capitalism is better than communism

[nero africanus]

Post by Vade Mecum for capitalism

Originally Posted by Vade Mecum

Nero,

I really find it hard to grapple with the fact that you are still preaching the 'dodofied' gospel

of communism. You are obviously, one of the finest brains in this village. True reason,

while your marriage to communism is weird. Communism retarded the growth of Eastern

Europe. In fact communism threw Eastern and much of central Europe back to the mediaeval

era. If that is not atavism and nihilism, I just wonder, what it is. We all saw the decay and

dilapidation, that became the lot of the erstwhile rich and glorious cultures, civilisation and

assorted arts of Eastern and Central Europe under communism. Communist governments

enjoy dictating to their people what they can and must only do for a living. Not every one

can aspire to leadership under communism. No body can aspire to rise out of poverty, except

the few who are 'more equal' than others. Nero, please give us a break. Communism is loathed

by everyone in Eastern Europe and Cubans, because they have truly experienced it. Karl

Marx and Engels were never political leaders. They never even lived under communism

nor socialism. Thus they could safely pontificate as much as they wanted. Thanks be to God,

that today, communism, just like 'Old Roger' is in the grave, never to rise again.


Russia was still in the doldrums and backwaters of civilisation, even after Boris Yeltsin

hijacked the victory of the inglorious coup plotters, who halted the speed railing of the

infamous Soviet Union into the black book of history. Light turned up for Russia, only

after the country, started allowing her citizens to worship God freely. Any nation that

will not recognise Jehovah God and Jesus Christ his son, will only remain a foot mark

in the global scheme of things.


Nero, just take a look at Cuba. See what communism has done to the land of Nero

Africanus friend, Fidel Castro. Please do not blame the obnoxious stagnation in time

far past, of Cuba on Uncle Sam. Cuba is free to engage in social and commercial

camaraderie with all the other nations of the world. Unfortunately , communism has

an inherently retrogressive and congenitally civilisation stagnating DNA. (Please no

pun intended).


Do not point me to China. China is a different ball game altogether. Chinese citizens now

enjoy freedom of worship and other fundamental rights, to a very great extent. Where

would China be without the efforts made by President Richard Nixon of the Christians

founded U.S.A, to forcefully drag China into civilisation? Where would China be without

the efforts made by the Christians founded U.S.A., to enlist China in the World Trade

Organisation? Indeed, China is now a Quasi- Capitalist society. Any wonder, that China

has now seen the light, and it's racing to a full blown capitalism and 'Christianisation.'


If you still do not believe me, take a look at history. After King Ferdinand and Queen

Isabella, drove out Gods chosen people- the Jews, away from Spain. Spain which hitherto

was the world's biggest power at the time, was reduced to a mere shadow of its former

glorious self. America accepted the Jews whole heartedly, and today, the U.S.A is the

greatest power ever on planet earth. History has shown, that any nation that will not

honour God, and God's people, always remain a struggling nation.


My dear brilliant Nero Africanus, biko, comot for the darkness of communism and receive

the light of Jesus Christ. I can imagine a Pastor Nero diligently dividing the word of God.

Abeg come and enjoy the goodness of God and help to extend it to others.

[nero africanus]

please see mine in bold


Nero,

I really find it hard to grapple with the fact that you are still preaching the 'dodofied' gospel

of communism. You are obviously, one of the finest brains in this village. True reason,

while your marriage to communism is weird. Communism retarded the growth of Eastern

Europe. In fact communism threw Eastern and much of central Europe back to the mediaeval

era. If that is not atavism and nihilism, I just wonder, what it is. We all saw the decay and

dilapidation, that became the lot of the erstwhile rich and glorious cultures, civilisation and

assorted arts of Eastern and Central Europe under communism. Communist governments

enjoy dictating to their people what they can and must only do for a living. Not every one

can aspire to leadership under communism. No body can aspire to rise out of poverty, except

the few who are 'more equal' than others.

rather than post a parallel postulate , i will tackle all the issues you have raised in this post which i take to be your initial post.

there is a misconception which humanity has been fed by the global media , that lie is that the economic development of the eastern european countries was retarded by communism . nothing is further from the truth, the truth of the matter is that as at the end of the first world war , there was nothing in the eastern european countries that prepared them for economic greatness , none had the power or the population to achieve greatness , it was for this reason that the austro hungarian empire existed in the first place, to pull the resources of the consitituent states together.

to further prove this point, a comparism can be carried out between greece and say czechoslovakia before it became czech republic and slovakia, greece never went communist , but it does not have a much stronger economy than former czechoslovakia. so you see greatness sometimes economic or other wise is not a factor of political/economic ideology. rather other factors like mineral resources and human resources need to be factored in. it is a common error to compare eastern european countries with western european countries which for the most part have populations above 50 million which had colonies to exploit and on which to base their greatness. on the other hand the eastern european countries never colonised anyone and most are small.


Nero, please give us a break. Communism is loathed

by everyone in Eastern Europe and Cubans, because they have truly experienced it. Karl

Marx and Engels were never political leaders. They never even lived under communism

nor socialism. Thus they could safely pontificate as much as they wanted. Thanks be to God,

that today, communism, just like 'Old Roger' is in the grave, never to rise again.

vade , propaganda can be very dangerous , and that happens to be what you are sprouting here.

the collapse of communism benefited only the educated. they automatically comprised of the upper class and their wages doubled and trippled while the wages of the middle class simply collapsed. this is the concept of distribution of income , the wage gap had been bridged but as soon as capitalism returned the gap shot up .

the western media does not truely tell the what happened in eastern europe the suffering that accompanied the collapse of communism in europe. it does not tell of the starvation , the unpaid pensions , the collapse of birth rates etc. the prolbem is that it cannot really tell , the suffering was brought about by the collapse of communism.




