communism vs capitalism

[Wonderer]

This is it. The big one.

With my communal capitalism debate going semi-successful, i would like to open the idea of having a debate on this age old battle.

I don't want a debate about dictators, nor do i want a debate about america (that's probably taking away my best avenue)

What i want is a debate concerning not which is the ultimate economic system, but which is better (and not in a historical sense)

I'm not sure how this thing would go, but i'm sure i could find some patriot to argue with (i'm a commie if you haven't guessed).

Anyway i'm not wholly versed in the ways of communism, capitlism or economics for that matter.

I know the basics and understand how a country functions, but i am not formally educated in the matter.

I would be o.k with someone else arguing for communism (if such a person exists) but i am regretfully willing to enter a debate with someone on this hot topic

who's interested? who's willing? Wilma, get my back brace. I gots stuff to do.

[nemmons]

What i want is a debate concerning not which is the ultimate economic system, but which is better

I'll debate, if you're willing, as long as we clearly define what criteria we're judging communism and capitalism on. What do you mean by 'better'?

[Wonderer]

What i want is a debate concerning not which is the ultimate economic system, but which is better

I'll debate, if you're willing, as long as we clearly define what criteria we're judging communism and capitalism on. What do you mean by 'better'?

in light of our many disagreements, i realise that neither system is perfect if even attractive

therefore instead of determining whichis good, we shall determine atleast, which is the worst.

[nemmons]

well then i'll debate you but we need to agree on what criteria we're judging these systems based on. What do you mean by 'worst'?

[Wonderer]

well then i'll debate you but we need to agree on what criteria we're judging these systems based on. What do you mean by 'worst'?

By worst i mean less attractive. less chance of success. less benifits.

I should need at least 2 or 3 weeks for preperation. and i also believe that only 1 debate is allowed at a time.

If anyone wants to be the communism pony i would be glad to give up the position.

We will sort out the specifics over time.

[Gaiaguerrilla]

I would be fascinated. My judgment is lopsided toward communism. But I would be too tired to try and defend it. Yes, it does fail miserably in practice by historical accounts (the victor writes the history books after all), but I believe it doesn't fail in theory. The success of nations has crack-all to do with philosophy. The U.S was a lucky punk because of the Uranium-richness of Canada. If Russia had a stronger access to uranium, we would probably NOT be speaking english right now.

[-Oni Omega-]

well then i'll debate you but we need to agree on what criteria we're judging these systems based on. What do you mean by 'worst'?

By worst i mean less attractive. less chance of success. less benifits.

You need to be much more specific if you want results, It appears haven't thought it through.

I should need at least 2 or 3 weeks for preparation. and i also believe that only 1 debate is allowed at a time.

Couldn't you research both and come to a conclusion on your own in that time period ?

Capitalism fails by definition. With Socialism it it depends how its done, Communism seems to stifles economic development, but I've not read much on it.

[Wonderer]

Couldn't you research both and come to a conclusion on your own in that time period ?

Capitalism fails by definition. With Socialism it it depends how its done, Communism seems to stifles economic development, but I've not read much on it.

Haste leads to uncertainty. I think you know that.

Also how could you say capitalism fails by definition? Now you're the one being inspecific.

The pooint of having a debate is that 2 minds come to a conclusion instead of one mind.

Are 2 heads better than one Oni?

[Carleas]

Are the participants in this debate still interested? Come to an agreement about the form and the judges if you are.

[Wonderer]

sorry i have too much on my mind and plate. i need this place to be a release not a pressure.

maybe in a few weeks.

[Wobbly]

I'll argue for communism.

[Petkus331]

Has anyone considered a society where an individual can choose their (Macro) economic system? Each economic system operating under it's own devised rules? This desire to force others under one form of economy is simply tyranny; both forms have their own benefits and problems. On a final note, to debate different forms of economic idealist systems without examining economic consequences seems delusional; assuming anything useful is to be derived of this debate.

[OneDay]

im just gonna throw this out there and wether anyone really picks up on it is not really a concern of mine.

but communism is wrong, it is just wrong. im sure we all know how communism works, so i won't tell you. but to run a country in such a way is frankly an oppressive approach to running a country. capitilism is no better. i dont even like the common democracy system simply because of the fact that you have a small amount of people at the "head" (government) of the country who is in charge of running the rest of the "body" (civillians). they all lack an important key to a successful country-at any one given time, the head can fall apart leaving the entire body without knowlege on how to fend for themselves, how to rebuild and thus the body simply dies. look at what happened with the Romans, without a doubt the strongest, richest, largest and most advanced empire of their time: corruption and disaster within the head of the government lead to an utter downfall of the entire empire simply because the people were not capable of managing themselvs, they just left it all up to the system. so figurativly speaking all of these "systems" place all their eggs in one basket, and WHEN, not if, a disaster happens, there is nothing left to fall back on. countries come and go, because up to this very date not ONE country has ever had a balanced method in which there was no big goverment.

[Eran]

If anybody is still interested, I would be delighted to argue for capitalism.

To be clear, I will argue for the most radical form of Capitalism - free market anarchism.

I am happy to have discussions at the moral, practical and historic levels, arguing, in turn, that capitalism can be moral where communism is inevitably evil, that capitalism can work and bring prosperity and happiness while communism in its pure form is impossible, leading inevitably to mass poverty and starvation, and that historically, communism can be shown to have failed, while capitalism succeeded gloriously.

[Wobbly]

Lets do it Cappie.

[Molly123]

Anyone still interested in this thread?

Perhaps, I should start a new one?