Which is better for society: Capitalism or Communism?

[RobertLGarrett]

The USA is a country based on the federal system yeah?

The EU is not a country. More a gentlemens club ( )

However there are certain guidelines each country must follow.

That is my understanding, so I’m not too far off. American conservatives are basically in favor of the US federal government being closer to the EU in structure. The original plan of the founding fathers was for the states to have more say-so in their own business. This has eroded over time.

For me, as a Catholic Conservative, what this means is that subsidiarity, properly implemented, is a return to the fundamentals our country was founded on. That means less government programs at the federal level and more responsibility at the state and local level.

If, as I mentioned before, a state like California wishes to model themselves after Sweden and a state like Texas wants to be practically 100% laissez faire, then they should have the right to do that. Unfortunately, today the feds have far too much money, programs and influence for that to occur.

 

[Athanasiy]

I used to live in Netherlands a few years ago.
May be the time has changed since then.
The Netherlands may be one of the most social country in the world.
But both man and women are one of the most hard working people in the world.
It seems that the social system did not spoil the working abilities of the people.
What I think that - that system is the best which allows me to have a dignified salary.
Which helps me to exist and develop as personality.
To develop me morally , to develop me culturally.
The system which helps the work to be for the man and not the man to be for the work.
The system which helps the money to be for the man and not the man to be for the money.

Once the manager has offered the West European worker , more money for working in the extra hours.
The West European worker , answered to him ;

• I do not need more money .Sorry , I have got the life.
  Its indeed the level to which the West European citizen has got.
  There - the work is for man and not the man for work.

The European beings can invest more time for themselves , for the cultural development , for the recreation.
Because , they do not really need to worry about much money , and to sacrifice its life for that.
There is a health care , there are a lot of social luxuries which you can get for free.
And this system in my opinion forms the personality , which invest more time for the recreation , for the cultural development , for the warm sincere friendship.
The personality where the life overcomes the constant calculations in our brains about the spending and making , profit and expenses …… overcomes that ‘ absorbing thought ‘ about money , money and money.
The system which abolish the panic fears that , if you will loose your job you are almost out of existence , if you get sick and no means you are out of existence.
No ! You can be sure that if you loose your job - you will have enough livelihood to survive by the social money , if you get sick - you will not feel the pain.
That’s the great achievement of the West European capitalism .
I think if there will be , or if there are some changes , which forces the proletarian people to loose their luxuries , I mean the access to the housing , the access to education , the health care , then - may be it will be better for the economic system , but it will not be good for the healthy spiritual , cultural , and social development of the human personality.
Because , when the riches as a blood circulates in all the body , then all that social body is healthy.
Otherwise , if by the system the rich get more richer and the poor get more poor , if the blood circulate only in some part , then - the whole organism is in danger.
Therefore , in my opinion it means that European model is superior.
Because it takes care for the defenceless and unprotected ones.
Even may be it takes care for the people , who proved themselves lazy during their life.
But excuse me before those people proved themselves economically lazy or stupid , not initiative or uncreative - but those people are human beings !
And if the society takes care for those people it’s a sign of the great solidarity and humanity of that society.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

I used to live in Netherlands a few years ago.
May be the time has changed since then.
The Netherlands may be one of the most social country in the world.
But both man and women are one of the most hard working people in the world.
It seems that the social system did not spoil the working abilities of the people.
What I think that - that system is the best which allows me to have a dignified salary.
Which helps me to exist and develop as personality.
To develop me morally , to develop me culturally.
The system which helps the work to be for the man and not the man to be for the work.
The system which helps the money to be for the man and not the man to be for the money.

Once the manager has offered the West European worker , more money for working in the extra hours.
The West European worker , answered to him ;

• I do not need more money .Sorry , I have got the life.
  Its indeed the level to which the West European citizen has got.
  There - the work is for man and not the man for work.

