Communism v. Socialism v. Capitalism v. Feudalism

[nosisab]

@Vagrant: You are, as always, correct. And you've also put forth an alternative, could you please elaborate on specifics?

 

@Trandoshan: Thank you, very much, that's the point :) I'll start us off (didn't really want to...)

 

Capitalism. Here's why:

 

It's the most natural system. You're out in the wild, you're running to slow (for whatever reason), and you get eaten. EVENTUALLY the system MIGHT work itself out. Think about it, is all of the poorer people decided (quite rightly) that they couldn't afford children, eventually the only people left would be the rich, who could feed off each other perpetually.

 

Note that this is NOT entirely true to my opinions, so I bent it a bit to fit my argument, thus the purpose of a DEBATE!

 

Anyone?

 

EDIT: @LT: Do you even know what we're talking about? ECONOMICS, not systems of government, you know, just like I said in the OP.

Capitalism is the worst system, there is only one rule in capitalism: To profit, to grow more and ever. Mankind is its last focus and humanity is unknown to this system.

 

It's a system that brings out and forth the worse in the man. It can sustain only in the defeat of everything else, there is no limit, it's a cancer.

 

Capitalism is in the core of every government or corporative failures. Each and all those soon fall under it's weight does not matter how beautiful are the discourse and promises.

 

OK, it's a extremely efficient system to make someone or something rich and fast growing, again it just remembers a cancerous behavior.

 

It's only my own vision and opinion, of course, but was what you asked for.

[Trandoshan]

@Nosisab

 

American Capitalism was based a little on Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. The survival of the fittest. I can see where that point has merit. More than a little, at the most!

[Aurielius]

[Feudalism, communism, capitalism, and socialism are forms of 'economic governance'. Not government as a whole per say, but more of the financial aspect of that government. For instance, feudalism would run well with monarchy. Capitalism with democracy. It is obvious they both command difference as Capitalism is NOT democracy, but they are usually seen together in today's era.

 

@Trandoshan

Ok, for sake of argument ...name a country with a current feudal economic system that is in force. Just curious because I couldn't. :whistling:

[Trandoshan]

@Trandoshan

Ok, for sake of arument ...name a country with a current feudal economic system that is in force. Just curious beacuse I couldn't. :whistling:

 

Alright, you win. No feudalism in today's era. I was thinking in the past, when all of the major countries were feudalistic. Fuedalism is flawed, and it has evolved. You gotta hand it to me, I had the guts to stand up for it.

 

You do agree that it does have an economic influence on the countries in the past, do you not? Land-Lords and Nobles using the products that the peasants produced, and selling them elsewhere to pay the king's high tax burden. :tongue:

[Vagrant0]

@Nosisab

 

American Capitalism was based a little on Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. The survival of the fittest. I can see where that point has merit. More than a little, at the most!

Erm, hate to say it, but you have a few mistakes there... Survival of the fittest isn't Darwin, and doesn't really have much to do with American Capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

 

Capitalism rather is driven by a balance between supply and demand, with one or both often being subject to manipulation by those in power to remain in power. It is not survival of the fittest, but rather survival of those who are selected for survival by those who have already survived until that thing can be bought out or replaced. Even good companies can go bankrupt because of external influences in the marketplace.

[Trandoshan]

@Nosisab

 

American Capitalism was based a little on Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. The survival of the fittest. I can see where that point has merit. More than a little, at the most!

Erm, hate to say it, but you have a few mistakes there... Survival of the fittest isn't Darwin, and doesn't really have much to do with American Capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

 

Capitalism rather is driven by a balance between supply and demand, with one or both often being subject to manipulation by those in power to remain in power. It is not survival of the fittest, but rather survival of those who are selected for survival by those who have already survived until that thing can be bought out or replaced. Even good companies can go bankrupt because of external influences in the marketplace.

 

found something to prove myself.

 

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

 

"Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species."

