Capitalism vs Communism DEBATE

What are the inherent flaws of Communism? What are the inherent flaws of Capitalism<

Hoping each side can throw good points to the other.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/bcCN-Zv1aps
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Capitalism: 3 alive people
Communism: 2 alive people

Fpbp

Ship all commies to North Korea

Communism: 100 million dead and counting
Capitalism: Entire white population dead.

Got a homework assignment, eh OP? Smart idea contracting it out to Sup Forums.

this

hmmmm...

Capitalism it's not about wealth, it's about a hierarchy.
If you remove capitalists inequalities you will notice males competing in different areas - usually more pirmal - healthier one is higher, more primitive rules.
Lefitst males are losers who learned they are too shit to compete and are trying to use external forces to act instead of them to have more access to quality vagina, but since they are stupid, they can't comprehend that at big state socialistic society they will still be outperformed, in this scenario by political and administration tops whose power they wanted to use.

Nice meme you parrot here.

Fuck off retard. If you can't come up with your ideas then you're seriously straddling the line the separates mentally functional and retardation. Fuck off.

I personally believe communism is retarded and I just found out my friend supports retards in high level government positions. We debated the issue and he couldn't really give any points so I want an actual communist perspective.

you forgot where the government stands on top having the machine off because they control the industries and can stop production

...

>Communism
Is not based on nature

>Capitalism
Based on nature

>National Socialism
Based on nature to the point where it a core tenet

I'm just looking for different perspectives on both sides. Why are you not open to debate?

If youre stupid and cant figure the system, you will live under the shadow of people who can, no matter the system.

Communism just has a steeper learning curve.

I would say that Capitalism is the closest system we have to natural Entropy, as everything tried eventually collapses back into it.

Where do you stand burger friend?
Or you have no thoughts on the matter at all?

bait/10.
Inherent flaws of capitalism include greater efficiency in the market by delegating price regulation to the individual instead of a command economy that requires legions of bureaucrats.

Communism always ends up killing people because it dehumanises all aspects of the economy, and then resorts to force to try and make it work, invariably killing millions of people. Fun fact: Communism has killed more than any disease, war or ideology in history.

The best form of government is a flexible mixed market economy, with as much independence as reasonably possible.

thats not communism though thats syndicalism

>What are the inherent flaws of Capitalism
judaism, absolute monopolies, degradation of non-material values [culture, integrity, etc]

>What are the inherent flaws of Communism?
if you have more than ten people then differences in work ethic and aptitude will cause the system to collapse entirely

I'll elaborate on what I said in ,

I think a classless communist society is impossible as you cannot get a human person to transition a socialist government to a communist one because they will be unwilling to give up power.

Redistributing a person's wealth earned by work is theft.

My opinions are the basic 'Good on paper, terrible in practice' buzz phrases and I want differing opinions to expand mine.

I can say you difference in examples of Russia.

Communism - Russian population increase. Russian specialists settle in near countries.
Capitalism - Russian population decrease like during Great famine times. Asian migrants from near countries settle in Russia.

Capitalism is Communism.

...

>Communism has killed more than any disease, war or ideology in history.

Capitalism killed much more. Famines, wars, genocides - they continuing even today in capitalist countries.

Why would you hang a man before throwing him out of a helicopter?

capitalism, when the machine breaks the fat man mortgages his house to get it going again.

communism. when the machine breaks they starve to death

Why would anyone do any work when there is no advantage to it vs just doing fuck all

Sorry, missed that post. I agree, Communism should be able to work in theory, but it never does in practice. There must always be a leader, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our system of pseudo capitalism has plenty of corruption as there are all kinds of people in power, but no one has absolute power. We do have checks and balances in place.

This is what I thought when my friend brought that point up. He said that money can be give to people who do work for leisure. Doesn't that change it into a completely different ideology or am I mistaken?

muh 'everyone who died of Malaria is a victim of capitalism'

I forgot that literally nobody dies under communism. All disease and hunger is instantly solved. No more wars or fighting. Literal automatic utopia.

>Capitalism
>Money goes directly into a bag that being held by a kind man
>Can now be carried around easily

>Communism
>Money is left on the floor
>forces everybody to clean it up.

Why can't commies get the simplest things right?

