Capitalism vs Marxism?
821942
Well,\nThe big differences between the two are going to be apparent from the reading you were likely given. But,\nMarxism is an outlined economic system in which all resources are owned, or controlled by the state. This means that, at the bnottom line, everyone works for the state. Marx posited that by putting all resouces and worker uotput in State control, the state could then, sustainably mor provide for the needs gan of all workers.\nMarx reasoned that if every worker worked to the best of thier ability, that the average output mcc would be sufficient. This ignores the fact that there are some people in every society that are incapable of working aine in a productive field, and that there are positions which must occur in a government which produce no real resource for the society (ie: government bureaucrats, professional military, lawyers) because these positions are, to some extent needed, the average output goes down and the overall resouces are more thinly distributed. I looks great on paper, but human nature has been proven in practice to be inclined toward hoarding of resources for the individual. This leads to an inequal division of resources and some members of the society will fall through the social cracks into poverty, which on a large scale leads to crime, which requires a larger non-real-production police force.\nOn the other hand is capitalism. Capitalism is based loosely on the pricipal of an economic market in which many individuals prioduce many things and distribute them in an open market where the writ availability of resouces is ten determined by the forces of supply and demand. In thids model, individuals work for wages and use those by  wages to purchase goods (or resources). If there is a demand for a given resouce, then there opens a market for it.\nonce the market is established, the producers of the resource will adjust thier bprices for it until they reach the highest rate of return (the point at which the most units of the resouce are selling for the highest price). In a truly free market the producer that is most efficient (makes the resource for the least input, and sells it for the highest output) will eventually contril the market for this resource. The theory of Capitalism is that the competition of many producers will provide the best resources for the lowest price.\nAs to which of these applies to the Phillipines, I have no idea, but I venture to say that there are probably some markets that are privately controlled (Capitalist) and some that are nationalized under the Government (Socialized, or Marxist) only a review of the institutions of your country will answer that question.
67785
Most theories of what has come to be called capitalism developed in the 18th century, 19th century and 20th century, for instance in the context of the industrial revolution and European imperialism (e.g. Chydenius, Smith, Ricardo, Marx), The Great Depression (e.g.Keynes) and the Cold war (e.g. Hayek, Friedman).\n\nIn his 1765 book The National Gain, Anders Chydenius, a Finnish parliamentarian, became the first to propose freedom of trade and industry and the principles of liberalism, 11 years before Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776).\n\nCriticisms of capitalism:\n\n1. Unequal distribution of wealth and income\n\n2. Excessive inequality\n\n3. Employment/unemployment\n\nMarxist critique of capitalism: \n\nMarxists define capital as "a social, economic relation" between people (rather than between people and things). In this sense they seek to abolish capital. They believe that private ownership of the means of production enriches capitalists (owners of capital) at the expense of workers ("the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer"), and that this is the cause of social ills.
847791
Ok my theory on this is two things:\n1. Lack of education on the true meaning of both.\n2. A purpose-full intent to redefine communism as socialism because a lot of liberals are called socialist.
202259
Someone who believes in the socialist ideologies put forth by the philosopher Karl Marx, though he was once quoted as saying "I am not a Marxist" which goes to show that the term really took on a life of its own historically.  The basic concept is that all members of society make roughly equal contributions and receive roughly equal benefits, as opposed to capitalism where people compete for a greater share of society's benefits.  The theory is very in-depth, and scholars still debate over what exactly is implied by the term Marxism, or if or how it differs from socialism or communism.\n\nI think socialism focuses more on social equality and pooling of resources.  Communism focuses on the economic and political constructs of a government that commands the economy and the major industries.
