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

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 29 2013: Since the beginning of time man has always sought to be the top of his group (ex. Cain & Able). It is our need to be the best or the leader that keeps a Utopian society from ever working (just look at any homeowners association or co-op board). Humans have pettiness, whininess among their faults. No group of people ever work equally. If one has nothing to gain , why put out the extra effort. Better yet - why should I produce and share with someone who isn't willing to to work or put forth any effort for the good of the collective. Modern Russia and China didn't begin to thrive until they added some form of capitalism.

    Capitalism is a cruel bitch. If you do not participate, it will crush you. It rewards those, who are at the right place at the right time, sometimes through skill of their own, other times luck. It does reward those who innovate and change with the times. It also gets more goods and services to the masses through competition. The market, when left to itself , mostly solves problems rather efficiently and fairly for all concerned. It is when we try to force equal outcomes is when capitalism fails.

    The downtrodden benefit in capitalism. Even in charity capitalism works. Charities more efficiently provide services than government does. Charities know their consumers, they are harder to game, and help people better because they are using their own money versus tax payers dollars and get more bang for their dollar.

    There are bad players in both communism and capitalism, but I'll chose capitalism every time.
    • thumb
      Apr 29 2013: here is an excerpt from rothbard's man, economy and state:

      Thus, in explaining the origins of society, there is no need to conjure up any mystic communion or “sense of belonging” among individuals. Individuals recognize, through the use of reason, the advantages of exchange resulting from the higher productivity of the division of labor, and they proceed to follow this advantageous course. In fact, it is far more likely that feelings of friendship and communion are the effects of a regime of (contractual) social co-operation rather than the cause. Suppose, for example, that the division of labor were not productive, or that men had failed to recognize its productivity. In that case, there would be little or no opportunity for exchange, and each man would try to obtain his goods in autistic independence. The result would undoubtedly be a fierce struggle to gain possession of the scarce goods, since, in such a world, each man's gain of useful goods would be some other man’s loss. It would be almost inevitable for such an autistic world to be strongly marked by violence and perpetual war. Since each man could gain from his fellows only at their expense, violence would be prevalent, and it seems highly likely that feelings of mutual hostility would be dominant. As in the case of animals quarreling over bones, such a warring world could cause only hatred and hostility between man and man. Life would be a bitter “struggle for survival.” On the other hand, in a world of voluntary social co-operation through mutually beneficial exchanges, where one man’s gain is another man’s gain, it is obvious that great scope is provided for the development of social sympathy and human friendships. It is the peaceful, co-operative society that creates favorable conditions for feelings of friendship among men.
      • Apr 29 2013: "...in a world of voluntary social co-operation through mutually beneficial exchanges, where one man’s gain is another man’s gain, it is obvious that great scope is provided for the development of social sympathy and human friendships"

        basically a Randian philosophy of capitalism...each man works in his own self interest and interacting with those acting in their own self-interest.
        • thumb
          Apr 29 2013: rand borrowed from rothbard (and mises, and others), if i may. i'd rather not dilute the elegance and clarity of rothbard with the romantic views of rand.

          for one, rothbard never says that people are or should be selfish. rothbard says some people are selfish, and some are not. people pursue different goals, and have different values. neither of them are absolutely good or bad, but are up to individual judgment. rothbard only argues that selfishness won't prevent society thriving.
    • May 3 2013: I'm not doing propraganda. I just resonate with most of his ideas.

      "People say that the monetary system produces incentive this may be true in limited areas but it also produces greed, embezzlement, corruption, pollution, jealousy, anger, crime, war, poverty, tremendous scarcity, and unnecessary human suffering. You have to look at the entire picture. "

      Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources.

      “Notions of Good and Evil depend entirely on social context. It is not that people are good or bad, they are raised in an aberrant or twisted environment.”

      "We must stop constantly fighting for human rights and equal justice in an unjust system, and start building a society where equal rights are an integral part of the design." - Jacque Fresco
      • thumb
        May 3 2013: do you happen to have an own point of view, or just rehash what fresco said?
        • May 3 2013: Yes, i have my own. I don't like circular cities and all that futuristic cities. But you can see that my main divergence is about his architecture. That in my eyes is the least important by now.
          I understand your point of view, You, like most people, have never been in a slum. Never seen the capitalism consequences up close. You see poverty through TV sitting on your couch.
          You hold the "flag of freedom" like USA always do, speaks of freedom without depth.

          The base of the pyramid has no choice at all. You do not realize that no one asks to be born,
          The opportunity comes from the fate of your birthplace.
          I would really like you to read with no aggressiveness, let's agree that we'll both keep our humility and understand each other.
      • thumb
        May 3 2013: you do not learn how an economy works, in a slum. you learn it from books. of course, you can find it out all by yourself, if you have 100 years time to think.
        • May 3 2013: : I don't need to read a banker bible to understand the details of economy system. It's wide-open on our face. It works on inequality, war and submission. For a long time it works that way. If your were born 200years ago you would certainly be defending the slavery. You believe in system more than you believe in life. The only certainty is that we all gonna die. We got there, in time that we need to rethink our relations.
          We need to keep envolving our society.

          Please see that documentary http://youtu.be/EewGMBOB4Gg
          Zeitgeist: Addendum.

          And this TED talk.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.