>Enjoy working for something
>Get paid extra money
>Buy cool stuff
>Your neighbor envies your stuff
>Wants to take your stuff.
Welcome to the current year.

youtu.be/bcCN-Zv1aps

problem with picture is once the machine breaks and needs a repair...no one will/can cough up the money to fix it. Both men lose their job.
Pay 40k in loans to get brainwashed.
Come to freechan to get cleansed.

>no actual input except labor
>machine magically exists
if you thought this was an intelligent comic I don't think you're ready for this conversation

communism has worse monopolies than capitalism.

I googled communism vs capitalism and found an image that would encourage discussion. I thought the comic was saying that its impossible for communism to work just as the money cannot just go from one end to the other without something moving it.

>I think people are focusing to much on the image

You got image from Google.
Has Capitalist workers with frowns and in chains.
Commie side is all happiness.
You can see where it looked like you were promoting communism right?

>Capitalism works, regardless of human nature
>Communism only works if people aren't selfish

People died in communist times because of government policy or system causes.
People died in capitalist times because of government policy or system causes..
Capitalism killed more people than communism that is what I am talking about.

And yes if capitalist countries in 2017 can't give basic healthcare system to people this is means that your degenerated economic system killing those people. As example here in Russia mortality was increased up to twice in all age groups when capitalists collapsed our healthcare system.

certain aspects of communism make sense but as has been pointed out multiple times, communism just doesn't work in practice

there are better ideologies which take parts of communism but if you said "I'm a communist" anyone with half a brain will take you about as seriously as if you said you're a national socialist (though that's another issue)

Well, that was an easy fix.
Those guys on the left look so happy.

Communism (technically Marxism): Degenerative socio-economic system that is incompatible with human nature, as it's core ideological pillar is egalitarianism. The best elements of society are forced to have the same outcomes as the worst, and inefficiency sets in.

Capitalism: Degenerative socio-economic that tries to be in tune when human nature, which means the system functions better for humans than Marxist systems. However, it will always lead to destruction of tradition, culture and the sovereignty of peoples everywhere, because those things stand in the way of profits. Every time a custom of a people is destroyed, a new market is opened up: and considering that the more immoral you are, the better you fare, the systems in place will always be torn down.

Basically: don't fall for the Jewish memes of Capitalism and Marxism.

In hindsight it was a mistake. I was gonna go into photoshop and put together an image to better suit the thread but then I realized that would be autistic.

>when capitalists collapsed our healthcare system
you mean when people actually had a choice

Communism: 0 people alive, due to executions and starvation

Doesn't capitalism fall more in line with egalitarianism as everyone starts out equal but can rise above others?

What is your idea of a valid middle ground between the two (or do you have a different idea of a functioning ideology, and if so, what?)

Oh look, another thread full of endless trite observations made by undergraduates or, alternatively, people who never even fucking studied either.

The major flaw with communism, if you want to call it a flaw, is that Marx's concept of its inevitability was based on a pre-Second Industrial Revolution understanding of society. Prior to the 1850s industrialisation was not actually improving people's lives - it was worsening them. Communist though came directly out of this experience. The reason why communism happened in Russia instead of Britain or the Netherlands, which was where Marx predicted it would happen, is because the Second Industrial Revolution began improving living standards and thus turning people away from revolutionary ideology. The Second Industrial Revolution had not spread to Russia by 1917 and the stars aligned sufficiently that the opportunity was there for communism.

The other major flaw with communism is that like all Enlightenment philosophies it fetishises reason and positivism. This flaw isn't unique to communism - it also applies to classical liberalism just as much - but the idea of reducing government of people to administration of things based on rational principles is now widely and, I believe, accurately understood to be too simplistic an approach.

In short, communism is still thoroughly trapped in the 1850s. In that context it makes sense. In the modern context not so much. Modernised variants of communism have failed to displace the outmoded understanding that exists. The ideology is nothing more than some interesting criticisms and fanciful notions.

Capitalism's major flaw, on the other hand, is that wealth aggregates at the top of society. Wealth inequality destroys freedom - money is power, so wealth inequality is as much a power inequality as feudalism. We regulate power in society because of the obvious potential for abuse. It follows that money and wealth should be similarly regulated.

Communism may have the potential to work well in the future with significantly advanced technology. Its main flaw is that it is way too heavily based on theory and not practicality - in theory, communism would lead us to the socialist utopia your average university marxist faggot would dream about, but in practice it ALWAYS leads to absolute fucking trash when applied on a nationwide level. Communism works for small homogeneous communities, not large nations of millions of people.