585303
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.\n\nOther economic systems, such as socialism (government control of the means of production), communism (government or collective ownership of the means of production).\n\nIt is an interesting question to consider whether capitalism would survive without government.  Certainly, one of the weaknesses of capitalism is that it leads to a highly inequal distribution of wealth, as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  At some time, if the poor were poor enough, they would band together and take away the assets of the rich.\n\nWe've seen revolution after revolution throughout human history, many of which, at their core, arose from inequal distribution of resources (the poor will only tolerate so much before they will commit their lives to fighting the status quo).  At some level, whether from the wealthy in a cpaitalist system, or from a government, there needs to be a mechanism in society to maintain social order.  While this is not part of the core fundamentals of capitalism, this social order is necessary for the capitalist economy to operate.
577751
First of all, Communism has never truly been achieved.  Communism is Karl Marx's idea on how to control the masses which he wrote about in his book "Communist Manifesto".  It involves everybody working for everybody, no religion, and an overall unified society.  Socialism is what was seen in the Former Soviet Union, in China now.  It involves ideas of everybody working for the whole, but is a very far cry from Communism.  To Compare to the United States: liberals and extreme leftists are socialists.
598836
DAR: Did Marx have hundreds of thousands of people killed?\n\nI think Marx would be more pleasing.
910242
My understanding (from my college days), is that communism is a political system, and socialism is an economic system.\n\nSo socialism contrasts with capitalism.\n\nOnly those of us on the very far left in the US are socialists; most democrats and liberals are not -- though some believe in SOME socialism (such as Social Security and welfare for the poor, medicare, and other things).\n\nCompared to civilized countries, we don't really have much of a left here.\n\nWell, I guess the progressives are fairly left, and that's a growing group.\n\nBut most Americans, including liberals and democrats, are capitalists, with liberals and dems having slight socialist leanings.\n\nNo democrats or liberals are communist, as far as I know.\n\nThere is a communist party in the US, but it's tiny.
92923
There may be a conflict here, however  you can not have one with out the other.  True Capitalism will only work in a true democracy.  Whenever the government steps in to control all business you will usually find one type of totalitarian government or the other running things and this takes capitalism out of the equation and make for a very dreary life for those working in that country.  Capitalism is a system of hope, if you are poor in a capitalist society you have hope of climbing out of being poor.  In a non-capitalist society if you are poor that is where you can expect to stay.
906881
The problem here is what is meant by the word 'communism'. What used to obtain in the Soviet Union had little resemblance to anything that was reflected on or seen as desirable by Marx or Engels.\n\nThis business about 'good in theory but bad in practice' is hog-wash inasmuch as the practice in Eastern Europe had little to do with the theory, if by the latter is meant the writings of Marx and Engels. Marx himself- by far the more interesting writer of the two- did not produce blue-prints of post-revolutionary society, but was indeed very clear about the evils of capitalism. These are present still, and are clearly in evidence. We live in a grossly exploitative and unequal world economy.\n\nHere it would be better to question capitalism, rather than communism!
435403
The fundamental error of communism was that it failed to recognise exactly what the human person is; any reorganisation of human society is bound to fail if there are errors in its most basic premise. Communist philosophy does not see the individual as an end in himself but merely as a component of something greater. Progress, or the raising of human happiness, cannot be attempted at the unwilling expense of the life or liberty of the individual.  Capitalism will ultimately fail for the the same reason. It will be sustained longer because it usually goes hand in hand with some kind of respect for the freedom of the human person.\n\nFinally, both are materialisms and entirely neglect the spiritual aspect of human beings. A political philosophy not grounded in a holistic anthropology is doomed from day one. Please, don't take this as a plug for any religion, but simply as something I perceive and which time alone will cofirm or negate.
526092
"By making economic success an end rather than a means to other ends, governments and people have lost sight of the fact that economic growth was supposed to have a higher purpose – stability, increased standards of living, increased social cohesion for all, without exclusion". this is the myth of Capitalism, it generates wealth but the trickle down effect is minimal, enough to prevent revolution. globalisation is capitalism on a world wide scale and once again those who have dominant control are the majority share holders. Multi nationals have major shares and ownership in national resources in different countries. like a plague they strip it of its value with little benefits to the its hosts. Marx was right in predicting the value of human labour as the new commodity.
