Question:
Is the only alternative to capitalism communism?
2006-10-06 01:49:52 UTC
Is the only alternative to capitalism communism?
Fourteen answers:
RIDLEY
2006-10-06 01:52:22 UTC
Anarchy. Socialism. Military dictatorship. Here is a website that might help.
joey
2006-10-06 02:47:59 UTC
The problems normally associated with capitalism are not in anyway connected to capitalism per-se.

Capitalism merely advocates the use of money as a means of exchange

It also advocates that something belonging to you cannot be taken without your consent, and that no force can be used to get that consent by either the state or another individual

Capitalism is not a political system - the political system is democracy

The question should have been - Is the only alternative to democracy communism? where the Party and the intellectuals decide - instead of the stupid masses.

Capitalism in its pure form does not recognize any kinds of discrimination based on sex, religion,regioon, or laguage, the only fare of exchange recognised by capitalism is mutual consent

Most of the evils associated conveniently with capitalism has their roots in the dilution of capitalism with

fuedelistic

fascist

religious

regionalistic

socialistic or

communist principles
GypsyGr-ranny
2006-10-06 02:15:52 UTC
No.



The alternative to Capitalism, Communism and Socialism is the Baha'i Faith.



The Baha'i Faith teaches that there is both bad and good in all three systems. Baha'u'llah gave mankind a blueprint for world government which functions on a local, national and international level. Baha'is believe this is a God-given model. It includes the best aspects of Capitalism, Communism and Socialism, and excludes the worst aspects of all three.



This system has been uniting the nations, races and religions of the world since 1844. It has been functioning on a local, national and international level, including peoples of all of the nations, races and religions.



It is stated in the Baha'i Writings that the three cancers eating at the vitals of society are communism, nationalism and racism.
axel_jose187
2006-10-06 02:03:26 UTC
Capitalism is an economic philosophy, the same as communism. Democracy is a form of rule, and so is dictatorship.

You can have a communist democracy (Chile, 1970s),

and a capitalist dictatorship (El Salvador, present).

But to answer your question....NO.

There are other alternatives, although not as common as the ones mentioned above.

Check the link below for more info.
TrueSoul
2006-10-06 06:14:51 UTC
Hell no. Not everything in life is white or black, try gray sometime. I live in a central European country with a pure democracy (not represantive democracy like in the USA). Citizens get to vote in referendums in local issues like every 3 months, taxes are relatively low, farmers are subsidize and there is a good social net to catch those in down times, so there are no homeless, for example. Yes, no homeless. You must purchase health insurance, its the law, but the govt oversees that coverage is reasonable and fair, and so is the cost. The cost of living is high but so are the salaries. If you are smart enough, you can afford to go to university or be trained in a profession. You dont need to take out student loans that will burden you for the next 20 yrs like I had to do. Its a socialist democracy and I am happy my son will have a better quality of life here than I did in the USA! Did I mention low crime rate, no death penalty, civil liberties and the government is not spying on my telephone conversations?
rmagedon
2006-10-06 07:55:28 UTC
Considering that socialism is diametrically opposed to capitalism, and never confuse the fact that communism and socialism are one and the same, then I would to say through research and logic, that yes the only alternative to a free market would be socialism/communism.
sangheilizim
2006-10-06 01:54:25 UTC
No. Communism, the one you know is actually Bolshevikism. A dictatorship. Another form of communism is that of democracy. There are various forms of socialism available as well, a milder form of communism. There is also state-controlled capitalism, where the state owns the corporations, and is for non-profit.
?
2016-12-04 13:06:30 UTC
I agree. i imagine communism is a extra perfect option to capitalism yet to ensure that it to paintings they total international might want to ought to develop into communist. also individuals are grasping. Communism works preectly in idea yet no longer so properly in peactis. No united states has yet performed an complete communist way of existence, they have in elementary words been socialist. i imagine that the western concern Of communism and propaganda to teach it as some evil way of existence is ridiculous. i for my section might want to a lot fairly stay in a communist surroundings.
Orditz
2006-10-06 02:37:47 UTC
Libertarian socialism and Anarcho-syndicalism:

"Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labour movement. Syndicalisme is a French word meaning "trade unionism" – hence, the "syndicalism" qualification. Anarcho-syndicalists view labour unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the State with a new society democratically self-managed by workers. Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system and private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions."
Mr. Wizard
2006-10-06 01:53:36 UTC
NO. History's shown us communism doesn't work; it was rife with corruption and ineptness. Capitalism boasts having both in it's governmental ranks, too. However, between the two: capitalism DOES seem to work better, albeit not so well for many of us commoner worker folks.
2006-10-06 04:20:29 UTC
There is always feudalism and there are barter systems that can be imposed. Capitalism is the best system - its people who are corrupt that ruin things - not the system. Communism is utopian at best.
2006-10-06 03:04:03 UTC
no - the alternative is capitalism with justice, ie limitation of fortunes as the founding fathers aimed for



capitalism + justice = plenty and peace



how can anyone say that fortnightly pay from $1 to $1 billion is just, is not theft?



1% get 90% of world income - US$70 trillion a year - madness!!



why dont people understand that limitless overpay like this means limitless underpay limitless violence?



it is quite clear and certain that there are legal thefts in present capitalism, ie that a person can legally get for more than they earn



50 hours x 50 weeks x 50 years x world av hourly pay, minus a minimum lifetime's spending [say US$15,000 a year] is only US$1 million - who would be able to justify fortunes 50,000 times this? - i think it would be good to shift the need for justification onto the holders of superfortunes



say: you can have your superfortune if you can show that you have a right to it in justice - otherwise the excess goes back in the pot



it amazes me that people have not said: enough - long ago - what will it take to get everyone to say: enough? - when pay per fortnight ranges from 1c to $1 trillion?



it amazes me that people havent said: even disregarding the issue of justice, we cannot afford to let so much power reside in the hands of so few - democracy cannot survive this - the state cannot survive this -



it amazes me that people have not 'got' that the violence [war and crime] is caused by the injustice



it amazes me that people can argue that taking money off the superoverpaid would be theft, would be invasion of rights, would be oppressive, would be wrong -



all the arguments for higher than average hourly pay [income, increase of fortune] [provided you pay tertiary students for studying, which is just] are bogus, false, full of holes, just plain wrong



people seem to have the woolliest notions of justice - people dont even know when they are ripped off - 99% of people are paid less than the average



why dont people feel mad when they think that their equal, working no harder, is paid [ie, fortune increase] up to a million times the average hourly pay?



and why dont people worry that having 90% of people on 10th - 1000th of world average hourly pay is a cause of violence? - can they not imagine how they would feel if they were on a 10 - 1000th of average?



does greed blind them to reality?



why arent the 99% who would be better off financially with reduced overpay and underpay demanding it? - are the 99% the opposite of greedy?



why cant people see the connection between violence [war and crime] and super overpay and super underpay?



communism is the most extreme injustice - taking everything off everyone and giving it to the state ie to the party ie to the top person



capitalism, with its uncontrolled concentrating of wealth, is nearly as bad: 1% get 90% of world income



the alternative to both is capitalism with limitation of fortunes to the just maximum, so no one is taking out more than they put in, and using the power of that to tyrannise ans steal even more, and so no one is getting out less than they put in, and so being slaves and highly p*ssed off and desperately trying to get a fairshare, or just more



with violence war and weaponry escalating to nuclear extinction for all



people are so intelligent but so dumb



mentally handicapped by a number of things - denial [pleasure principle, head in sand], seeing small, seeing only in black and white, custom and convention, etc



see my other answers to similar questions if you want to see what sanity looks like
willibwa
2006-10-06 01:58:27 UTC
What about the feudal system.
survival_paul
2006-10-06 01:52:40 UTC
socialism

marxism



there are loads of ism's


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...