]

Well, I say re-education, but in practicality it will be the teaching of children and teenagers in school community-based values. Re-education can also happen on the job through workers' groups/unions and life itself is really only a large-scale re-education project.

Yes, to some degree, the Paris Commune is what I want. The Paris Commune failed because a prominent person within the commune government was leading the French military in, or so I recall. I will have to go back to read more upon it.

[Deleted]

My problem with communism: we are not all equal. I believe in equal opportunity, not equal benefits. I believe in a capitalistic society, with strict regulations, and a great education system. The regulations will protect the poor and working classes, and the education system will give the poor an opportunity to improve their situation. If they aren't willing to work hard, than they shouldn't be as wealthy as a hardworking person. My system allows them to do whatever they want with their lives, but no one is going to just hand them a pay check (or whatever else they want).

[Deleted]

Also, is it re-educating, or brainwashing?

[North American Republics]

No, everyone is not equal in their abilities, but that does not mean that we should let those who are unable to work starve, or go without a home, or have no time to develop themselves however they want and the same applies to all people. What makes one wealthy?

---

One can ask the same about today's education system. ;)

[Deleted]

I've read your posts but there is an additional information thati i forgot to show: i post my question also in the NS forum, and many users were united saying that all comunist nations (Cambodia, USSR, Cuba) are not really communist, but state capitalist dictatoriships.
So the answer itself is wrong.
Communism is an utopia, a beautiful utopia in my own, but impossibile to do in large scale. Only small comunities, like the Kibbutz, the Anarchic Madrid, or else are able to be communist.
On the other hand there is a frange of capitalism that can be used to improve life of all: it's called human capitalism, and the main principle of this current is to zero the personal profits. All the money gained by a company should be re-use in paying decent waves andand the rest (which in today's capitalism ends up enriching the pockets of the CEOs) is re-invested in research and development to produce better products and lower human costs.
If you think it is impossible to think of Grammer Bank: the money is not invested in securities or shares, but is invested to increase the branches all over the Third World countries and give more microloans to poor peoples.
Communist is the best vision of humanity. An humanity that work together to improve the world. But is this possibile? For me no. I hope that it will happens. But i don't think human nature will accept that.

[Deleted]

I support helping people who are unable to work or have a disability, but if someone is more intelligent and hardworking, they are going to be, and should be, wealthier than those who are lazy and/or refuse to work.

[Deleted]

North said:

Nationalism is a terrible thing.

In some degree I agree with you, but I don't see how that can be linked to either of the two systems. US is patriotic, USSR was patriotic, China still definately is.

Azerzia said:

The right to make profit from your own ideas is important.

The states the (communism) occurred in were agraian for the most part.

I think these two are intertwined. In capitalism you have a motivator, money, to advance society. In communism there is no real motivator, other than sense of pride or usefullness. That is for me the main thing that makes communism unworkable in larger scale. In communism, there will never be a technological advancement like there is in capitalism, and society will never be able to improve itself the way "developed" societies can.

In my country, the energy provision market (electricity and gas) was monopolised by the state company. More than 5 years ago, the energymarket was liberated (which of course is a capitalist move), and we can now choose between 20+ companies, who can provide electricity 20% cheaper than the former monopolist, yet still more than half of the population choose not to switch providers.

Look at the financial crisis. It frustrates the hell out of me that governments are spending rigorously to keep the banks from going bankrupt, because they believe that letting a bank go kaput will again launch a national or global crisis. Whether that be true or not, it's very decadent and opens the gate to an even reckless and more 'capitalist' way of doing business.
I can't say many good things about the government in my country, but they did well last year; one bank got in serious trouble, so the gov' spent millions on it. But then the gov' just took the whole bank under their control, ditched the faulty parts (high risk investments and whatnot) and just made it a state bank.

That said, I don't believe in a communist system, but I believe everything should be regulated the hell out of it, especially big companies like banks and basic service companies (like water). That's why I vote communist on national level, but they don't get many votes anyway (<1%).

[North American Republics]

If by wealthier, you mean through material goods, then I would agree with that statement, but being lazy, to an extent, is a good thing. That means that you can focus on other things and expand your mind instead of being a machine and you are all the wealthier for that.

---

Nationalism can be linked to one of the systems, capitalism. There really wasn't an idea of nationalism in medieval times when land changed hands and the "new boss [was the] same as the old boss." Nationalism must have come from somewhere and during the death spasms of the old aristocracies, it was created. Out of those death spasms came the bourgeoisie, from the burghers of the past era. With the foundation of capitalism came the start of nationalism, but image a world with the same old aristocracy and nationalism. Now imagine a world with capitalism and no nationalism. It would be rather hard/impossible to do. Nationalism works in the interests of the bourgeoisie and not in the favor of the aristocrats.

The problem, it would seem, with states nowadays is that they are controlled by the ruling capitalist class and act in the interests of said class. Why would they not want a state company to be privatized? It will take a few decades, perhaps, but those companies will merge or become bankrupt and only a few will survive, establishing what pretty much amounts to a monopoly.

Like I have stated before, many big companies will try anything to get out of regulations and that involves getting rid of that legislation.

I would not vote communist here in the US because those communist parties are made up of Leninists or Trotskyists. I'd much rather vote for the Socialist Party-USA or create my own party (which I might end up doing anyway :P).