Communism or capitalism and why?
Please Login to ask or answer a question, or Register if you do not have a WryteStuff Account.
Answers to this question:
Selected as Best Answer!
Central planning has proven itself a horrific experiment. What was discovered in East Germany after the wall came down was atrocious. Open markets have proven time and again that they can get poor countries out of financial debt quickly. The creative destruction of capitalism is a challenge, however, it creates the best incentive for not only business development but personal betterment. Go Capitalist Pigs!
All economics is based on centralized planning. How are cars and electronics made? Are they made with hammers and screwdrivers, in a bunch of scattered workshops, by artisans and carpenters? No, they are made in factories, where labor has been centralized into mass, productive machinery. Where it has amplified the production of the laborer by one thousand fold.
The problem with the Soviet Union was not that it was "centrally planned." The United States, likewise, was centrally planned by a handful of a Capitalist. The problem with the USSR was that it more violently oppressed its people, more bitterly exploited them at the workplace. The USSR was Capitalism, not in the name of the private investor, but in the name of the Communist Party. It was only more exploitive, oppressive, cruel, abusive, and hateful than the United States. A difference of degree, and not of type.
Total Answers: 2, Total Page Views: 382.It's a hard question. If you mean the Communism of the Soviet Union versus the Capitalism of the United States, I certainly would choose the later. In both systems, there was no difference about property. The vast majority were in horrible poverty, and the relationship with the means of production was determined by some isolated minority. Stalin or Carnegie, they both owned the means of production, and they both mastered government to advance their private interests against the general people.
If I had a choice, I would pick a system where people had an equal footing economically -- where no one was in a position to exploit someone ele. Where no one could use possession of wealth to starve markets of a needed commodity, where laborers were not dependent upon a master in order for a right to work the land. Where communities didn't suffocate and die from lack of investment, where the people had full opportunity to develop themselves socially and culturally. In short, I would pick a system like anarchy.
The best answer has been selected.
The WryteStuff Q&A section is for entertainment and civil discourse only. As always, if you need professional advice, seek the advice of a professional.
