Capitalism Versus Comunism The finally battle

[fermin25 3]

Maybe you all have seen the comparisons between the capitalism and the comunism system which are shown in some T.V channels. I want to go deep in this historycal situation where all of us have some time thougth really what is better capitalism or comunism. Well this is how my post start and for all of you that are intolerant people I advise to press Alt+F4 rigth now.

 

Definitions

I will try to define the two system in my own words to better understanding. Maybe I am not fine with some definitions but for that you can reply the topic.

 

Capitalism: Economical and political system which is based in the private property and the free product adquisition.

 

Comunism: Economical and political system where all the people is free and the equality between the men is the balance. All the properties are owned by the State which represents to the people of the country.

 

 

Balance

Well here in the balance I can explain my opinion about the two ideologies and the repercussion that this ideologies have in a big percentage of the world population.

The leader of the Capitalism is United States. The have been developing the capitalism in all the ways they can first with the industrial companies next with Wall Street and all the other capitalism methods. The economical development of the United States is huge and now is the most powerful country in the world. But here I want to make some lines about how the United States are so big. The capitalism isn´t the only responsible of this power. The war based in capitalism reasons like democracy and all the ways to manipulate in the capitalism countries like the mean of freedom and all that has been used to declare the war to a lot of strategical countries like Irak because all the worth is huge like oil and money of course. In Latin America United States directed by Henry Kissinger sponsored a lot of coup d´etat´s against almost all the democratic presidents because to the minimum comunism suspection they came with the army and kill if necessary to maintain the capitalism system in their continent.

 

The European countries have been in the long history capitalist economies but a little more conservative because in some countries like England and Netherlands there are monarchies and kings and all that. They are responsible to a lot of the African wars and the poverty. All the war of diamonds caused by the european explotation in Africa have came a lot of deads, millions and nobody remember or nobody want to remember it.

 

Because all of that I can to finish with this opinion: The capitalism is a great economical and political system but is destinated to the failure. Why??? The difference between social classes is going huge day by day and this is the nest of comunism feelings. And to avoid all this problem the capitalism system have to use the military power and kill violating human rigths in name of the freedom, and democracy.

 

 

The leader of Comunism is North Korea. But I will focus my analyzing topic in another country here in Latin America where this types of social changes occur once every four years.

 

Venezuela leaded by Hugo Chaves a charismatic politic guy who in his campaign before to get the presidency he promised respect to the human rigths, a better wealth distribution and the Venezuelan development in a socialism system. Venezuela has a lot of oil wells and it´s a member of the OLP. He nationalized all the oil wells and start a real change in Venezuela where the economy suffer a great expansion in few years.

 

Everything sounds great until now, but.... He came in a despotic leader closing T.V. channels, censuring to the press, started a mediatic war against the United States(without any sense, because he has no change in a war agaisnt the U.S.) and the worst, he tried and already is trying to export the socialism to another countries where isn´t any great national product like the venezuelan oil.

 

The result: Violations to the human rigths, people killed, people opressed, and international fear in Central America, afterwards. Here for example in Honduras passed a difficult situation where the ex-president Manuel Zelaya wanted to aplicate the Chavez´s system where the honduran economy and society has nothing related to the venezuelan. The result was a coup d´etat against his government and until these days the honduran people is paying all the broke plates.

 

 

 

Conclussion

 

Capitalism: Development, industry, economical power, violation to the human rigths, wars and poverty to the other countries.

 

Comunism: A little development, State domination, violation to the human rights, people killed and international chaos.

 

 

At the end i think that capitalism is a little better than comunism. But is not new that the two systems are erroneous and maybe we need a new government system.

 

I hope that someone can help me more replying here to get more information about the different countries and the capitalism and comunism.

 

Bye.

[Shahrukh 0]

There is a third economic system as well, which seems to have the best of both capitalism and communism and the worst of none.

Its called: Khilafat System

 

It was introduced by the Islamic Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) almost fifteen hundred years ago. While it lasted, the Islamic nation was spreading all over the world. But then some corrupt people seized power and started the system of Kings and heredity rule.

The basic points of the Khilafat system are as follows:

People elect the government.

Government discusses with the people and among themselves before making a decision.

The people are given certain rights, irrespective of race or religion.

It is the responsibility of the Khalifa (the leader) to feed and give shelter to the people.

A state treasury is maintained, which is a property of the people.

People don't pay unjust taxes. A few taxes on property are levied only.

All Muslims are supposed to give out a small of their fixed assets that are for trading to the poor among them. This removes social classes.

If you want to study it in detail, I am sure wikipedia will have much to say.

[DodgyPhil 1]

There is a third economic system as well, which seems to have the best of both capitalism and communism and the worst of none.Its called: Khilafat System

The more I learn about the Middle East in the early first Millennia, the more I like the society. Khilafat sounds like it borrows from both Capitalism and Communism, in the sense that the state is in charge of caring for its people, but people have control over certain aspects of the government.
There is a similar situation in Britain. While, economically our country is largely capitalist, many of our social policies can be viewed as Socialist/Communist. For instance, many of our public services are state owned, we have a very generous well fare system that makes it almost impossible to "slip below the radar", and while we have free elections the government has the most control over who rules the country (political parties can choose who represents them, and if it is required- swap party leaders without public consent as is what happened with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown).

Personally I believe Capitalism is a far stronger system of government. Communism relies too heavily on a shared goal. When the Reds won the Civil War in Russia, Lenin actually implemented purely Capitalist economic policies (NEP) for the first five years in order to level out the economy. Also, even under Stalin's rule their were different rates of pay for different professions. The Russian government claimed the wages were proportional to the worth of a job, which basically allowed officials and party leaders to make a killing.. To me, Lenin was a true visionary, but almost all communist leaders since have used and abused the system to their own needs.