Russia was still in the doldrums and backwaters of civilisation, even after Boris Yeltsin

hijacked the victory of the inglorious coup plotters, who halted the speed railing of the

infamous Soviet Union into the black book of history. Light turned up for Russia, only

after the country, started allowing her citizens to worship God freely. Any nation that

will not recognise Jehovah God and Jesus Christ his son, will only remain a foot mark

in the global scheme of things.

russia was such a backward country under the capitalism of the czars that in mainland europe it is described as that vast backward country ,its economic backwardness can best be described in its humiliating defeat in the first world war and in the russo-japanese war. under communism soviet union attained its fastest development and it was able to bridge technological differences between it and the united states so much so that by the 1950's it was the first to send man on into space. your insistence on the acceptance of the god you worship is just a mark of your intolerance,


Nero, just take a look at Cuba. See what communism has done to the land of Nero

Africanus friend, Fidel Castro. Please do not blame the obnoxious stagnation in time

far past, of Cuba on Uncle Sam. Cuba is free to engage in social and commercial

camaraderie with all the other nations of the world. Unfortunately , communism has

an inherently retrogressive and congenitally civilisation stagnating DNA. (Please no

pun intended).

vade , you should be making comparable comparism , compare cuba to its neighbours and then you will realise that under communism , cuba has done very well for itself. compare cuba to haiti, for instance which is fast becoming a failed state ridden with poverty. compare cuba with crime ridden jamaica and its poverty , compare cuba with barbadoes which depends on british holdaymakers , the day UK decides its citizens will not go to barbadoes on holiday , the country will be destroyed utterly.compare cuba with grenada then im sure you will agree that they have done well for themselves. while i agree that cuba can benefit from a freely converting currency ,
i will tell you that these brings its own problems. just in case you dont know , the medicare of cuba is better than that of the united states , they have a longer life expectancy , they have infinitely lower crime , there are no homeless, they have 99 % literacy the only country in the world as yet to achieve this since the collapse of communism.



Do not point me to China. China is a different ball game altogether. Chinese citizens now

enjoy freedom of worship and other fundamental rights, to a very great extent. Where

would China be without the efforts made by President Richard Nixon of the Christians

founded U.S.A, to forcefully drag China into civilisation? Where would China be without

the efforts made by the Christians founded U.S.A., to enlist China in the World Trade

Organisation? Indeed, China is now a Quasi- Capitalist society. Any wonder, that China

has now seen the light, and it's racing to a full blown capitalism and 'Christianisation.'

the chinese decision to open up to trade as not a decision of nixon , vad . it was a decision of a man who died in 1997 called deng xioping , and it started in 1978. when nixon was in power china was in the throes of the cultural revolution and at that point china had nothing to do with outsiders.

let me explain to you what happened in china which many do not state in public , the bretton woods institutions set the exchange rate of most world currencies by fiat. china decided that it can produce for the world market thereby keeping its people employed , and setting the exchange rate. so for china they are practicing what it called communism with chinese characteristics. the focus of these is the employment of china's teeming population. it is for these reason that some companies have been operating at a loss for the last ten years but they keep producing kept afloat by subvention from government.

in the west or in a capitalist society , the company willl be shut down cos it does not make a profit its sole reason for existing . hasnt the time come to ask whether factories exist to make a profit or to employ people.


If you still do not believe me, take a look at history. After King Ferdinand and Queen

Isabella, drove out Gods chosen people- the Jews, away from Spain. Spain which hitherto

was the world's biggest power at the time, was reduced to a mere shadow of its former

glorious self. America accepted the Jews whole heartedly, and today, the U.S.A is the

greatest power ever on planet earth. History has shown, that any nation that will not

honour God, and God's people, always remain a struggling nation.

this bit up here is not worth replying to, jews are gods chosen people. wetin the yoruba and the igbo and the edo come be?

abegi? its is times like these you start to see the similarity between mein kampf written by hitler proclaiming the superiority of the aryan race , and your claim of jewish superiority


My dear brilliant Nero Africanus, biko, comot for the darkness of communism and receive

the light of Jesus Christ. I can imagine a Pastor Nero diligently dividing the word of God.

Abeg come and enjoy the goodness of God and help to extend it to others.

[Vade Mecum]

Post by Vade Mecum for communism.

Nero,

Could you please correct the caption in post number 1 above, to read Post by Vade Mecum for Christianity / Capitalism

[nero africanus]

Originally Posted by Vade Mecum

Post by Vade Mecum for communism.

Nero,

Could you please correct the above caption in post number 1 above to read Post by Vade Mecum for Christianity / Capitalism

thats vade

corrected

[Vade Mecum]

Some of the greatest lies of Communism, are :

(1) That there is no Supreme God

The world is still recovering from the shock, that ultra-communists in the name of fascists

impacted on global human psyche, when six million innocent jewish men, women and

children, were heartlessly killed in gas chambers, because of the ultra-communist

state Nazi indroctrination of the German people into a Godless statist ideology. The ultra

hardline Nazi-communist state imposed Godless norms, are copmparable only to the

indoctrination imposed under the most rigid of the communist states, like Fascist

Communists under Benito Mussolini, Leninist and Stalinist communists under Lenin and

Stalin respectively. It is the prayer of all good men and women the world over, that

God in his infinite wisdom, will completely rid the world of all ultra communists.

Ultra-communist states, always start off, by teaching Godlessness, thereafter, the

race of the party leader, usually the dominant race in the given nation, will eventually

be substituted for God. Thus, from Godlessness, progression is made into 'superior race'

e.g. the superior aryan race. From this point, members of all other races, who now

automatically becomes inferior will be destined for the gas chambers, and the wealth

of all such exterminated races will be re-distributed among the members of the 'superior' race.



(2) Another communist lie is the fallacy that a utopian economic environment can be

created by man in a communist society. This eroneous idea, that was first adumbrated by

an Austro-German Jew, Karl Marx, after whose name we have Marxism, forms the

foundation for the communist ideology of wealth re-distribution. In his attempt to

practicalise, this teaching, Adolf Hitler killed six million Jews, because, he wanted to

gain access to the vast wealth of all the Jews of Europe and redistribute same wealth

among members of the Aryan race.

[nero africanus]

Some of the greatest lies of Communism, are :

(1) That there is no Supreme God

The world is still recovering from the shock, that ultra-communists in the name of fascists

impacted on global human psyche, when six million innocent jewish men, women and

children, were heartlessly killed in gas chambers, because of the ultra-communist

state Nazi indroctrination of the German people into a Godless statist ideology. The ultra

hardline Nazi-communist state imposed Godless norms, are copmparable only to the

indoctrination imposed under the most rigid of the communist states, like Fascist

Communists under Benito Mussolini, Leninist and Stalinist communists under Lenin and

Stalin respectively. It is the prayer of all good men and women the world over, that

God in his infinite wisdom, will completely rid the world of all ultra communists.