The European beings can invest more time for themselves , for the cultural development , for the recreation.
Because , they do not really need to worry about much money , and to sacrifice its life for that.
There is a health care , there are a lot of social luxuries which you can get for free.
And this system in my opinion forms the personality , which invest more time for the recreation , for the cultural development , for the warm sincere friendship.
The personality where the life overcomes the constant calculations in our brains about the spending and making , profit and expenses …… overcomes that ‘ absorbing thought ‘ about money , money and money.
The system which abolish the panic fears that , if you will loose your job you are almost out of existence , if you get sick and no means you are out of existence.
No ! You can be sure that if you loose your job - you will have enough livelihood to survive by the social money , if you get sick - you will not feel the pain.
That’s the great achievement of the West European capitalism .
I think if there will be , or if there are some changes , which forces the proletarian people to loose their luxuries , I mean the access to the housing , the access to education , the health care , then - may be it will be better for the economic system , but it will not be good for the healthy spiritual , cultural , and social development of the human personality.
Because , when the riches as a blood circulates in all the body , then all that social body is healthy.
Otherwise , if by the system the rich get more richer and the poor get more poor , if the blood circulate only in some part , then - the whole organism is in danger.
Therefore , in my opinion it means that European model is superior.
Because it takes care for the defenceless and unprotected ones.
Even may be it takes care for the people , who proved themselves lazy during their life.
But excuse me before those people proved themselves economically lazy or stupid , not initiative or uncreative - but those people are human beings !
And if the society takes care for those people it’s a sign of the great solidarity and humanity of that society.

Hi Athanasiy,

I worked for a Dutch company last year (for about a year-and-a-half). While I was in the Netherlands for training, customer buy-offs and visits, and during visits to the US by my colleagues, I learned a little bit about the Dutch model. I’m not an expert by any means, but some of what you say is true - some has changed.

First of all, they have a system similar to our Social Security here in the US, but they also have a sort of forced version of a 401k. To me, while it is a little intrusive freedom-wise, I don’t view it as a bad thing. If I recall correctly, they basically remove 10% from your pay which goes into a retirement account that belongs to you. Also, they have nationalized health, but it is not paid for out of a general fund. It sounded like a national HMO. You had a set amount taken out of your paycheck as a separate item for health coverage. There may have also been a fee per visit, but I don’t remember. Anyway, I think the monthly cost wasn’t too different than what many people pay for employer-subsidized healthcare in the US (of course, not everyone has it, and the amount subsidized varies wildly).

The changes that were occurring in the last few years were in regards to labor laws. According to my colleagues, a lot of the benefits for workers were being scaled back since the government couldn’t afford it anymore. Also, I remember them complaining about the costs and bureaucracy of building a home in the Netherlands. Our company was about 45 minutes from Germany, and those that could built there and commuted (makes for a nice carbon footprint, eh?).

Add all that up, along with the worries they have about their shrinking workforce, and I would place it in the “better, but for how long” category.

 

[Athanasiy]

Hi Athanasiy,

I worked for a Dutch company last year (for about a year-and-a-half). While I was in the Netherlands for training, customer buy-offs and visits, and during visits to the US by my colleagues, I learned a little bit about the Dutch model. I’m not an expert by any means, but some of what you say is true - some has changed.

First of all, they have a system similar to our Social Security here in the US, but they also have a sort of forced version of a 401k. To me, while it is a little intrusive freedom-wise, I don’t view it as a bad thing. If I recall correctly, they basically remove 10% from your pay which goes into a retirement account that belongs to you. Also, they have nationalized health, but it is not paid for out of a general fund. It sounded like a national HMO. You had a set amount taken out of your paycheck as a separate item for health coverage. There may have also been a fee per visit, but I don’t remember. Anyway, I think the monthly cost wasn’t too different than what many people pay for employer-subsidized healthcare in the US (of course, not everyone has it, and the amount subsidized varies wildly).

The changes that were occurring in the last few years were in regards to labor laws. According to my colleagues, a lot of the benefits for workers were being scaled back since the government couldn’t afford it anymore. Also, I remember them complaining about the costs and bureaucracy of building a home in the Netherlands. Our company was about 45 minutes from Germany, and those that could built there and commuted (makes for a nice carbon footprint, eh?).

Add all that up, along with the worries they have about their shrinking workforce, and I would place it in the “better, but for how long” category.

It was a time when the country was called ‘the honey and milk country’.
Well , of course its good to discuss about the nice house some where , but its better to make its own house the nice one.
This I talk about my self and my own country.

But if we would explore the system of Capitalism by comparing it , how does it serves for the majority of the worlds population .
Lets ask some questions ;
The communists where the ones who wanted equally to divide the unequal earnings.
And it wasn’t fair of course , but is the capitalism fair in
its nature ?
Is the income of the simple worker gets better during the last years in the world ?
Is the income of the simple worker in the poorest countries gets better during the last years ?
Is the difference in salaries of the simple workers in the poorest countries are better than in the developed countries during the last few years ?
Is it not true that a few richest people in the world are ‘’speedily’’ getting much richer during the last years ?
The most richest 2-3 people in the world probably own more money than the whole population in the developed countries.
If the income of the 70-80 richest people can be compared with income of the population like a China…
I do not operate by the exact numbers but I mean that all these holes of disproportional and unequal earnings is just the information to think about.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

It was a time when the country was called ‘the honey and milk country’.
Well , of course its good to discuss about the nice house some where , but its better to make its own house the nice one.
This I talk about my self and my own country.