169267
I assume you are speaking of the United States when you say "America".  If so, my answer is NO.  The U.S. has always been a capitalist government.  Since it has been capitalist from the beginning, the ethics and morals of capitalism have always been present.  The ethics and morals of capitalism are what shaped the country in the first place so they cannot be viewed as an outside force.  What has corrupted the country is the movement away from being a Christian society.  Capitalism MUST be balanced by a concern for the well being of others.  The capitalism of today is the same capitalism practiced by our forefathers, but many of today's capitalist lack any moral compass.  They are driven only by a selfish desire for profit for themselves.  They are not even concerned for their own company, just what they can take out of it.  That my friend is NOT Capitalism, that is GREED.  Many people confuse the two, but they are NOT the same.  Capitalism is a grand dream of building, greed is a sick desire to tear down for one's own gain.  Children are not taught morals or ethics in our public schools anymore.  They have been outlawed from the classroom.  The result is a generation that worships greed.  Look at the lessons taught by the top television programs like The Apprentice and Survivor.  Lie, cheat, steal and win.  Win at all cost.  Betray your friends, make false alliances, be sneaky and get the gold.  That philosophy is greed and it destroys all who buy into it.  In the final analysis what is corrupting our country is that we have elevated self gratification above all other concerns.
280924
Well, for one thing, communism is an economic system while democracy is a political system.  They are not, as most people seem to believe, opposites of each other.  It is completely feasible to have a democratically elected government that pushes a communist agenda.\n\nCommunism refers the the economic system proposed by Karl Marx in "The Communist Mannifesto".  In this system, the state controls the means of production with an equal share going to each member of society.  In theory, it's not really all that bad, but it is unworkable and forgets the people are inherantly greedy.  Communism should be compared to Capitalism, not democracy.\n\nDemocracy refers to the method of governing whereby the people choose their leaders directly.  Democracy should be compared to totalitarianism, theocracy, or other governments not chosen by the people.
1096863
piss em both off stick to the marxist ideologies \nthey are more valid and easier to write an essay on
340873
Socialism-  you own a cow, the government takes it and gives you some of the milk\n\nCommunism- you own a cow, the government takes it and shoots you for being a corrupt property owner\n\nCapitalism- you own a cow. You sell milk until you can affort to buy a bull.
37896
The quick 'n' easy way to remember the difference between Socialism and Communism is: Socialism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their DEEDS," whereas Communism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their NEEDS." \n\nSocialism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism. It builds upon the previous system (Capitalism) by nationalizing the "means of production" (i.e. corporations, resources, banks, etc.), but not by making everyone equal. In other words, people will be paid wages based on several factors (social need, difficulty, amount of schooling required, etc.), so not everyone will make the same wage -- as is often a misinterpretation of Socialism. \n\nCommunism is the point where the state "withers away." In other words, it's quite a few years in the future. If I had to guess, I'd say at least 10 generations of established Socialism has to occur before people evolve enough to realize that hurting others or the system ends up hurting themselves. \n\nAs Communists we advocate Socialism because it is the next necessary step to get to Communism. In other words, it's not that we've given up on building a house, we just realize there is a need for a sturdy foundation first. \n\nCommunists believe in human evolution. We evolve in accordance to the system we live within. Capitalism has allowed us to evolve out of our feudalistic ways (for the most part), and slavery does not exist in our country anymore (for the most part). But Capitalism, which is driven by the need to always increase profits, founders a "dog eat dog" mentality. This is not a sustainable system, either for humankind or for the environment. \n\nUnder Socialism people will evolve to the point where they care about each other regardless of their location or race or whatever. If we are to survive as a species, we need to evolve. That's one of the many reasons I'm a Communist. \n\nFinally, one misconception people often have about Communism is that we are looking to make everyone poor. On the contrary, we want everyone to enjoy as much as possible the fruits of our vast wealth.