Ultra-communist states, always start off, by teaching Godlessness, thereafter, the

race of the party leader, usually the dominant race in the given nation, will eventually

be substituted for God.

it think that you need to make the substantive difference between communists and fascists . they are not the same they have never been the same and their political/economic ideologies have never been the same. religion like communism or indeed capitalism is just another group ideology. it just so happened that it is an ideology that most of humanity at one point or the other used/subscribed to in order to navigate its way through life. if it helps fascists are right wing and communists are left wing


Thus, from Godlessness, progression is made into 'superior race'

e.g. the superior aryan race. From this point, members of all other races, who now

automatically becomes inferior will be destined for the gas chambers, and the wealth

of all such exterminated races will be re-distributed among the members of the 'superior' race.


facists have no problem with the existence of god, nazi germany was never a communist country. so this analogy a bove has no place in this discourse


(2) Another communist lie is the fallacy that a utopian economic environment can be

created by man in a communist society. This eroneous idea, that was first adumbrated by

an Austro-German Jew, Karl Marx, after whose name we have Marxism, forms the

foundation for the communist ideology of wealth re-distribution. In his attempt to

practicalise, this teaching, Adolf Hitler killed six million Jews, because, he wanted to

gain access to the vast wealth of all the Jews of Europe and redistribute same wealth

among members of the Aryan race.

vade , you neeed to completely revise this post , adolf hitler was a facist and not a communist , so you see based on this nothing you wrote up there can be debated.

furthermore, marxism is a word , coined by capitalists to derisively refer to communist, while karl marx wrote the first body of writting on socialist/communist principles , these principles have been around for ages from the communualism of africa to the cooperativism of europe before marx.

using the term marxism is much like the european insistence in the first 700 years of the last millenia to refer to muslims as mohammedans and the islam as mohammedanism.


in order to inject direction into this debate, i think you may want to focus on structure and economics of communism , i think you may want to focus on the human angle. i think you may want to look at the overalll picture ,

i think you may want to address the question in what ways is capitalism better than communism

[Vade Mecum]

it think that you need to make the substantive difference between communists and fascists . they are not the same they have never been the same and their political/economic ideologies have never been the same. religion like communism or indeed capitalism is just another group ideology. it just so happened that it is an ideology that most of humanity at one point or the other used/subscribed to in order to navigate its way through life. if it helps fascists are right wing and communists are left wing

facists have no problem with the existence of god, nazi germany was never a communist country. so this analogy a bove has no place in this discourse

vade , you neeed to completely revise this post , adolf hitler was a facist and not a communist , so you see based on this nothing you wrote up there can be debated.

furthermore, marxism is a word , coined by capitalists to derisively refer to communist, while karl marx wrote the first body of writting on socialist/communist principles , these principles have been around for ages from the communualism of africa to the cooperativism of europe before marx.

using the term marxism is much like the european insistence in the first 700 years of the last millenia to refer to muslims as mohammedans and the islam as mohammedanism.


in order to inject direction into this debate, i think you may want to focus on structure and economics of communism , i think you may want to focus on the human angle. i think you may want to look at the overalll picture ,

i think you may want to address the question in what ways is capitalism better than communism

Nero

Dear Nero,

You must realise that Communism was formerly known as Bolshevism, from the Russian

Bolsheviks. Thus the issue is not about names, but about ideology. There is actually no

difference in the ideas behind Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism

etcetera. The adherents usually start as believers in the socialist policy of Statism, Single

party- communal- welfarism and the difference between them, is usually only in their

names. The founders of Fascism in Italy, like Benito Mussolini, were all originally socialists,

then they became Marxists and finally, they became Fascists. Nazism is generally considered

by scholars to be a form of fascism. Nazism, commonly known as National Socialism, refers

primarily to the ideology and practices of the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler. Common elements,

that are usually seen as integral parts of all Socialism derived ideologies, whether called

communism, Marxism, Fascism, Nazism or Maoism are patriotism, nationalism, statism,

militarism, totalitarianism, economic planning, populism, collectivism, autocracy and

anti-liberalism, that is opposition to political and economic liberalism. Obviously we are

talking about a dinstinction without a diffence here.


You wrote about giving the debate a direction, via the structure and economics of

communism. However, I guess, I have already addressed that. Communism like all the

others, whether named Nazism, Maoism or Fascism is about the oppressor bourgeoise

class, who are the 'forever' ruling class, and exclusively entitled to the largesse from the

state .i.e. dachas, posh political offices etc and the Hoi polloi proletariat or talakawas.

Where all animals are 'equal', but some gradually become 'more equal than others'


The economy is all about a mis-guided belief in taking from the 'haves' and giving to

the 'have nots'. This envy led to the holocaust. A false attempt to attain the mirage

called utopia

[Vade Mecum]

Karl Heinrich Marx a philosopher, political economist, and one of seven children born

to a German Jewish family, and later widely regarded as the father of Communism,

because of the works he co-authored with Friedrich Engels, i.e. The Communist Manifesto

and Das Kapital; believed that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will

produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced

feudalism, capitalism itself will be displaced by communism, a classless society which

emerges after a transitional period in which the state would be nothing else but the

revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat


The above predictions by the great Karl Marx of :

(a) the destruction of capitalism, by internal tensions and

(b) the displacement of capitalism by communism, have all failed.

Rather the rise of commoner Barak Obama has shown the triumph of the common man

under capitalism. Also communism has not been able to survive nor displace capitalism.



Despite all the hullabaloo about Karl Marx and his communist doctrine, Karl Marx was

married to Jenny von Westphalen, the educated daughter of a Prussian capitalist baron.

Karl Marx's engagement to her was kept secret at first. This fact reveals that Karl Marx

was influenced and negatively impacted by the fact, that he was on the, not too glamorous

side of the economic and social divide.


During the first half of the 1850s, after Karl Marx relocated to London, the Marx family

lived in poverty and constant fear of creditors in a three room flat on Dean Street in the

Soho quarter of London. This fact explains Karl Marx morbid fear of capitalism and his

hatred for capitalism.