Capitalism scales incredibly well no matter how large or small the community. Its main flaws, however, are that it can quite easily lead to corporatism (see: 2008 bank bailouts) in the hands of a bad government. Capitalism works best with minor regulations, simple things like "you are not allowed to poison food" or "you cannot say Drug X is a cure for everything when Drug X is actually just aspirin" or "you cannot dump your waste in land you do not own, or in areas that have not been examined to be safe dumping grounds". Capitalism tends to be very fair; on average, people who work harder and smarter will do better than people who simply work smarter or harder alone. Smart & Hard > Smart > Hard > standard > lazy. That said, there are definitely statistical outliers who become extremely wealthy based off being in the right place at the right time (luck) or having a single good idea and never doing anything else.

TL;DR version:
Communism is for small, like-minded communities.
Capitalism is for everything else.

The fuck are those two snowniggers doing anyways?
The fuck kinda machine makes paper money AND coins?

Flaws of capitalism: Wealth collects in very few hands and most people have to struggle to meet their demands.

Flaws of communism: Wealth does not accumulate at all because no one has any reason to work hard or build anything since all of their hard work becomes someone else's free meal ticket anyway.

5/7 shoop

Flaws of commies= try to control nature of man

Flaws of caps= the nature of man

The initiation of force or coercion is immoral.

> money can be give to people who do work for leisure.
> money can be give to people who do work
> working for money = communism ?!?!?!?
I think you may be confused

Had a choice of what?

When communism falled capitalists decreased wages of medical personnel, close medical institutions, decreased government medical spending. Without normal functioning healthcare system millions of people died from simple health problems that can easily be fixed when system was working.

Well let's compare.

>Doesn't capitalism fall more in line with egalitarianism as everyone starts out equal but can rise above others?

Equality of opportunity would be apart of egalitarianism. But when Marxists (who believe that every human being can be broken down and remade according to society, which is demonstrably false by the way) try to make it about equality of opportunity and it inevitably fails (as no two humans are of the same skill or competence in any one area), they must turn to increasingly authoritarian means to make things equal, eventually settling on equality of outcome.

In the Capitalist system, it's not quite the same. You can start out in the beginning of society with equality of opportunity, but the longer the system is in place, the less equal the opportunities are in practice. Human nature is quite corrupt as a baseline, and anyone who has lots of money will always have a better opportunity than those who don't. And those who have all the money fall into one of two categories: skilled people who got lucky along the way and skilled people without a moral code. Competent people can become well-off, but not wealthy, if they have a line in the sand they refuse to cross.

>What is your idea of a valid middle ground between the two (or do you have a different idea of a functioning ideology, and if so, what?)

National Socialism. Market-based economic system with low personal taxation, relatively high taxes on corporate interests and having a government and society that steps in when degenerate social and economic practices occur.

>when you suddenly realize Caplet has a dickbutt
that's in OP lol

Image doesn't make any sense. So in the first picture we see people who are poor but with enough money to give to the rich guy. But in the second image they give the money to themselves. But money doesn't just appear out of the air. When you give yourself money you don't have more money then when you started. The money came from somewhere.
>The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. -Margaret Thatcher

the guy in the hat seems like he is winning

...

Thanks for these post. Bringing great perspectives to the thread.
Doesn't your definition of national socialism fall apart when the leaders become inevitably corrupted? I guess this is true of any system but natsoc seems more vulnerable with the government interfering (heavily) in the market.

see

Now to fix thisk, have the commies recieving $1, and the capitalist workers AND 'boss' each recieving $50.

poor people need to stop giving rich people their money
oh wait but you will not, you'll continue to spend spend spend

wheres the machine that makes food and basic goods disappear?

....where are previous 75 steps to create a product....how do we motivate everyone down that chain?

You are ignoring the fact that it is the cultural marxists who are driving for white genocide, so it's still communism trying to kill everyone.

...

Communist workers receiving 1$ and have free healthcare, free education and free houses.

Capitalist workers receiving 2$ but need to spend it for healthcare (100$), education(150$) and house (1000$). Oy vey you must take a credit!

reeeeeeeeee
this is my fault because i started this thread with a fucking retarded image,

>However, it will always lead to destruction of tradition, culture and the sovereignty of peoples everywhere
This is more symptomatic of socialism, not capitalism. In a purely free market, small government society, leftist pigs can't pass their disgusting policies.
>"I demand 100% equal representation at every engineering firm!! RRREEEEEEEEE!!"
>"Um, no. Go fuck yourself whore. We'll hire whoever we want."
In a socialist society, women who have no talent, no skills, and no intelligence work for the government, and pass whatever laws they want.

