Current Events > Which form of government is more prone to corruption: Capitalism or Communism

(+) Yeah! (+)

Which form of government is more prone to corruption: Capitalism or Communism

Communism isn't a poll choice

https://youtu.be/Qr6NOsluHYg

Both.
Government is inherently prone to corruption. Regardless of fundamentals.

WingsOfGood posted...

Communism isn't a poll choice

Oops
They're different, I know.
Here it goes...

Imit8m3 posted...

Both.
Government is inherently prone to corruption. Regardless of fundamentals.

communism is stateless, which, by this logic, means it is not prone to corruption

Yes.

both equally

Communism, but Capitalism doesn't try to hide it.

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

communism is stateless, which, by this logic, means it is not prone to corruption

part of the reason why russia is such a shithole now and the soviet union fell was due to wide spread corruption.

You ask capitalism vs. communism, and the poll is capitalism vs. socialism?

LowRyder2005 posted...

You ask capitalism vs. communism, and the poll is capitalism vs. socialism?

assuming Hanlon's Razor applies here.

Honestly, it's less about what's more prone to corruption, and more about which systems have better failsafes against corruption.

Both are equally corruptible I'd say, but only capitalism is fundamentally designed around minority rule.

Questionmarktarius posted...

assuming Hanlon's Razor applies here.

Calm down, bro. lol
If you read a couple posts down, it was just a mistake.

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

communism is stateless, which, by this logic, means it is not prone to corruption

A "state" to a communist is something different than "government," so there could absolutely be corruption in a communist society.

I mean, we don't know, because a true communist system has never really existed. And all modern attempts have been completely hamstrung by the US doing everything in its power to ice them out of the global economy and politics, which tends to cause collapse and corruption.

Those are both economic systems, not forms of government.

lderivedx posted...

A "state" to a communist is something different than "government," so there could absolutely be corruption in a communist society.

It isn't. "Capitalism" is what's different under communism. Hence "state capitalist."

Communism

lderivedx posted...

A "state" to a communist is something different than "government," so there could absolutely be corruption in a communist society.

how would there be corruption in a stateless, moneyless society?

DarkBuster22904 posted...

I mean, we don't know, because a true communist system has never really existed. And all modern attempts have been completely hamstrung by the US doing everything in its power to ice them out of the global economy and politics, which tends to cause collapse and corruption.

Is this like a parody reply? Communism under Stalin and Mao led to the deaths of tens to hundreds of millions of people. When there was a famine in China and Mao was having soldiers forcefully steal grains from Farmers, and then shooting anybody attempting to get at them because they were meant to be "distributed", but due to horrendous bureaucratic inefficiency the grain ended up rotting in the silos, causing both the people who should have been able to eat and the people the government was trying to feed to die of starvation. How is that the fault of "US interventionism?"

As an added bonus, the reason there was a famine was partially due to Mao insisting on Farmers using a ridiculous communist concept called deep plowing where you plant the seeds far deeper in the ground than you should and put them way too close together because the theory at the time was plants must inherently be communist and so their roots will form a shared network that makes for stronger plants. Instead everything died, sort of like how it works in the real world with people under communism.

Communism will be the future, but only when humans aren't in charge.

"If the Soviet Union ever had control of the Sahara desert, there would be a shortage of sand."

Don't know why that quote stuck with me.

We can't comment on communism because real communism hasn't been tried yet.

Capitalism by default.

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

communism is stateless, which, by this logic, means it is not prone to corruption

The fact that every time Communism has been tried has been derided as "not real Communism" tells me it's entirely the easier to corrupt.

But you know what, let's address the axiom in the room: Every time somebody claims that "real communism" hasn't been tried, the one thing we just quietly let them have as an assumed truth is that real communism is even possible. It isn't. It's a fantasy form of government invented by a guy who sat around with a bunch of his buddies drinking and imagining up a world where everybody else works so that they can sit around and continue to drink and talk. There is no evidence, objective or otherwise, that communism as a concept is anything other than a fantasy. Real communism is as possible as real dragons.

Whenever anybody tries to talk about real communism, don't give them another inch until they've proven that real communism is possible. Stop the argument at that point, because every single thing that comes out of their mouth after that is a waste of time.

EndOfDiscOne posted...

We can't comment on communism because real communism hasn't been tried yet.

Capitalism by default.

The ol' if it doesn't work, it doesn't count.

I believe real communism is possible, but not quite yet.

Squall28 posted...

The ol' if it doesn't work, it doesn't count.

That is "crony" capitalism.

PiOverlord posted...

I believe real communism is possible, but not quite yet.

Communism has a practical upper limit of about fifty people, probably less.

Capitalism and Communism aren't forms of government

Questionmarktarius posted...

Communism has a practical upper limit of about fifty people, probably less.

I'd argue it's almost entirely impossible on a scale of more than 10 people. It runs counter to human nature, so outside of a family it's doomed to failure.

Crazyman93 posted...

I'd argue it's almost entirely impossible on a scale of more than 10 people. It runs counter to human nature, so outside of a family it's doomed to failure.

There's plenty of "work-for-food and shelter" communes in the US and internationally. It works on micro scales.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Communism has a practical upper limit of about fifty people, probably less.

Under human leadership, it has limited capabilities.

I believe in the better future, though.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Capitalism and Communism aren't forms of government

Yeah, also this

PiOverlord posted...

Under human leadership, it has limited capabilities.

...

...

robot overlords?

Kimbos_Egg posted...

part of the reason why russia is such a shithole now and the soviet union fell was due to wide spread corruption.

But that wasnt real communism, which conveniently has never really existed so it cant be criticized.

You guys missed what TC did

s0nicfan posted...

Real communism is as possible as real dragons.

If by dragons do you mean the monstrous creatures that fly around the world, pillage and destroy the environment, and hoard unimaginable amounts of wealth? If so, they're real and we call them billionaires.

Crazyman93 posted...

The fact that every time Communism has been tried has been derided as "not real Communism" tells me it's entirely the easier to corrupt.

Part of the problem is always the fact that any neophyte communist state has to go immediately into self defense mode. When the Soviet Union was born the first thing every European power did was attempt to kill it in it's crib by fucking it's economy.

Same with China, western powers literally chose to help the Kuomintang, a fascist party run by gangsters rather than see China become communist.

Cuba as well. The US propped up Fulgencio Batista, authoritarian maniac who hung dissidents from street lights. The dude let American corporations murder Cuban farmers so that the state could sell the land to said American corporations. Then when Batista lost the civil war and fled the US cut off all trade. Mind you that the US was Cuba's single largest trading partner, which means it completely wrecked Cuba's economy.

My point here is not to defend these regimes. Mao was a good guerilla commander and a very dumb ruler, which led to millions of deaths. Lenin died and Stalin decided to murder everyone who might be a threat to him and plenty of people who weren't. Castro decided that the easiest way to deal with people who didn't want to be communist was to kill them or chase them out.

None of these things occured in a vacuum. History is all nuance and variables.These all happened partially because of the fuckery of capitalist countries not wanting their own citizenry to be able to see a succesful communist or socialist state because that might encourage their own people to rise up against them. This is especially true of the Soviet Union. Every ruling power in WW1 was shitting their pants once they saw the Russian peasantry kill their rulers and overthrow their masters.

Does this mean that without imperialist and capitalist fuckery they would have been guaranteed to turn into the great worker's utopia that Marx envisioned? Of course not, but it would have been more likely. Could they have been the great worker's utopia despite said interference? Sure, but the interference lowered those chances.

Questionmarktarius posted...

...

...

robot overlords?

Read this short story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evitable_Conflict