TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

If communism was working the way its progenitors wanted it to, would it be better than capitalism?

The main reason why communism was made was people wanted to be equal without getting restricted by their environment, but nowadays communism is abused by some dictators such as North Korean leaders. Besides, capitalism also has its own problem. There are so many people who didn't have opportunities to try what they really wanted to do due to their poverty or else.
If communism was working as it should be, would it be better than capitalism?
(When there are no dictators)

Topics: Communism
+4
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 22 2013: I think both capitalism and communism are fraught with problems. The biggest issue with communism is the lack of incentive to produce for country. If I'm going to make equal, or close to equal money as person in similar situation for doing three times the work I'm less likely to do so. I agree with some of the commentators that capitalism is certainly better for driving economic production than communism.

    Capitalism, especially in the United States, has many issues as well. I'm troubled that certain services are privatized. (Fire departments, prisons, rating agencies.) I read an article in the Atlantic that argued if poor became poorer in the United States, and the rich became less rich, and the overall effect was a decrease in income inequality, the United States country would experience benefit. (I.E. less stress, more community, more connectedness.)

    I think income inequality, and citizen inaccessibility to have basic needs met is a problem. I think distribution of income in United States is major issue. I don't, however, see communism working better than capitalism.
    • thumb
      Apr 22 2013: You nailed it. Under Communism, you are producing for the state. Under capitalism, you are producing for yourself. And being successful (getting rich) is not a bad thing. The more your "company" grows, the more people you hire, the more raw materials you buy, markets to grow into. Ray Kroc started with one hamburger stand and 50 years later, McDonalds is one of the largest restaurant companies in the world. Steve Jobs wanted to make a better computer and he stated Apple Computer Company. Karl Marks had no vision of that happening, everybody would be equal, that could have meant no "Big Mac with fries" or Apple Ipod, under Marks there is no incentive to create those products and a committee would probably not have considered them as an equal need for the society.
      Damn, I just ruined my own argument.
      • Apr 23 2013: A food chain that targets kids with their rubbish. What a fine example of capitalism. A natural inquisitiveness and the pursuit of perfection is all the incentive one needs.
        If we got rid of money it would at least remove the incentive for a lot of the bad things that are happening
    • thumb
      Apr 22 2013: so income inequality is a problem. what about sex inequality? some people have lot, others have few. do you think that society should fix that, and grant people sex in equal quantities? or at least reduce the difference? if not, why not? how come that wealth should be equalized, but nothing else? how is it fair for one and not the other?

      my claim is: behind all income equality arguments, the sole motive is envy. but since envy is not a nice thing, the doubletalk term "equality" and "inequality" is invented.
      • thumb
        Apr 22 2013: Hello! Thanks for comment.

        I think government should play role in providing basic needs for citizens and communities. I don't think your comparison between sex inequality and income inequality is a fair one with respect to the role the government should play. Income is necessary to provide for basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, clean water. Sex is not necessary for life. (It may provide immense pleasure and meaning to life, but life can be sustained without sex.)

        I believe governments in countries with plenty of resources should make education, food, and health care available to it's citizens. I think the best way to address inequality is through progressive tax, and using those extra resources to make such things available. I think that true happiness, true bliss comes from community and connectedness to others. Having few with opportunity to economic advancement, while neglecting poor, and trusting the markets to rectify inequality by saying that the market will reward hard work (which in some cases it does.) leaves people worse off because in many instances I believe that hard work is not enough for people to achieve economic independence, and provide basic necessities for themselves. When this happens, everyone suffers.
        • thumb
          Apr 22 2013: how do you define basic? if you really mean basic as in life-enabling, then basic is chickpea, wheat, potato, carrot, cabbage, and any sort of shelter that provides at least 40F temperature. education is certainly not a basic necessity. your definition of what the government should grant seems arbitrary and alarmingly coincide with the current course of the US government. this latter indicate that you might have bought government propaganda on face value, without scrutinizing it.
      • May 1 2013: Wealth should not be equalized. What is being said is that if equal opportunity were made available, our societies would flourish. Some would seek life luxuries, others find happiness in simplicity, and everything in between. Also an ingenious form of wealth sharing would serve a society of this type well. For example there would be no income limit, however, a person who earns more than, lets say $25 million USD per year, anything above and beyond that amount, half of it would be voluntarily given to the people so that they can put it where it will most profit them, the other half would be given to a cause or project of the earners choosing. And the earner is given full credit for this "donation" and is deeply loved by the people. So the incentive for gaining wealth is not lost, it is merely for different reasons.

        A society such as this, wont exist until a certain percentage of humans experience a deep connectedness with Life and therefore eachother.

        I see nothing problematic with envy in a healthy person. Malicious envy, would be the type felt by a person who believes herself to be inferior, incapable, unworthy of attaining or achieving what ever it is he is witnessing.

        "psychologists have recently suggested that there may be two types of envy: malicious envy and benign envy - benign envy being proposed as a type of positive motivational force." Wikipedia
        • thumb
          May 1 2013: " lets say $25 million USD per year, anything above and beyond that amount, half of it would be voluntarily given to the people so"

          this would not work, because i don't want to do that, so you either take it by force or a won't give. i want to give 100% to bill stone to go to the moon. so what now?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.