TED Conversations

Jai Venaik

Student , Symbiosis Institute of Media and Communication (UG)

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

Capitalism vs Communism vs Socialism

What is more Important?
Economic Growth or Social Welfare or Nothing !

Topics: Communism capitalism global governance socialism
0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    chad manderscheid 10+

    • 0
    Feb 27 2012: I don't care for the choices offered, at least not as they have been practiced so far. How about an enlightened Humanism? Or a humanistic socialism without coercion?
  • thumb

    Ehis Odijie 10+

    • 0
    Feb 22 2012: The question of capitalism and other economic theories is a one of context and timing. In the absence of a specific context, argument for or against any economic /political system is like doctors discussing medication without knowledge of symptoms or diagnosis. To come down to a practical example, China miracle would have been impossible in a complete democratic setting. They have to go through a learning process which was not granted to most Africa countries.
    And by the way there is no pure capitalism /communism but in theory. The question is the level of government intervention needed and that comes down to the specific settings in question.
  • thumb

    Spencer Ferri

    • 0
    Feb 21 2012: Why be restricted to those three options? I believe the only reason we're limited to those few choices is because we won't apply our creativity to coming up with a new economic system. We're afraid to think 'maybe we can figure out a different way to organize our economy!'

    Economy seems so complex, doesn't it? Seems to hard to 'redo'. We all feel like we've got to play with the already established complex systems.

    Economy is just a way to determine the relationship between people, their things and their abilities. We need to ask ourselves: what's the goal of an economy? Well, to allow as many people as possible to contribute to society. To maximize growth and minimize waste.

    I relate this conversation to one I've started titled "Is society too complicated?". Our economy is a complicated structure. A socialist government would also be a very complicated system. These systems do or would work with so many levels, so many laws and so many checks that it seems unreasonable to expect the average person to have a good understanding of all possible structures work. If one doesn't fully understand how something works, or how it relates to them, but the person does have to make choices within that system, the ignorant man is likely to make an unwise decision assuming the decision is wise.

    We need to move to an economic system which is simple. If the goal is to have a system where as many people can contribute to it as possible, then those systems which allow them to do so must be so simple that anyone can make a wise decision in relationship with their economy. Having to take less time to reach an understanding of economy is important too, as it would allow for a more fuller understanding of whatever person wants to specialize in.

    Take a look at my question, brother:
    http://www.ted.com/conversations/9470/is_society_too_complicated.html
    • thumb

      Krisztián Pintér 200+

      • +1
      TED Translator
      Feb 21 2012: " to allow as many people as possible to contribute to society. To maximize growth and minimize waste."

      actually, none of these. society is just a collective term. society can not be happy, people can be. it would be a total waste of time for people to give up anything to further society. it is the exact opposite of reasonable. society is there to benefit people. and we also don't want to minimize waste. we want to maximize the output. minimizing waste requires resources, so it is a liability. we might have to do it, in order to maintain future growth, but it is not a goal, and we only want to optimize it, never minimize.

      when we talk about simplicity, we want simple principles. emergent complexity is not a problem. i propose the simplest possible basis for society: the non-aggression principle.
  • thumb

    Krisztián Pintér 200+

    • +1
    TED Translator
    Feb 21 2012: economic growth causes social welfare

    today, the bottom 1% in the USA lives a better life than the top 10% lived 200 years ago

    the west had 200 years of growing economy, then we abandoned progress and chose redistribution on massive scale. it led to bankruptcy. do you want to copy it? which part?
    • thumb

      chad manderscheid 10+

      • +1
      Feb 27 2012: Krisztian I would say that you are almost right about the top ten percent if you compared them with the group above the 30th percentile. Reminds me of something Buckminster Fuller used to say about the average person having a better quality of life than most kings had 200+ years ago. Which he attributed in part to our learning to continually do more with less. Key to any real progress will come when most of us realize that empowered human intelligence is the most important source of wealth on the planet. Thus the common failure of most children to achieve their full potential within current educational systems represents a net loss to the global GDP. And thus less for all 7 billion of us. How many people is too many is the wrong question too. What proportion of the population is capable of being productive is the crucial figure.

  • Jimmy Gustavsson

    • 0
    Feb 21 2012: If it was only that easy. I don't believe in a revolution however because people won't be able to make the changes within themselves that a socialism requires.
    I've been a socialist all my life and I still am, however I believe some major changes has to occur before we will be able to reach such a wonderful society. First of all people needs to get empathy for all living things, we need to start thinking about our enviorment, about the animals. If we show empathy to everything that's alive and will be alive people will understand why we have to live together and have the same goals. Now I don't mean the same goals as in everybody has to study the same thing, absolutly not quite the opposite I believe people should do what they want to do as that it was they do the best but at the same time people has to do what needs to be done. You can't just sit around all day doin' nothing, then society won't work. It needs to be like a kibbutz were we all work together for a sustainable future, were we try to learn and develope things not for economic growth or for our own selfish desires but for the sake that it's needed and helpful.
    If we put our heads together trying to come up with sustainable inventions instead of new iphones/other random technical crap I image we would be in a much better world then this.
    Also if you really care about the world and the humans as well as the animals, go vegan. Nothing makes people starv like the meat industiry. We need to shut it down, we need to make people realize nothing should be tortured just because it can't talk back. People are against hitler, still what he did to the jews is not much worse then what the animals in the meat industry has to put up with.
    Love and light
Showing all 7 comments