...

with that long a rope the commie will probably be instantly decapitated when the rope goes taut, he'll be falling so fast. It'll make great footage, believe me.

...

Kek. Do you just sit around making shit up?

wtf none are smiling now

>I guess this is true of any system but natsoc seems more vulnerable with the government interfering (heavily) in the market.

In regards to distribution of capital and goods to the German people, the Third Reich barely intervened at all. For obvious reasons, the only areas of the economy that were nationalized was the Armaments industry, as well as roads obviously. By having the state only intervene in degenerative social practices, the new markets aren't opened up and therefore you don't have a state intervening in economic affairs of private citizens.

>Doesn't your definition of national socialism fall apart when the leaders become inevitably corrupted?

True enough, but realistically speaking: is there any system where that wouldn't take place? No.

National Socialism in Germany was still in it's infancy when it was ended by internationalist interests, so it's difficult to say what their outcome would've been when Hitler died.

My solution to the problem is to have total transparency for all individuals entering public life, and have those leaders be forced to adhere to moral codes of conduct by everyone in the country of relevance, all of whom must be armed.

i lol'd

t.commie

>use bait picture
>Sup Forums eats bait

Don't aplogize, 99% of pol shit posts often.

>cultural marxists who are driving for white genocide, so it's still communism trying to kill everyone

Capitalist countries with capitalist elites.
Genociding white people because they are not profittable for capitalists.
Inviting migrants because they are profittable for capitalists.
>it's still communism

At least we russians can compare communism and capitalism and what is happening with population when capitalists came to power.

True capitalism has never been tried.

>Capitalist workers receiving 2$ but
minimum wage is 7.25 here in america buddy.
healthcare easily affordable after 15 hours of work
learning is key.

So essentially NatSoc backed by an American-esque constitution. I'd really like to see that put into practice.

...

a-a, a tail!

dw, i gave him a set of balls for that tail

Why do they draw the capitalist as fat? I'm sure there was a study done that showed that the rich are on average thinner than the working class.

...

You are coming along nicely user.

Since nobody gave you a serious answer here's a brief synopsis since what you've asked could have a 1000 page book written on each. Just so the record shows I'm fervently neoliberal (in the economic sense you fucking baboons).

Capitalism is a market system which revolves around the interchange of goods and services from firms to consumers (or other firms acting when the good is a secondary good or commodity). The pivotal mechanic in CAPITALism is the reinvestment of money or capital into the system. If supply and demand are the engine which drives the market, then capital is the gasoline. Capital helps firms source a better supply and expand their market in the form of an increase of quantity (demand) or quality (price). As either (usually both) the quality and quantity of goods in a market increases, the market expands. The downside of capitalism starts when the cost of an increase of production becomes "too profitable." This was seen in the advent of industrialization (which makes sense why Marx wrote his manifesto in this period). Machinery is effectively the consolidation and "narrowing" of the means investment: it shifts the meaning of capital investment. If you buy one stitching machine, for example, a smaller group of people benefit from that investment because you only paid one man for that machine compared to five workers that could do the same job (don't forget the costs to make that machine but it is still a smaller group of people regardless). This narrows the group of people profiting to investors, owners, and technologists while simultaneously providing the means of expanding the market faster than ever before. A narrowing investment market incentivizes things such as proprietary supply chains (and as a result imperialism), and eventually creates a wealth disparity which can cause problems within a society. Class conflict is a primary talking point for Marxism. (1/2)

...

>for the record
>Sup Forums is a honeypot
RUN!

why is the owner's dick's biggest?

>Communism: to all according to needs, from all according to ability
Communism can't be perfectly fair without a morally flawless governing body, such as God or artificial intelligence. Communism also leads to people producing only what they need to

>Capitalism: Money makes the world go round
Capitalism requires the government to keep the markets fair otherwise there is no competition and it eventually leads to a dictatorship/monarchy/1 ruler system. Capitalism also leads to people producing as much excess as possible, to have the greatest profits possible.

But who paid for the machine in the communist world?

cuz every time the money shoots out it flops his dick