[Enforcer]

there is a misconception which humanity has been fed by the global media , that lie is that the economic development of the eastern european countries was retarded by communism . nothing is further from the truth, the truth of the matter is that as at the end of the first world war , there was nothing in the eastern european countries that prepared them for economic greatness , none had the power or the population to achieve greatness , it was for this reason that the austro hungarian empire existed in the first place, to pull the resources of the consitituent states together.

Nero,

No! No!! No!!!

The failure of the Eastern European countries to emerge from the mild destruction of the First World War is wholly attributable to the evils of a communist system of government that they practised. Their brand of communism (unlike China today) could not have produced viable economic policies required to attain economically developed status.

In addition, communism retarded their economic development because of over centralised socialist economic planning that is organically inefficient, survive through corruption, foster chronic shortages and create mutual suspicion between the leaders and the followers.

Your analysis did not consider the relationship between economic development and private property rights (i.e. economic freedom). Rigidly applied Communist political system (as was the case in Eastern Europe) is notorious for not recognising that in order to have economic development it needs to encourage private property rights.

There is something for Eastern Europeans to learn from China’s experience. Communism in China is decaying. The China communist party knows that and are managing the transition from rigid central planning to free market economy. The first thing China did was to recognise private property rights, which is alien to a communist regime!

The reality facing the world today is that Communism (as advocated by the frustrated Carl Marx) will eventually collapse, either through show of people’s power (as it was once attempted in China) or through gradual decay.

I am not suggesting that capitalism (i.e. free market and political freedom) as advocated by some extremists (often classed as right wing conservatives) will be the order of the day. Recent events in the world financial market provide further examples of the failings of the free market system. Government will always be required to intervene in the operations of the market.

Therefore, a social democratic system (that is, a capitalist system with a human face) will be the order of the day. I rest my case.

[Eja]

Of course what is being missed here is the fact that none of the countries being used as examples actually practiced communism.

Therefore, the only valid criticism should be based on the routes each country decided to follow in order that they may reach the goal of communism.

As far as I know, at a point in their political development, certain political groups within some states decided that it would be best if they aspired to turn their countries into communist states. It was a goal for the future but, the closest any ever came to it was some form of socialism.

It may be useful for the sake of comprehension if ones were to state what they know to be the main tenets of the ideology called communism. Then, we may compare the theory with what is today being described as the practices of (allegedly) communist states.

It would also be good to have definitions of capitalism and capitalist societies.

While we examine these, we may also wish to consider the assertion that deep in the heart of the 'capitalism' that is (and has been) practiced by avowedly capitalist societies, there exists a hard socialist core.

[nero africanus]

Nero,

No! No!! No!!!

The failure of the Eastern European countries to emerge from the mild destruction of the First World War is wholly attributable to the evils of a communist system of government that they practised. Their brand of communism (unlike China today) could not have produced viable economic policies required to attain economically developed status.


enforcer , the eastern european countries all became communist/socialist after 1945 , with the exception of russia which went socialist in 1917



In addition, communism retarded their economic development because of over centralised socialist economic planning that is organically inefficient, survive through corruption, foster chronic shortages and create mutual suspicion between the leaders and the followers.

enforcer , you do realise that a socialist government can have bad government and as a result bad management or administration. you do realise that a state can have bad leaders so as a result what you are dealing with is not necessarily a problem of ideology , you are dealing with a problem of administration /leadership.

that said, the so called inefficiency of the socialist countries in terms of production is normally checked by production by quota. it was for this reason that under the soviet union , production outstripped that of the united states. by production here , i mean average unit output per head. what normally is described as inefficiency is the cost of production which in some cases is higher than that of capitalist countries. for instance, in an average soviet factory , a creche is provided and enables nursing mothers to come to work. the unit wage of the lowest workers is not much different from that of the managers. whereas in the capitalist countries the managers take ten times or more of what the lowest paid workers take .

when describing the inefficiency of the soviet system, it is just assumed that a factory that needs 24 staff to function but has 35 is necessarily inefficient. it should be remembered that the focus of these factories is to keep people employed, in a capitalist country the focus of the factory is to make a profit. for that reason, mass redundancies found in capitalist firms as used as cost saving devices will never obtain in a communist country.

a typical illustration of these is china today , it has a lot of state owned firms which are operating at a loss, the focus is employing people so these people are not sacked they continue production with asubvention from government.. this is not neccesarily inefficiency , rather the system by its very nature of taking care of all cannot have people unemployed

Your analysis did not consider the relationship between economic development and private property rights (i.e. economic freedom). Rigidly applied Communist political system (as was the case in Eastern Europe) is notorious for not recognising that in order to have economic development it needs to encourage private property rights.

the right to own property is one of the basic cornerstone sof capitalism including in its primitive forms. in europe in the first 1500 years,practiced a form of capitalism refered to as feudalism , it had a person owning land as big as the whole of lagos and all who lived in lagos tilled the land and handed over the proceeds to the lord of the manor .this varied from 1/3 to 2/3 of total crop production. in russia before the coming of the bolshevics the situations was even worse, the serfs, ie people who lived in these lands owned by someone else could not leave the land even if they wanted to , they were basically enslaved even when they were emancipated in 1861 , nothing changed much. it was these feudalism and serfdom that slavery was based on . the enslavement of africans was based on the more abominable form of feudalism , the plantation owner owned the platation the slaves didnt own land and were forced to till the plantation in return for just food and clothing. so you see the slavery of africans was not instigated by racism, it was instigated by the capitalism you all defend , instead racism is then a by product of capitalism which existed to justify in human, moral, social and cultural terms the existence of this capitalist institution called slavery.

in order to rectify these and in order to control the abominable extraction of surplus value otherwise known as profit from capital be it human , land , or machinery, socialist countries do not allow private ownership of land. this is because land is the first factor in primitive capitalism, the state owns all land and regulates its use for what ever purpose , china only a few months ago started to accept property rights of individuals for the first time in 60 years this is symbolic as it finally marks the depature of china from communism in the traditional /classical sense. even in nigeria , land still forms a stable form of capital.