 

this is survival of the fittest, based on my knowledge of 'survival of the fittest'. I could be wrong though.

 

On Capitalism being related to Survival of the fittest

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

 

I read it, and it accredits the term to Darwin. Did I miss something? Please tell me. I shall quote the following lines from this web-page

 

"Herbert Spencer first used the phrase - after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species - in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]

 

Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape" [4]. Hence, it is not a scientific description,[5] and is both incomplete and misleading."

 

and for it being related to capitalism... I shall raise you five bucks Vagrant!

 

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=454

 

Edit: I know, I know. Charles Darwin did not COIN the term Survival of the Fittest, but his works were used in the making of it....

 

So technically, you are right Vagrant.

 

Also, the capitalism I was speaking about wasn't American Capitalism, but the form that sprang up right after Industrialization began. It was the form that subjugated many African Nations, and helped economically control China for so long.

 

Sorry if I misunderstood.

[Aurielius]

[Alright, you win. No feudalism in today's era. I was thinking in the past, when all of the major countries were feudalistic. Fuedalism is flawed, and it has evolved. You gotta hand it to me, I had the guts to stand up for it.

 

You do agree that it does have an economic influence on the countries in the past, do you not? Land-Lords and Nobles using the products that the peasants produced, and selling them elsewhere to pay the king's high tax burden. :tongue:

 

Sure I'll agree that Feudalism has lead to other forms of economic theory out of sheer frustration with a Feudal Economy. But Feudalism in the current context is about as relevant as Chivalry, I'd rather see the return of Chivalry than Feudalism if I had a choice.

I will grant you a valiant rear guard effort on behalf of the Medieval Warlords, though by now their descendants are probably wealthy and powerful enough to fend for themselves.

[Trandoshan]

Right, but you know me. I think. I love the old stuff. Good Times :cry: .

 

Somebody has to be the champion of feudalism!!! I'm trying to be chivalric...

 

In reality, I don't think I could make a real decision. In their purest forms, they might just work. However, such a thing does not exist. I've made my argument, and I can't wait to see what everyone will make of it.

 

Till then,

TD

[nosisab]

@Nosisab

 

American Capitalism was based a little on Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. The survival of the fittest. I can see where that point has merit. More than a little, at the most!

Erm, hate to say it, but you have a few mistakes there... Survival of the fittest isn't Darwin, and doesn't really have much to do with American Capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

 

Capitalism rather is driven by a balance between supply and demand, with one or both often being subject to manipulation by those in power to remain in power. It is not survival of the fittest, but rather survival of those who are selected for survival by those who have already survived until that thing can be bought out or replaced. Even good companies can go bankrupt because of external influences in the marketplace.

Yes, and again the same old difference between discourse and practice. Although balance between supply and demand is a inexorable reality from the, now, really natural laws, not a capitalism invention.

 

Capitalism gladly bypass every medium/long term sighting if that means immediate profit. Some may argue with reason that short sight is from men conducting the capitalism, just than in that system that behavior may mean the difference between surviving or dying as corporation, so... FTW.. and actually it did it already.

 

PS: an attentive reader notice some posters ago I pointed what I think is the real cause of all troubles; a cause that is not prerogative of any system in special but common to every one:

 

The troubles began when the man began to serve money instead it serving mankind.

 

now I want to extend that statement and it becomes:

 

The troubles arises when mankind exist to serve the system instead it existing to serve mankind.

[roguim]

Feudalism -> to old fashioned for the modern society, only "works" in an rural society, dead today (but we can called Afghanistan as one of the lats feudal society as in it's countryside the tribal's warlords still rules and have very strong political influence)

 

Socialism -> a beauty in theory a completely disaster in reality no rewards for effort and creativity and try to level the society from below bad idea.

 

Capitalism -> not perfect, with flaws but the best of the trio ,have a bad face as exposed but it's not the only face nor the true one, can reward the ones effort and even bring collaboration between groups of people and countries , it's not only a zero-sum game.