TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

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
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 20 2013: Communism, like capitalism, had money, so it became corrupt.
    It (pure communism), probably would be better but most people in the West are so brainwashed, that the mere mention exudes words like "communism" or "socialism" from their lips as the main, immediate, non-thinking, robotic-reaction in order to dismiss a new idea as fast as possible.
    Money is the corrupter and capitalism is crooked by default.
    It is "capitalizing" on what others don't know either through ignorance, indifference or lies and deception, or it is capitalizing on the bad luck of others, sometimes which occurs through ignorance, indifference or lies and deception.
    • thumb
      Apr 20 2013: Well said sir! The good news is people are starting to criticize Capitalism everywhere.
      • thumb
        Apr 29 2013: Money is necessary. It is imperfect and, unfortunately, most effectively wielded by the covetous and corrupt... but it is necessary.

        And Kareem, before you subjectively belittle Capitalism, remember that it, like its "utopian" brother, was once an ideal. The bastardized version you see today is often immoral and therefore deserves criticism, but it, at least, is intended to support the freedom of choice. Can you say the same about whatever system you defend?
        • thumb
          Apr 29 2013: When did I say money isn't necessary? Indeed wielded it is by corrupt and greedy people. Especially bankers.

          Look Hunter, continuous growth which Capitalism promises is impossible. We don't have enough resources or infrastructures. (there are thousands of articles written on the topic)

          Freedom of choice by whom? :)) I'd say it is an illusion, very nicely fabricated but a mere farce it is.
      • thumb
        Apr 29 2013: continuous growth is perfectly possible as long as the growing variable is not attached to any specific material or other physical property of nature. there can not be exponential growth of oil usage, or farmland, mined lithium, or chopped trees or planet earth. but there can be continued exponential growth in knowledge, and knowhow. in happiness, in problems solved. and also, man can extend its reign to new territories, which pushes any physical limits outward. physical limitations does not seem to be an unsolvable problem at all, thus, it is merely a bogeyman.
        • thumb
          Apr 29 2013: 'knowledge' 'happiness' and 'know-how' have nothing to do with Capitalism. You need to go to University of Budapest and ask random 1st year Economics grad to explain to you what means Capitalism. Because I think you are not grasping the concept here.

          "New territories" lol :))
          "physical limitations does not seem to be an unsolvable problem at all" You can add artificial +10% and sing kumbaya for 5~6 years but then bubble WILL burst.
          http://youtu.be/uuLYmzscoSM
      • thumb
        Apr 29 2013: it has everything to do with capitalism, because capitalism creates knowhow and knowledge much faster than any other system. in comparison, every other systems is laughable in fact.

        an computer today does not have any more matter in it than a computer ten years ago. yet, it is 50 times more powerful. used farmland went down in the last 50 years, while yield tripled. we don't need to reach any hard limits, and still can increase our wellbeing. wellbeing is not directly linked to any specific material, and thus can infinitely grow.

        i could walk into any econ university, but what they teach not necessarily helps me. the track record of mainstream economics is ... well, leaves space for improvement. when it comes to economics, ecology, future trends, i'd rather listen to intellectuals like murray rothbard or matt ridley, just to name two.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.