There is something for Eastern Europeans to learn from China’s experience. Communism in China is decaying. The China communist party knows that and are managing the transition from rigid central planning to free market economy. The first thing China did was to recognise private property rights, which is alien to a communist regime!

communism in china is not decaying, the communist party maintains a rigid hold on power. rather what china is doing is practicing communism which chinese characteristics,

chinese communism is playing upon the greed of global capitalism, it is taking away off the major forms of production and taking it away to china. what this does is that it strips away the ability of the home countries to produce , it strips away the industrial capacity of the home countries and takes it away to china. this is very dangerous in the sense that while this is done there is technological transfer and production at very cheap prices , over time, the result of these will be that the western nations will find it quite difficut to keep its people employed. the result will be that they will be dependent on taxation on overseas firms to keep the citizens on the dole. this will crumble with time like the subprime markets as it is an extreme model. if you remember this was the same thing that destroyed the roman empire this whole idea that people in other provinces and dependencies could be taxed away to provide for the citizens of rome while they did nothing. china recognised property rights this year for the first time , but informally people have been holding unto receipts of purchase which before the law is quite meaningless.

economists have been analysing what is about to happen , china is currrently overproducing and once anything happens to its overseas markets, china will restructure. this restructuring will include the nationalisation of all those plants and factories people are assuming are "foreign owned", as soon as their foreign markets cease to exist. so you see what you have is socialism/communism with chinese characteristics.

The reality facing the world today is that Communism (as advocated by the frustrated Carl Marx) will eventually collapse, either through show of people’s power (as it was once attempted in China) or through gradual decay.

one of the charges levelled against socialism is that it is unhuman and does not take into account the elemental greed in human beings, i dont think that this is a viable arguement , this is because , it can be extrapolated to the fact that humans are intrinsically dishonest and are prone to stealing and fighting and killing each other and as such , we should not bother to police society , it afterall goes against the grain. the theories of marx are just what they are, broad frameworks not set in stone. for this reason countries can afford to do what works for them according to the dictates fo their own culture. another example people love to give is the collapse of communism in russia , what happened in russia was the fault of one man called mikhail gorbachev, he was responsible for the glasnost and perestrioka . the policies of these basically unravelled the soviet union.

I am not suggesting that capitalism (i.e. free market and political freedom) as advocated by some extremists (often classed as right wing conservatives) will be the order of the day. Recent events in the world financial market provide further examples of the failings of the free market system. Government will always be required to intervene in the operations of the market.

Therefore, a social democratic system (that is, a capitalist system with a human face) will be the order of the day. I rest my case.[/QUOTE]

[nero africanus]

Originally Posted by Vade Mecum

Karl Heinrich Marx a philosopher, political economist, and one of seven children born

to a German Jewish family, and later widely regarded as the father of Communism,

because of the works he co-authored with Friedrich Engels, i.e. The Communist Manifesto

and Das Kapital; believed that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will

produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced

feudalism, capitalism itself will be displaced by communism, a classless society which

emerges after a transitional period in which the state would be nothing else but the

revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat


The above predictions by the great Karl Marx of :

(a) the destruction of capitalism, by internal tensions and

(b) the displacement of capitalism by communism, have all failed.

Rather the rise of commoner Barak Obama has shown the triumph of the common man

under capitalism. Also communism has not been able to survive nor displace capitalism.



Despite all the hullabaloo about Karl Marx and his communist doctrine, Karl Marx was

married to Jenny von Westphalen, the educated daughter of a Prussian capitalist baron.

Karl Marx's engagement to her was kept secret at first. This fact reveals that Karl Marx

was influenced and negatively impacted by the fact, that he was on the, not too glamorous

side of the economic and social divide.


During the first half of the 1850s, after Karl Marx relocated to London, the Marx family

lived in poverty and constant fear of creditors in a three room flat on Dean Street in the

Soho quarter of London. This fact explains Karl Marx morbid fear of capitalism and his

hatred for capitalism.

vade mecum ,
this is not going exactly as planned so what i will do is i will prepare a comprehensive postulate of why i think communism /socialism is better than capitalism and then leave you to respond to it

it will deal with 6 main areas

economics
politics
freedom
democracy
industrial capacity/production
culture

i will define what i understand socialism to be and what i understand capitalism to be,
it might be wise for you to also d the same

we may need a moderator as well

[nero africanus]

Originally Posted by Eja

Of course what is being missed here is the fact that none of the countries being used as examples actually practiced communism.

Therefore, the only valid criticism should be based on the routes each country decided to follow in order that they may reach the goal of communism.

As far as I know, at a point in their political development, certain political groups within some states decided that it would be best if they aspired to turn their countries into communist states. It was a goal for the future but, the closest any ever came to it was some form of socialism.

It may be useful for the sake of comprehension if ones were to state what they know to be the main tenets of the ideology called communism. Then, we may compare the theory with what is today being described as the practices of (allegedly) communist states.

It would also be good to have definitions of capitalism and capitalist societies.

While we examine these, we may also wish to consider the assertion that deep in the heart of the 'capitalism' that is (and has been) practiced by avowedly capitalist societies, there exists a hard socialist core.

yes you are right eja,

communism is the final stage and no country has ever reached it .

however for the purposes of these discourse , i will use both socialism and communism interchangeably

[Vade Mecum]

Marxism, Communism or Socialism, and any other guise under which communism rears it's violent head, must be totally rejected by all civilised persons, the world over. Marxism or communism preaches violent proletarian revolution in order to overthrow capitalism. The real truth here is what we have seen in the old Soviet Union. The poor masses were sacrificed to overthrow Czarist Russian leadership. Then the 'animals who were more equal than other animals' transformed into Bourgeoisies. The poor masses were merely used and discarded, when they were no longer relevant. The pretenders to communist comradeship became the new masters of the Protelariat. They organised a party called the Communist Party and made sure that only members of their cabal could be initiated into the 'communist party family' for onward ascension to leadeship. The poor, thereafter remained poorer and helpless. Communal living indeed. What a blatant insult to the intelligence, understanding, trust, bona fides and wisdom of the masses.

Must communists advocate violence, terror and fear. Why must the masses destroy the state and kill the lawfully elected leaders, only for a new gang of tyrants to come in and lord it over the people. Communists like to talk about classless societies. What an inglorious lie. The Central Working party (Communist -One -Party Apparatus) in China and in Russia are definitely not for everybody. Members of the communist party have become the new oppressors in so-called communist societies. Now, who is fooling who?

Why are communists always afraid of democracy, basic freedoms, especially freedom of speech, movement and dignity of man. Why are communist governments always afraid of free press and free elections. Indeed, the wicked runneth, when no man pursueth. Why are communist leaders always life time/term dictators ? Are they trying to tell the world, that they have a monopoly of leadership skills and wisdom ? To test their popularity and acceptability, among the people, they forcibly lord it over; they should always voluntarily submit themselves, to free and fair elections, and allow the press a free hand to operate.

