How is Capitalism and Communism alike?

Is Capitalism just as "evil" as Communism?

  • I mean, if you look at the basis of Communism, it seems like a pretty good idea, distributing the wealth among the people, it seem fair. The same thing goes with Capitalism, it seems that everyone is free and it promotes a healthy economy, etc. But Communism was ruined by greed and people taking advantage of their power. Can't the same thing be said for Capitalism? CEOs of companies will do anything to make profit, no matter what it costs the people. Also, it creates a hug gap between rich and poor. And Capitalism isn't necessarily good for the economy either, the whole past recession was caused by the un-regulation of investment banks(You should watch Inside Job, it explains it all) Do you think both systems are great on paper but both are equally bad and "evil" in practice?

  • Answer:

    Communism seems like a pretty good idea? Except for all the people who have tried it. Even the Cubans now concede that Communism "doesn't work". If Capitalism were "just as evil" as Communism, how do you explain the lopsided preference for Capitalism. How do you explain Communists having to build a wall to keep people from fleeing to Capitalism?

Anthony E at Yahoo! Answers Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

Yes I agree with you. But at least in a Communist state, everyone has health care available to them. Living in the US with serious health issues , you have to be rich, to stay alive

Stingray

communism, or socialism is old and primitive, it is a regressive system, that's why its not used. capitalism is young, progressive, not fully used and still undiscovered. its really silly seeing people propagate a primordial market system such as socialism in the technological advancement and prosperity that the little bit of capitalism that has been used actually produced.

Zoltar

More greed than evil.

Rhubarb

Morally communism wins because it assumes altruism on the part of people rather than greed. But that means nothing. In practice communism wins because it works. It doesn't work well, but pure capitalism doesn't work at all. But that doesn't mean much because a mixed economy works much better than either. That's why all developed economies (including the U.S.) and all developing economies (including China) are mixed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/05/success-requires-more-than-individual-initiative.html Even icons of capitalism such as Milton Friedman and Adam Smith have advocated mixed economies. Both, for example, stressed the importance of the government providing universal education, which the free market would not do on its own. http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/fried1.htm Similarly, the goal of every capitalist is to become a monopoly so capitalism, left to itself, keeps generating monopolies. Both Friedman and Smith argued that monopolies were bad for society and the economy. Similarly both argued that the government should control the money supply and regulate the banks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman's_k-percent_rule If you want to argue on purely philosophical grounds, you'll get no agreement. Some feel individual liberty is king, no matter what the result; others recognize that we are first and foremost a social species - any moral system that ignores that is immoral. http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/moral-compass-no-thanks.html http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/253.html http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/free-market.html http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2009/05/tony-soprano-and-robert-nozick-3.html http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n08/joseph-stiglitz/the-non-existent-hand http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/05/richard-abrams-debunking-free.html

simplicitus

The system of governance has little to do with the levels of greed, and the devalue-ing (sp?) of human well-being. The key player in that role is the monetary-market system. All countries, regardless of capitalism or communism) are heavily entrenched in this system where money is the driving force for change. The problem is that, while money used to be a necessary indicator of wealth due to a scarcity of available labor, it is now actually creating a scarcity of wealth due to the abundance of labor by automation. There simply isn't the demand for lower-skilled workers anymore because machines do it so much more efficiently. The proposed solution is a Resource-Based Economy (RBE). The idea proposes embracing this technology towards automating as much of our economy as possible, and using a purely scientific approach (rather than biased opinion-based decision making that occurs in politics) to provide the resources people need when they need it, based on constant feedback from the people. There is a lot more to it, so I recommend checking out The Zeitgeist Movement. They are really the leading proponents of this alternative way of thinking about economy.

Nick C

I can "disregulate" banks too -- by making it perfectly all right for people to rob them --; but, that is not capitalism. Capitalism is the economic system founded on contract -- voluntary agreements. In such a system, use for force or fraud to gain ones ends is forbidden. Of course, our system does not now, nor has it ever, done this perfectly. The banking lobby is always pressing Congress for rules which allow a banker to put his thumb on the scale and get a few extra cents out of you on every transaction. The public for the most part does not notice this, because it is only a few cents, but multiply that by 100,000 transactions, and the amount adds up. This, however, is a defect of modern democracy, not capitalism. In a truly capitalist society, bankers would have to obey the same embezzlement laws you and I have to obey (there could be no special exceptions). Hence, the answer to your question is "no," because the "evil" which you see is caused by something else.

Arbie

Economic systems are "A Moral" , "A "means without the terms good and evil are not properties of the system but the results they have on peoples lives. the mistake americans make and it is to the advantage of those who are at the tip top of the economic pile: somehow "free Enterprise" is really free and it is good and ordained by god. None of that is actually true in fact what we call "free eneterprise capitalism " is only a few hundred years old. only linethe late 1800s has the modern industrial and scientific age allowed it to expand and posper as it has Money has no intrinsic value, it is only a way to 'keep score" the ounly source of real wealth is cheap clean energy and a system to distribue the production it allows.

Richard B

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.