[Shahrukh 0]

The more I learn about the Middle East in the early first Millennia, the more I like the society.

The systems of that society are the best. The people, these days, however, are not. They're the same as everywhere. both good and bad.

Khilafat sounds like it borrows from both Capitalism and Communism, in the sense that the state is in charge of caring for its people, but people have control over certain aspects of the government.

Exactly. It has the good points of both the economic systems.

Personally I believe Capitalism is a far stronger system of government. Communism relies too heavily on a shared goal. When the Reds won the Civil War in Russia, Lenin actually implemented purely Capitalist economic policies (NEP) for the first five years in order to level out the economy. Also, even under Stalin's rule their were different rates of pay for different professions. The Russian government claimed the wages were proportional to the worth of a job, which basically allowed officials and party leaders to make a killing.. To me, Lenin was a true visionary, but almost all communist leaders since have used and abused the system to their own needs.

Ok, I don't know that much of history, but I guess, you are right. This is what most people do whenever they get the opportunity.

[andresf91 0]

Personally I believe Capitalism is a far stronger system of government. Communism relies too heavily on a shared goal. When the Reds won the Civil War in Russia, Lenin actually implemented purely Capitalist economic policies (NEP) for the first five years in order to level out the economy. Also, even under Stalin's rule their were different rates of pay for different professions. The Russian government claimed the wages were proportional to the worth of a job, which basically allowed officials and party leaders to make a killing.. To me, Lenin was a true visionary, but almost all communist leaders since have used and abused the system to their own needs.

 

Russia was at the beginning of the 20th century what we would call today a country from the Third World. Besides being a huge country, its production was mainly agricultural. That is because feudal relations of productions were the rule. As you may know, according to most historiographical theories (and this is one of those contributions that historical materialism made to history that only few try to deny), the four basic forms of production were tribal(where property of land was communal), ancient (marked by slavery), feudalism and capitalism. In his Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), Karl Marx says:

The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation.

For socialism to be possible, the production forces of capitalism should be taken to its limits. If a bourgeois class which only cares about speculation, maximum benefit and allied to the imperialist powers, is in power, this development of capitalism won't take place. That is why in countries which still have trace of feudalism (1900's Russia as much today's Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia) there still are tasks to be done about capitalism, and it is obviously much more feasible that they will be done by a coalition of the most progressive and revolutionary political forces (what is usually called as Liberation or Popular Front), than by a class subjugated to international capitalism.

 

That is why NEP policies look so "capitalist" to be done by the communist revolutionary party, specially if Marxism Leninism is not studied.

I hope this helps to the debate. I still owe you a larger post on the main topic, but I writing this as an advance because, after reading some of the other posts, it seemed as if capitalism and communism came out of the blue... like if it were only ideas, and not the natural progress of history.

[Bikerman 2]

Apologies for double post - dodgy internet connection

Edited August 7, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

There is also a bit too much polarisation in the descriptions to date. The UK has a history of mixed government with soft-socialism alternating with one-nation Toryism (which wasn't really true capitalism until Thatcher).If you ask a few Americans, particularly Republicans, they see the UK as one step removed from Soviet Russia - ie a pretty socialist left-wing society. That is largely because what Americans call the left is what we would call the centre-right. There is no mainstream left-wing politics in the US, just shades of free-market capitalism and small movements such as the US Socialist Party (about 1000 members). Bear in mind that any real socialist who fills in a visa honestly wouldn't get into the US...There is a central part of communism missed in the OP - communism (and socialism) advocate state ownership and control of the means of production to avoid the inevitable exploitation and alienation of the worker in any capitalist system.As for the Khilafat System, thanks but no thanks. As an atheist I get decidedly twitchy when any theocratic system of government is proposed. It is true that Muslim governance in some parts of Spain during the 9th, 10th and 11th century displayed tolerance of other religions, it is not true that there was any sort of equality. It is fair to say that it was fairly enlightened for the time, but it isn't realistic to portray it as some utopia, because it was not. I can't comment too much on other Muslim governance during this period because it is not something I have studied, but as a matter of principle I find any type of theocratic government to be entirely objectionable and insupportable. I do not see why, in the 21st century, anyone would wish to be governed according to what is essentially a superstition. I know that many people do - many US citizens would love to tear down the 'wall' between Church and State, and many muslims would love to introduce Sharia law into the UK. I find the notion abhorrent and would fight to the last against any such proposal.Secular government - of whatever type - is more successful in economic terms than theocratic government - look around the world and prove me a liar with any example you can find. In other terms, the notion that a single religion would produce greater happiness strikes me as a nonsense. We have had theocracy in Europe for most of the last 2 millenia and since Newton we have had progressively more secular Government. The millennium and a half of Catholic theocracy produced a superstitious double-thinking scientifically backward continent that barely made any progress in understanding the world and, in fact, relied on the texts of Plato and Aristotle for 'scientific' knowledge. Stagnation and degeneration for centuries.A couple of hundred years of secular government has had a slightly better result I would say. Anyone who thinks not and would welcome back a theocracy should be force-fed history until they see the error of their ways :-)PS @ DodgyPhil - I agree with much of what you say. The problem with any form of communism, I think, is that it cannot develop and thrive whilst surrounded by capitalism. Capitalism will always tend to produce a more dynamic economy and without restraint will inevitably corrupt any communist state. This leads to exactly what communism should avoid - an elite government brought in to 'deal with the threat' which in turn leads to the pigs living in the farmhouse.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)