[EbonyLomo]

nero africanus, i have been held spell bound by your vast knowledge of communism, and thus i would like to seek your help in a nagging problem in 9ja. I am definitely going to establish a new political party in 9ja very soon. My problem basically is that seeing that most of the political parties available are bereft with any meaningful political ideology, or indeed a manifesto for our people i would like to establish 'A Nigerian Communist Party'. I think we should try communism in Nigeria, now that Militarism and Democracy seem to have failed us. As an added incentive, i would like to offer you the opportunity to run as my Vice Presidential candidate of the party. What do you think?

[Vade Mecum]

http://www.camedwards.com/2006/08/15/i-love-capitalism/

"If Capitalism were a handsome man between the

ages of 29 and 35, I would marry him on the first date.

Or at least stalk him if there wasn’t a second date."


Cam Edwards

[mulan]

And if he weren't handsome? Or turned out to be a woman?

Questions for C. Edwards I guess...



Disregard unless you are C. Edwards

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by nero africanus

yes you are right eja,

communism is the final stage and no country has ever reached it .

eja/nero

There is an irony in your comment. You seem to imply communism is a fantasy island somewhere in the universe that no man has been to and will never be able to go there!

What about capitalism? Don’t tell me it is another fantasy island in the middle of USA, originally designed and built by Britain.

It's easy to forget the essence of communism, which is the protection of citizens from all vices because the citizens are perceived as incapable of deciding things for themselves. It is akin to your father deciding everything for everyone in the household irrespective of their age and enlightenment. Communism can only survive in an environment where the government is a dictatorship.

Capitalism on the other hand is essentially a democratic and freedom loving system built on the rule of law. It's foundation is based on respect for the rights of the individual to run their own affairs and it sees government as a referee. That is, minimum government involvement in the economy. Government intervenes, for example, to settle contract disputes and enforce individuals obligations.

The difficulty with communism and capitalism to function as intended is the opportunistic nature of humans. Human beings have evil streak in them that propel them to circumvent any system for their own selfish ends. There is no system where this is more pronounced than in a communist system of government.

The question therefore is which of them is the lesser evil? The underlying framework of a capitalist system makes it the better system to adopt.

In order to achieve economic development, capitalism sees the greedy nature of human beings as an opportunity to encourage entrepreneurship through a system of linking rewards with effort. It is called “profit”.

(Let me stop here. I am at work, at the throes of finalising the year-end financial reports with the inquisitive auditors. I don’t want my chief exec to loose her job!)

[nero africanus]

I believe that socialism is much better than capitalism for the following set of reasons.
For reasons of clarity, I will break these down into different sections. I will rely heavily or historical evidence to further buttresses my argument and the point I am trying to make.


First of all I will define what I understand and accept to be capitalism and what I understand to be communism.

Capitalism
1. : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

2. An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit
3. The form of an economic system, in which the owners of the means of production— land, the factories, machinery, etc. extract surplus value from their workers.

Socialism
1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2. a political and economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state
3. system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles

At this point, let us be clear that there is no such thing as absolute capitalism, just as absolute communism is impossible. Absolute capitalism requires that all production be for profit and that the government does not provide any goods or services
In absolute communism, workers get paid based on need rather than based on output or quality of work. There is absolutely no form of private ownership. For this reason , on a scale of one is to 10 where 5 is the centre capitalism is varying degrees from 4 to 2 while socialism is in varying degrees from 6 to 9 where 10 is absolute communism and 1 is absolute capitalism.

Economics
politics
freedom
democracy
industrial capacity/production
culture

Democracy: one of the most often repeated lies are that communism is not democratic; the thing to ask is who the accused is and who is doing the accusing. Socialism is like a democracy that runs a one party state. There are elections at the local level, from this level the elected delegates who amongst them goes to represent them for the higher council, from the higher council the same process is repeated until the stage congress is constituted. These people are normal politicians committed to one ideology which is socialism. So what exactly is so undemocratic about this? In voting for these candidates of the local communist party, individuals are actually voted rather than party platforms which are what obtains in the so called capitalist countries. To illustrate this when one votes for Obama, h votes for the ideals of the democrats, rather than the ideals of Obama the man. When people vote for McCain they vote for the ideals of the republicans rather than those of john McCain.

When local delegates of the communist party are elected in socialist countries, individuals are elected within the ideal of socialism. So you see the claim that socialist governments are dictatorship cannot really hold water when placed on scrutiny, this is because the same accusation can be leveled against the multi party system of western style democracies. We can ask what exactly is democratic about two or more political machineries representing powerful interests, who have the capability of winning elections/ for many years what England called a democracy was a rotation of power between groups of the upper class. This was in no way representative of the middle or lower classes. Even when the electoral franchise was given, there were party machineries on the ground which made sure that the status quo was maintained. This why the Tory (conservative party of the UK) is more than 500 years old and dates back to the English civil war. This can be seen in the politics of Nigeria for instance, where parties are constituted on an ethnic basis , for this reason , the ethnic group becomes a power block and politicians to win elections pander to ethnic sentiments to win elections. What exactly is democratic about these processes? It is not democracy; it is competition for power among sectional interests.

The point I’m trying to make here is that there is nothing democratic in the true sense in either capitalist or socialist countries. Case in point try becoming the president of the United States without a party platform.

Freedom: capitalists and anglophiles love to tell us about the lack of freedom in socialist countries. It begs the question, what is freedom, is it possible that freedom can be political, economic, social or even cultural.
Capitalists define political freedom as the right to choose leaders via the means of voting. Above I have illustrated that political freedom or democracy is a mirage and what can only exist are different/distorted forms of its fragments. In the case of the socialists, one party state exists where individual delegate is elected. In capitalist countries, multi party platforms exist representing powerful interests. On the economic freedoms which as far as I’m concerned, does not exist in capitalist countries. The distribution of wealth and income necessitates the controllers of the means and factors of production determine wages. Since the sole reason for production in capitalist countries is not to provide employment or livelihood, but to make a profit for the shareholders, the worker will not necessarily be paid what will meet his needs. In this sense, he is not economically free.

