Jump to content

Capitalism v/s Communism

EnterTheVoid

By EnterTheVoid
in Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

gs Newbie

gs

Posted
Posted
read somewhere ' date=' that the avg amount of food S Korans waste in a day is a the same as avg N koreans consume in a weeks time :([/quote'] Oppa Gangnam style?
indiaregulator Newbie

indiaregulator

Posted
Posted

This is going to be a long post; so beware. First of all, to put it bluntly the title of the thread is stupid. No offense to the original poster. Capitalism is a moderately modern economic generalization, based on the ideas of John Maynard Keynes and Adam Smith. It revolves around the concepts of Laissre-Fairz which is essentially the ultimate sanction of free trade, whereby nothing stops the imports and exports of a good or service. This means no taxation, no tariffs and no artifical market limitations. The perfect example of the use of Laissre-Fairz was the British empire during its days of splendid isolation. However, even then it did not last for long as it eventually had to protect its domestic interests. Pure capitalism also means no government internvention within the private sector and also in an idealistic capitalist country, there is no public sector. This "pure capitalism" does not exist and never will exist. No country in the world is pure capitalist. Communism is a ethical and political ideology invented by Karl Marx in the late 19th century. He wrote his idea's down in his book, the Communist Manifesto. He stated that the working class would overrun and overpower the ruling class, the Borgeouise as he called it and the workers would then rule for themselves. There was to be an abolishment of income disparity, inheritance and the private sector. What would be replaced is a public sector where there would be no such thing as unemployment. However, never once did Marx EXPLICITLY state or even describe a working economic model for Communism. Everything which Stalin or Mao did was not Communism because their economic models did not go with that of Marx's original ideas. To be perfectly frank, Communism has not yet been fully tested out. To sum it all up, the title of the thread would be comparable to something like "Republicans vs Command economy" Its oranges and banana's, they are two completely unrelated things despite popular belief. One is a political doctrine without any given economic model whilst the other is a economic doctrine that is irrelevant to any form of politics (unless of course it directly contradicts the key aspects). Back to the point. First of all, North Korea is not a Communist country. If it were then Kim Jong Il or whatever the name of his son is would simply cease to exist as a figure. As for the shortage of lights theres an explanation for that. Simply put, the government turns off its power during the night, for whatever reason. Whether it be to save the resources they have, to supress their people I dont know. However, keep in mind that North Korea between 1960 and 1970 produced one of the greatest economic miracles in the modern world. You could have a dictatorship, fascism, democracy, Market-Liberalism, Socialism and the Capitalist model would work under those political regimes (although Socialism might be pushing at it slightly).

indiaregulator Newbie

indiaregulator

Posted
Posted
^ first you say no country is capitalist. Then you say any country can have capitalism. If any country can, then why no country does?
Because it would never work. Leaving everything to market forces will result in vast monopolies, unfair prices, destruction in competition and failing domestic markets.
EnterTheVoid Mentor

EnterTheVoid

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Communism aims to eliminate social inequalities by having the state control everything. The ruling class elects a head honcho who, with absolute power, unfortunately gets corrupted absolutely.

indiaregulator Newbie

indiaregulator

Posted
Posted
Communism aims to eliminate social inequalities by having the state control everything. The ruling class elects a head honcho who, with absolute power, unfortunately gets corrupted absolutely.
Err no. In Communism there is no ruling class.
The first chapter of the Manifesto, "Bourgeois and Proletarians", examines the Marxist conception of history, with the initial idea asserting that "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles".[3] It goes on to say that in capitalism, the working class, proletariat, are fighting in the class struggle against the owners of the means of production, the bourgeois, and that past class struggle ended either with revolution that restructured society, or "common ruin of the contending classes".[3] It continues by adding that the bourgeois exploits the proletariat through the "constant revolutionising of production [and] uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions".[3] The Manifesto explains that the reason the bourgeois exist and exploit the proletariat with low wages is private property, "the accumulation of wealth in private hands, the formation and increase of capital",[3] and that competition amongst the proletariat creates wage-labour, which rests entirely on the competition among the workers.[3] This section further explains that the proletarians will eventually rise to power through class struggle: the bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its manual labour and cheap wages, ultimately to create profit for the bourgeois; the proletariat rise to power through revolution against the bourgeoisie such as riots or creation of unions. The Communist Manifesto states that while there is still class struggle amongst society, capitalism will be overthrown by the proletariat only to start again in the near future; ultimately communism is the key to class equality amongst the citizens of Europe.
EnterTheVoid Mentor

EnterTheVoid

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I meant the state. The state elects one head honcho - Mao in China, Stalin in Russia, Kim Il Sung in North Korea etc As for the thread title, it was in reference to Communist North Korea v/s Capitalist South Korea. It was not meant as a generalisation to communism/capitalism as a whole.

indiaregulator Newbie

indiaregulator

Posted
Posted
I meant the state. The state elects one head honcho - Mao in China, Stalin in Russia, Kim Il Sung in North Korea etc As for the thread title, it was in reference to Communist North Korea v/s Capitalist South Korea. It was not meant as a generalisation to communism/capitalism as a whole.
Erm, no. Nowhere does it explicitly state there should be even a head of state in the Communist manifesto. What those countries did wasn't Communism, it was their version of extreme socialism which was similar to Communism but it wasn't.
Silva Newbie

Silva

Posted
Posted

Well their no such think as a 100% communist country and theirs no such thing as a 100% capitalist country nor will their ever be. But south korea is more capitalist than north korea, chile is more capitalist than the rest of south america, india after free market reforms is more capitalist than before them, same with china, dominican republic is more capitalist than haiti, cuba is more comunist than the rest of the caribean. so the title of this thread is accurate, capitalism kicks communism butt. also add hong kong and singapore, former poor countries that now rival the US in terms of per capita wealth due to haveing the most economic freedom in the world.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...