But if we would explore the system of Capitalism by comparing it , how does it serves for the majority of the worlds population .
Lets ask some questions ;
The communists where the ones who wanted equally to divide the unequal earnings.
And it wasn’t fair of course , but is the capitalism fair in
its nature ?
Is the income of the simple worker gets better during the last years in the world ?
Is the income of the simple worker in the poorest countries gets better during the last years ?
Is the difference in salaries of the simple workers in the poorest countries are better than in the developed countries during the last few years ?
Is it not true that a few richest people in the world are ‘’speedily’’ getting much richer during the last years ?
The most richest 2-3 people in the world probably own more money than the whole population in the developed countries.
If the income of the 70-80 richest people can be compared with income of the population like a China…
I do not operate by the exact numbers but I mean that all these holes of disproportional and unequal earnings is just the information to think about.

Yes, things are not equal, but they shouldn’t be equal. If there is no risk/reward, then there is no incentive other than altruism to better oneself and society. As many have said on this thread, Capitalism is not perfect. It has to be tempered. However, compared to Communism it is more suitable to mankind and our fallen natures. Communism just plain doesn’t work at all.

 

[royal_archer]

It was a time when the country was called ‘the honey and milk country’.
Well , of course its good to discuss about the nice house some where , but its better to make its own house the nice one.
This I talk about my self and my own country.

But if we would explore the system of Capitalism by comparing it , how does it serves for the majority of the worlds population .
Lets ask some questions ;
The communists where the ones who wanted equally to divide the unequal earnings.
And it wasn’t fair of course , but is the capitalism fair in
its nature ?
Is the income of the simple worker gets better during the last years in the world ?
Is the income of the simple worker in the poorest countries gets better during the last years ?
Is the difference in salaries of the simple workers in the poorest countries are better than in the developed countries during the last few years ?
Is it not true that a few richest people in the world are ‘’speedily’’ getting much richer during the last years ?
The most richest 2-3 people in the world probably own more money than the whole population in the developed countries.
If the income of the 70-80 richest people can be compared with income of the population like a China…
I do not operate by the exact numbers but I mean that all these holes of disproportional and unequal earnings is just the information to think about.

You talk as if when someone owns something or gets money it is taken from the ecconomy and never seen again. That is not the case. Rich people may control a large portion of the worlds resources but they can not consume them. When ever those resources are used, the money goes back in play and anyone can get it. The problem is that so many people want to get those resources with out contributing in fair compesation.

You seem to think that the average poor worker is getting less and less. Can you quantify that? Our standard of living for even the poorest people keeps getting better.

 

[mpi]

Capitalism is based on caring for others. If you do a good job caring for others, or helping others receive the goods and services they need, then you get lots of money. You can then voluntarily give this money to the Church, or those in need. But this is theoretical. In practice the results in favor of capitalism couldn’t be clearer - the average American with a basic high school education makes more money and has a higher standard of living than more than 95% of the world’s population.

Socialism is tyrany. It is evil. It is rejected by the church.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Capitalism is based on caring for others.

Okay. While Capitalism is definitely preferable to Communism, I wouldn’t go that far.

mpi:

If you do a good job caring for others, or helping others receive the goods and services they need, then you get lots of money. You can then voluntarily give this money to the Church, or those in need. But this is theoretical. In practice the results in favor of capitalism couldn’t be clearer - the average American with a basic high school education makes more money and has a higher standard of living than more than 95% of the world’s population.

Socialism is tyrany. It is evil. It is rejected by the church.

Yes, but so is “pure” or laissez faire Capitalism. If you study history, you will find that during the Industrial Revolution, worker conditions were terrible. While I think government intervention should be severely limited, unfettered Capitalism was not good in regards to human dignity.

 

[mpi]

Okay. While Capitalism is definitely preferable to Communism, I wouldn’t go that far.

Yes, but so is “pure” or laissez faire Capitalism. If you study history, you will find that during the Industrial Revolution, worker conditions were terrible. While I think government intervention should be severely limited, unfettered Capitalism was not good in regards to human dignity.

You are comparing the 17th century to the 20th century. To guage the benefit/detriment of the capitalism of the 17th century you need to compare it to the 16th century. People were much better off during the 17th century - infant mortality was being defeated in Europe and populations were growing. I consider these to be very good things.

Again, comparing the 17 and 20th centuries and saying the 17th century was horrible, is a little like saying King David was living in poverty since he didn’t have an automobile.