On cultural and social freedoms those allowed vary from place to place, however it will be good to bear in mind that a country can only have as much freedom as it can afford. For instance, in most western countries there is no freedom of speech as far as the Jews, and the holocaust is concerned, any attempt to question or deny the holocaust earns a jail term for the person for exercising his so called freedom of speech.

It is worth noting at this point that a society can only have as much freedom as it can afford without bringing about harm in any form to itself. A typical example of this is the United States where a careless allusion to the terrorism bombing gives the local police man the right to detain you and lock you up without trial. A look into the clauses of the patriot act will show that the soviets even at the height of their consolidated power never vested such awesome police powers on the states, yet the United States is a “democracy”.

It is common to hear capitalists complain that people are not allowed to travel outside socialist countries. It must then be remembered that there are a lot of countries on the planet like Cuba, etc where the United States bars its citizens from going into etc.

Most western countries have a social security system in which they have pensioned off their unskilled and lazy, which draw unemployment benefits from the state. This has long been a way for the west to keep the proletariat in check, unfortunately it has not been wholly sustainable, this is because as long as a country has productive capacity but is forced to use taxpayers money to pacify the lazy and unskilled, it will need additional manpower to do the work the unskilled and lazy wont do, and to raise taxes to be used to pay the unemployment benefits. This singular act is what has prevented the socialist revolution from reaching most western countries; it is also the singular factor that has almost destroyed African Americans. The resultant effect is a net immigration as long as the industrial capacity remains. These countries will need immigration to replace its own worker who get paid but don’t work, and its citizens who refuse to multiply and replenish the dead. It must be remembered that this idea that somehow foreigners can do the work while the native works as little as possible is what destroyed the Roman Empire.

However, in communist countries the state does not pay wages to those who are unwilling to work, rather the state finds work for all of its own. This policy ensures that at all times all who should be, are in employment , and those who are too lazy to work and so would be disposed to commit crime will be locked up. This is viewed as quite authoritarian but then it is quite efficient in combating crime. A common complaint is that a man who wants to be a musician is given a shovel and sent to work in the mines because he has no musical skills that can be nurtured. Leaving him to his devices will mean the creation of one more criminal. It is for this reason that the crime in socialist countries are always near zero. In contrast, capitalist countries cannot compel its people to work; it will lead to the socialist revolution, and a more equitable distribution of income. After all the rejects of society on the dole normally would form the foot soldiers of the revolution.

Education and healthcare: the state in socialist countries always provide education and healthcare for its citizens in socialist countries on the model of cradle to grave, without charging the people for the provision of this service. This brings about eternal social mobility for the intelligent. This can be contrasted to the United States which from time immemorial the poor have been dying as a result of a lack of health care. Even up till today, this situation still obtains in the United States. The socialist system espouses a meritocracy in its education which is why education in socialist countries is more rigid and more stringent and the standards are reasonably higher than that of capitalist countries, there are multiple reasons for this. One of them is that in countries like the United States, education in Ivy League universities is up to the highest bidder and places are reserved for the quasi – nobility - children of the alumni. This system does not guarantee that Harvard for instance will get the most qualified entrants or indeed will produce the most qualified graduates. It is for this reason that Russian texts are famed to be really difficult, because the candidates for the different tiers of education are selected based on their ability.

Industrial productivity - a common complaint of capitalists against the capitalist form of industrial production is that it is wasteful; however there is no such thing as waste in communism in the capitalist sense. This is because what the capitalists call waste, is situations where there are more than enough people required to produce are working in the same factory. There is no huge income disparity between the lowest factory hand and the managers. The state provides additional facilities to enable nursing mothers to go back to work; it is common to find crèches, nurseries and primary schools attached to huge factories employing only nursing mothers or mothers with little children. This enables the mothers to work while the children are adequately care for by other staff. This system does not obtain in a capitalist country where the main reason for the existence of factories is to make a profit rather than employ people, for this reason , the additional facilities provided for nursing mothers for instance is seen as waste as the company can afford to produce without providing all that.

Social problems - Certain social problems are associated with capitalism , like homelessness , drug abuse , dysfunctional families , individuals existing in viciously endemic poverty passed on from generation to generation. A consumer culture fueled by a hedonistic lifestyle, all these produced of the individualism of capitalism. The resultant effect of these is a me – generation where all the individual is concerned about is self and gratification of the self without regard for the collective. Crime is endemic and is inevitable with capitalism and more often than not is associated with the poorer areas where there is depravity varying from want and need. Capitalism all the time lives in fear of the disenfranchised masses, the lower class otherwise know n as the proletariat, it is this reason that the united states feels its compelled to crush any socialist uprising be it , Vietnam , Korea , Latin America or Angola. This is because in so far as capitalism goes no nation had pushed the boundaries like the United States while creating a national myth based on lies of what didn’t exist. It is capitalism that gave rise to the combined scourge of slavery and colonialism. The virulent racism visited on the blacks being an immune system developed by so called European intellectuals in the era of the so called enlightenment, to deal it the little conscience that they had, so the dehumanization of the Negro is a direct consequence of capitalism where people were enslaved so others would make a profit. The direct effect of this is that many years later, the black man wears the color his skin as that of poverty and for the first time in the history of man, the ones that were poor looked different.

Central planning and the command economy – the benefits of central planning cannot really be overemphasized this is because in the capitalist country where the Market is allowed to allocate resources , these resources always goes to the enterprise that guarantees the quickest fastest return on investment and surplus value otherwise known as profit. It is the central planning that enabled china to rein in its population explosion which at the time was a time bomb waiting to explode, if china had been a democracy it would have had a serious humanitarian crisis, as it would not be able to feed itself, then it would have been the largest immigrant sending nation just like India this being a method of population control as the land would not be able to sustain its citizens since most of the land in china is not arable. It would have destroyed all the gains of china in terms of prosperity for its people. It is for this reason that India is spite of all the gains it makes in terms of economic development will never on a national scale enjoy it , the gains made will always be swallowed by an increasing population.

Religion: the soviets tried to implement the classical socialism as dictated by the texts of marx/engels without fundamental changes in the theoretical frameworks, one of theme dictates of this "manifesto of the communist party" written by Karl Marx is that religion is the opium of the people , it makes them feel better . this is not entirely untrue and can be seen in a case closer to home with the unraveling of Nigeria by corruption and population growth, as the nation unravels into an entirely free market , more are made destitute without protection of any sort from the state even when the state can afford to give this protection.

