The Three Extremes: Communism, Capitalism or Fascism?

[vastx]

I love how so many people can totally ignore the fact they've prospered because of capitalism.

It's hilarious.

[Shiny212]

The question is void and all but accepting the premise for a moment you could say that communism will never work because it oppresses people, lest there be enough resources for everyone, ie star trek sci fi world where the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force of our lives. That's essentially the only communism that could work. But, again, capitalism isn't a political term, nor is communism really, they are economic models, the political terms you're looking for are dictatorship and democracy.

[Abysal]

Every system fails for one reason, primarily:

People are flawed. There is no perfect system.

That said for an economic system I prefer capitalism over communism because of the basic fact that humans respond to incentives. Capitalism provides the incentive to be as productive as possible as you have the most control over your own well-being. In an perfectly free market, you could make stuff out of your own home and provide for yourself (also why we don't really have legitimate capitalism in America, with the federal government shutting down kids lemonade stands and what not. We only have partial capitalism.)

Communism, on the other hand, provides an incentive to be less productive. If everything is distributed evenly, than the most productive, hardest working members of society will get relatively less for their efforts, while the least productive and laziest members of society will get bring in more than they produce. Why would anyone want to work harder than they have to if their reward is the same? Communism may put everyone on a level playing field, but people aren't equal. Everyone is better and worse than everyone else at certain things. You need a system that takes advantage of that reality, not one that ignores it.

Fascism is not an economic system so I'm not sure why it's on the list.

[iggie]

Communism, there would be some sort of equality, while capitalism will lead to the end of the world (big companies stopping for nothing in order to gain profit) and a society like in the medieval times: the absolute king (Apple or Coke); the nobility (everyone with money); the workforce (everyone without enough money to climb the social ladder)
why I'm not choosing fascism should be a no brainer (even tough they have very socialistic ideas, those ideas are only for the dominant social group)

Funny, there is 0 equality and massive corruption in all communist societies, especially China. For communism and ANY social system to work perfectly one would need to remove the basic inherent greed and evilness from man (or woman).

[Knight Gil]

I love how so many people can totally ignore the fact they've prospered because of capitalism.

It's hilarious.

Indeed, just ask the average African or Asian kid dying from starvation while working for a outrageously rich capitalist overlord.

It's hilarious.

Funny, there is 0 equality and massive corruption in all communist societies, especially China. For communism and ANY social system to work perfectly one would need to remove the basic inherent greed and evilness from man (or woman).

I don't see how a system that you assume will fail because of "inherent greed and evilness from man" is any worse than a system that feeds off and produces greed and evilness.


I'm not a supporter of communism in any way, but it is a fool's vision to think of capitalism as a superior system

[Abysal]

Indeed, just ask the average African or Asian kid dying from starvation while working for a outrageously rich capitalist overlord.

It's hilarious.

Most of those kids live in countries with oppressive dictators or elected officials that refuse to provide the rule of law and protect property rights, 2 basic things needs for capitalism to work.

In fact, you can't have capitalism without property rights. If Scumbag McTyrant can come in and seize your property whenever he sees fit, you lose all incentive to invest in the means of production, I.E. physical CAPITAL. Without the accumulation of capital, society can't become more productive. Without this increase in productivity, people can't be lifted out of poverty due to scarcity of resources.

[Deleted]

Democracy Capitalism.
Fascism and Communism are okay.

[Knight Gil]

Most of those kids live in countries with oppressive dictators or elected officials that refuse to provide the rule of law and protect property rights, 2 basic things needs for capitalism to work.

In fact, you can't have capitalism without property rights. If Scumbag McTyrant can come in and seize your property whenever he sees fit, you lose all incentive to invest in the means of production, I.E. physical CAPITAL. Without the accumulation of capital, society can't become more productive. Without this increase in productivity, people can't be lifted out of poverty due to scarcity of resources.

When you can profit off a capitalist system by settling your company in a underdeveloped country where there are no minimum wage laws or concern for basic human living conditions and you can basically force your workers to work in your factories because they have no other option, while you can sell your goods to developed countries for hundreds of times the production cost, you don't need to seize property from anyone at all. You can just profit from the circumstances in which such people are living.

It's not just property rights who are lacking in those countries, because most of the time those workers haven't got property in the first place. It's laws that protect the poor. Minimum wage / max working time / age requirements / basic welfare / health assistance / sanctions on companies set on the first world who make good deals with exploitative overlords and such things that are lacking. Yes, capitalism is at fault.

[Abysal]

When you can profit off a capitalist system by settling your company in a underdeveloped country where there are no minimum wage laws or concern for basic human living conditions and you can basically force your workers to work in your factories because they have no other option, while you can sell your goods to developed countries for hundreds of times the production cost, you don't need to seize property from anyone at all. You can just profit from the circumstances in which such people are living.

It's not just property rights who are lacking in those countries, because most of the time those workers haven't got property in the first place. It's laws that protect the poor. Minimum wage / max working time / age requirements / basic welfare / health assistance / sanctions on companies set on the first world who make good deals with exploitative overlords and such things that are lacking. Yes, capitalism is at fault.

Those same workers work in factories because it provides them a higher standard of living than their other options. You say they have no other options, okay let's go with that logic. Let's leave those countries because with minimum wage laws, it's cheaper to just pay domestic workers instead of foreign workers. So now all those foreign workers went from having a small income to being unemployed. How does that help them? Explain that to me.

The reason their wages are so low is because there's not enough wealth in their country for them to make more money. Yes the foreign factory owners could pay them a bit more, but it'd still be far less than what they'd pay people in a first world country, otherwise they wouldn't be there providing jobs for those 3rd world people in the first place.

[Rendia]

Communism as long as it is the most base and pure form. Which can only work in small communities where everyone knows each other and is answerable to one another.

Otherwise must be a blend of many to hit the sweet spot, tbh.

[vastx]

When you can profit off a capitalist system by settling your company in a underdeveloped country where there are no minimum wage laws or concern for basic human living conditions and you can basically force your workers to work in your factories because they have no other option, while you can sell your goods to developed countries for hundreds of times the production cost, you don't need to seize property from anyone at all. You can just profit from the circumstances in which such people are living.

It's not just property rights who are lacking in those countries, because most of the time those workers haven't got property in the first place. It's laws that protect the poor. Minimum wage / max working time / age requirements / basic welfare / health assistance / sanctions on companies set on the first world who make good deals with exploitative overlords and such things that are lacking. Yes, capitalism is at fault.

Do you want us to take out more tyrants? Or do you want large companies to offer jobs to the developing world? Can't say I condone labor practices in some parts of the world. But if investment doesn't take place and jobs aren't created in those parts, do you honestly think they'd be better off with no work?

[Roose]

Communism has such good intentions

Why no anarchy? Although I guess capitalism is like anarchy with money.

[muto]

According to that political compass test I scored in the fascist and communist area.

[Adam Jensen]

A middle ground between the three, not an extreme of any.