Unfettered capitalism is a very good thing, 98.8% of the time. We are far too far from unfettered capitalism anywhere on the planet right now. That much is certain.

 

[royal_archer]

Okay. While Capitalism is definitely preferable to Communism, I wouldn’t go that far.

Yes, but so is “pure” or laissez faire Capitalism. If you study history, you will find that during the Industrial Revolution, worker conditions were terrible. While I think government intervention should be severely limited, unfettered Capitalism was not good in regards to human dignity.

If the conditions during the industrial revolution were so bad, then why did Workers continue to work? Bottom line is that an employer has to create conditions where employees want to work for them. Capitalism is based on two parties coming to a mutually acceptable arangement on the exchange of goods, services, or money (as a surogate for goods and services). Socialism is forcing individuals into an arrangement they would not not accept with out coercion.

 

[Kaninchen]

You are comparing the 17th century to the 20th century. To guage the benefit/detriment of the capitalism of the 17th century you need to compare it to the 16th century. People were much better off during the 17th century - infant mortality was being defeated in Europe and populations were growing. I consider these to be very good things.

The Industrial Revolution and, hence, modern capitalism originated in England in the second half of the 18th century with gathering pace in the early 19th. Improved public health (including reducing infant mortality) belongs to the 19th century.

 

[Kaninchen]

If the conditions during the industrial revolution were so bad, then why did Workers continue to work?

The alternative was to starve.

 

[royal_archer]

The alternative was to starve.

So, in other words, capitalism saved their lives.

 

[CWBetts]

So, in other words, capitalism saved their lives.

I think a better way to put it is that Capitalism enslaved thatm, and if they wanted to eat they had to comply to the wishes of their cruel taskmasters.

 

[royal_archer]

I think a better way to put it is that Capitalism enslaved thatm, and if they wanted to eat they had to comply to the wishes of their cruel taskmasters.

Capitalism, by definition, is voluntary. Socialism is an involuntary state. What you are describing is more akin to socialism.

 

[Kaninchen]

So, in other words, capitalism saved their lives.

What was known as ‘land enclosures’ in the 18th Century meant that there were a large number of landless and destitute farm laborers at just the time when the factory system was starting out. So these people flocked to the towns and became factory workers - if they hadn’t they would have starved. They kept on working because the alternative was to starve.

So, yes, the Industrial Revolution saved their lives.

In England, by the way, it was the Tories (who were later the ‘Conservatives’) who were most concerned about their conditions of work and living.

 

[royal_archer]

What was known as ‘land enclosures’ in the 18th Century meant that there were a large number of landless and destitute farm laborers at just the time when the factory system was starting out. So these people flocked to the towns and became factory workers - if they hadn’t they would have starved. They kept on working because the alternative was to starve.

So, yes, the Industrial Revolution saved their lives.

In England, by the way, it was the Tories (who were later the ‘Conservatives’) who were most concerned about their conditions of work and living.

The seizure of that land (which is akin to the taking of private land and giving it to developers under the umbrella of Eminent Domain in the states today) is a socialistic practice.

 

[Kaninchen]

The seizure of that land (which is akin to the taking of private land and giving it to developers under the umbrella of Eminent Domain in the states today) is a socialistic practice.

Not what the Enclosure Movement was about - these people didn’t own the land. Basically, it was a reorganization by landowners - largely to change agricultural methods, like crop rotations and improved breeding of livestock. Large numbers of laborers were just not needed any more and a lot of people had no legal right to be on the land, just traditional ‘rights’.

 

[mpi]

The Industrial Revolution and, hence, modern capitalism originated in England in the second half of the 18th century with gathering pace in the early 19th. Improved public health (including reducing infant mortality) belongs to the 19th century.

Fine - I made the silly mistake of conflating the 1700s with the 17th century, even though it is really the 18th century. All of my points hold.

Regardless, the industrial revolution was great for humanity. It was the engine for reduced mortality.

springerlink.com/content/pk1081j796162363/

 

[CWBetts]

Capitalism, by definition, is voluntary. Socialism is an involuntary state. What you are describing is more akin to socialism.

Capitalism is voulentarey for thr borgoisie, but forced for the proletariat. If unfettered capitalism is so benign, then what drove Marx anf Engels to write The Communist Manifesto? Capitalism without governmental controls is an evil system built upon a few gaining wealth through the abuse of the masses. It a form of idolotry where God is replaced by wealth. I am no Marxist, but neither will I accept that Adam Smith’s version of capitalism is in any way an acceptible system.