The humans existing in this state start to evolve defensive mechanism to survive. This is to prevent it from sinking into despair and hopelessness. This is to give it hope, that ephemeral energy that galvanizes the people to keep existing from day to day. For this reason, not just in Nigeria, religion is always on the rise where there is relative poverty bordering on the absolute. This why as Europe bridged its gap between the rich and the poor , its godlessness increased while Nigeria and the united states and other nations which huge income disparity continued to be more religious as the people draw strength from the hope that religion brings. As the state becomes more powerful even without imposing atheism on its people, the people will become more godless as the state assumes unwittingly the role of god in their lives.

Indeed the clergy make the doctrines of religion more questionable as they align in most cases with the doctrines of capitalism, it is for this reason that the left views religion as an alternative ideologies produced by the needs of the people under capitalism. This can be been in the active campaign of the Catholic Church against communism for instance, or in the public rebuke of the bishops allied with liberation theology in Latin America. Indeed , the history of the Christian church reveal active participation in capitalism , where in the catholic church for instance , the bishops used to be members of the aristocracy and were called the princes of the church , it can be seen in the Anglican church where the church itself was a huge capitalist institution going as far as owning slaves. The integrity of the Christian church is further compromised where in cases it holds huge means and factors of production; this means that the original doctrine of salvation has been abandoned. This led to the corruption and debauchery that led to the reformation and Counter Reformation the role of the church in the colonization, enslavement and genocide of native Latin Americans after the pope divided the rest of the world between Spain and Portugal through the line of demarcation. compromise can also be seen in nigeria where the churches there are more or less business concerns , dfrom ownership of universities to hotels and the proposed float of an airline by one of the churches in nigeria

Bringing the issue further to home still, we see how capitalism compromised ogwugwu akpu of okija and long juju of arochukwu and they moved from spiritual arbiters of justice to tools of capitalism. So you see, that socialists did away with the institution of organized religion as a tool of capitalism is not entirely without reason.
It can also be seen with Islam that the more disenfranchised, the more militant.

Finally, capitalists and their apologists love to point to the collapse of communism in Soviet Union as proof of how unworkable communism is. However, it must be acknowledged that the collapse of communism is more the result of one man called gorbachev, the most reviled man in all Russia’s history. Communism of the Soviet Union was brought down by the glasnost and the perestroika and then less importantly by the rabid nationalism of the different ethnic nationalities that made up the country. These felt they were being dominated by the ethnic Russians and this is not unlike the problems Nigeria faces today even under our own klepto – capitalism and crony capitalism. So in essence the collapse of communism in Russia is more about the other factors rather than about ideology.
At the core of capitalism is socialism, which has led to cries of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. We have seen how the unbridled capitalism that pope john Paul warned about brings the World economy to its knees. It is now being rescued by socialism, collapsed banks are being nationalized. A clearer example of this was the leadership of Roosevelt which basically rescued the American economy with the new deal. Historians and economist agree that the new deal was just a package of socialist policies that saved America from itself. As the deindustrialization of the west continues, as the controllers of the means of production take it away to climes of cheaper labor and costs so they can make more money, grumbles are being heard in the American mainland, that the beam of global capitalism, the dissatisfied are being to grumble in protectionist tones quite similar to what would be heard from socialists. It is ironic now socialism is always needed to rescue capitalism from itself.

[Enforcer]

The difficulty with debates about capitalism and communism (and every other political and economic “ism”) is definition. Your view on the matter is largely influenced by your understanding of the words stand for.

What is Capitalism?

“Capitalism” is not an ideology. The communists coined the word following civil rights movement of the 17th century. According to Thomas Sowell (The Vision of the Anointed), capitalism is an economy not run by political authorities. The beauty of a capitalist economy is that it gives power to the people. It recognises and values their ability to make the right decisions as to what they want to produce and consume.

Capitalism relies on market forces, price, competition and profit to allocate resources to where it is needed, rather than central government deciding everything for you. Capitalism has a built-in mechanism for rewarding those that provide the right quality of goods and services that the people want.

Capitalism requires three essential institutions in order to function.
1. Private property. This actually means not only your physical possessions (alienable property) but include your life and liberty (inalienable property).
2. Markets: That allows the buyer and the seller to have a mutually beneficial, voluntary, and free trade.
3. Rule of Law: The rules that clearly define and enforce your property rights and your obligations as a citizen. For example, if you perform your contractual obligations there is a remedy for you to enforce your right to payment under that contract.

What is communism?

Communism is based on a de-motivating political and economic ideology that states: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In order words, don’t worry if you are a lazy layabout, the government will take from your hard working fellow citizens to give you.

Communism is a “distinct socio-political philosophy that is willing to use violent means to attain its goal of a classless society.” Whereas capitalism is a social system based on individual rights, communism believes in equality through if necessary the use of force by grounding individual rights to build absolute government control.

German economist, Karl Marx, laid the foundation for the modern day communism and published the “The Communist Manifesto” in 1848, highlighting in the Communism agenda the following:
• Abolition of Private Property.
• Heavy Progressive Income Tax.
• Abolition of Rights of Inheritance.
• Confiscation of Property Rights.
• Central Bank.
• Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation.
• Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture.
• Government Control of Labour.
• Corporate Farms and Regional Planning.
• Government Control of Education.

Democracy is an essential requirement in a capitalist system. The biggest mistake is to believe that there can be a democracy in a communist system. How can that be, if a political system is willing to use violence to achieve its goals of a classless society? How can anyone classify such a political system as democratic?

A requirement for a communist system is the need to have one political party that everyone belongs. How absurd is that? How can there be a democracy if there is no choice or opposition party? Just imagine putting all NVS members into one political party and explain to me how you will get consensus on anything without having to resort to bullying tactics to get people to tow the line?

While emphasis seem to be on the fall of Soviet Union as communist country and the gradual decline of communism in China, it is easy to forget that Japan was once a communist country, until it realised the power of market forces. The lesson learned report for these countries should read “people know which side of their bread is buttered”!

Which is better?

At this point, let me remind you that your choice matters a lot. I do not want to influence you, except to say that communism takes away your rights, including your freedom of expression. if you value your rights and freedom of expression then make your choice accordingly.