• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Socialism and Capitalism

Not open for further replies.
Which policy are you more inclined to?
Capitalism inspires competition,productivity and hence the perfection and growth of the individual so the community.But it creates selfishness.Assume if you create a machine that does every physical work how the people only know that job survive? If we consider our hard earned money should be spent for our welfare alone ...There would be a lot people dying on the streets and our money is spent on not so important activities. Wouldnt have it much value serving their thirsts rather than watching cinemas ?

Economically is it a real scenario to have an equally distributed wealth??

Please share ur ideas on this.
Which policy are you more inclined to?

Capitalism, of course!

But it creates selfishness.
Selfishness is not created by capitalism or any 'ism.' It's part of human nature.

Assume if you create a machine that does every physical work how the people only know that job survive?
I am not sure I understand your question, but let me try. If you're suggesting that due to machines, people will lose their jobs, that's totally unfounded. Au Contraire, machines create more jobs. Due to these machines, both quantity and quality of production improve greatly, due to which supply becomes readily available. Which in turn reduces prices (thanks to competition, which is due to capitalism).

This takes a heavy burden off the customer's shoulders, aside from letting the business owners make profits, portions of which can be used for further ventures, which inevitably generate hundreds of thousands of jobs. And those seeking those jobs must be highly qualified, now that we have machines to run our business, and the business owners will need qualified people to fill in such posts.

This indirectly helps in making reforms in education sector too, keeping people abreast of technological advances, thus proving that 'machines', directly and otherwise, help in all-round development of a society.

If we consider our hard earned money should be spent for our welfare alone ...There would be a lot people dying on the streets and our money is spent on not so important activities.
Even the poor can be accommodated and given help, ONLY in a society that generates wealth, or how else would you give them food, shelter, clothing, education, all of which depend on money? Naturally, only a free market enterprise works, even for the poor.

Economically is it a real scenario to have an equally distributed wealth??
The q itself contains many contradictions. First, unless there's wealth, where's the q of equitably distributing wealth? But to generate wealth, we need to depend on capitalist principles, if not, we will have to do away with private ownership of the means of production, which is the starting point in the wealth generation scheme. Fine, let's abandon it, who then owns land, labor, and capital? If it's the state, we all know how disastrous it can be, one need only look at Former Soviet Union, Vietnam, and other commie heavens.

If it's common ownership, how to set about it? There will be no concept of 'profits' in such a system, only wages for every worker. So who will distribute wages? Will everyone get equal pay? If so, the man with a degree from harvard will get as much (or as little) as the man sweeping the floor. If not, the theory of equitable distribution goes out the window.

And will this common ownership be in small groups, or will it comprise the entire nation? Evidently, it can only be the former (if at all possible!), which means many small companies will compete with each other, so you'll have an element of capitalism even in this so-called communist system. Or, if we tend to avoid this competition, not only the business but consumers (yeah, the common man) also suffer on account of the familiar equation monopoly=demand exceeds supply=rising prices. So much for common ownership!:madgrin:

There are many more problems other than this, but the point is, if communist principles can't even be applied in wealth generation, how can it help in equitable distribution, unless they're referring to an equitable distribution of poverty?!:gossip:

Last edited:
Socialism and capitalism

I remember Late Bernard Shaw's encounter with the communists. When he
entered into a discussion with them for the first time, the Marxists ridiculed
him. Shaw returned to his study room and studied the works of Karl Marx.
During the subsequent meetings, Shaw found to his utter dismay that the
Marxists have not read his works and letters, leave alone understanding

Marx's theory of surplus value attributes the surplus to the value-addition
created by labour . Marx felt that the labour must get a fair share of it and
he was against exploitation of labour by the capitalists. All along he was
talking about the negative fall-out of capitalist mode of production and he
prophesied that capitalism will fall due to the inherent contradictions.

Later, Oscar Lange and other economists paved the way for positive

Galvanised into moving by the Soviet experiment, Late Jawaharlal Nehru
and other fellow-travellers conceived the plan of the Social ownership
of the ' commanding heights of the economy '. But, as days rolled by,
some exuberant politicians created a mess of it by bringing in what
Late Rajaji called 'licence-permit raj'.

' From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs '
is Karl Marx's philosophy. If anyone is intelligent and wise, he must use
it for the benefit of society. All able-bodied men must work. And what is
more important is that everyone- weak, disabled, mentally retarded-
must be provided with the basic necessities. We cant find fault with
this noble idea.

Communism in Soviet Russia failed because of regimentation and of closed
mind. A suppressed society is more dangerous than outside enemies.

A judicious mixture of both the systems is ideal.
Dear Sri N.R. Ranganathan Ji,

A very thoughtful analysis.

Hre are my thoughts on the subject:

While Communism as espoused by Marx is the most idealized economic/political system in the world, one should not hold the notion that it simply failed because of some mis-implementation. It failed and will continue to fail because it neglects three basic rules of economy.

Firstly, the economy is mainly about growth. So, by focusing on distribution of the wealth created at the expense of market oriented growth, which is in line according to the changes in technology etc., it does not properly address this.

Secondly, it does not address the fact that charity begins at home. Each of us primarily will work first to feed our family and satisfy our perceived needs. Then comes the fact of looking at the societal welfare. Obviously, the Communist ideology does not recognize nor respect such a drive in a normal human being.

Thirdly, there is no meritocracy system, recognized in Communism. While some such regimes identified, nurtured and exploited the contributions of some of their gifted (sports, defense industry etc.), they have completely failed to benefit from the contributions of their gifted. In any society, the top 10% create and the rest benefit.

This is why this system failed. On top of it, put authoritarian regimes that skimmed off for their own benefit while suppressing the masses in the name of idealism, or whatever ism, you certainly can predict the demise of such a system.

While Capitalism has many flaws, it is the only workable system that can eradicate poverty. Given the fact that competition also requires going after good and limited available labor, the workers will automatically will be paid more. In fact, India stands to benefit in this system for many years to come.

Pandit Nehru was flatly wrong. He had a golden heart and wanted the best for India. Unfortunately he did the worst for India.

Just my opinion.

Well, Communism is a very good theory. Practically, Capitalism will win every time. Also, nature dictates only the "Survival of the fittest".

Man by nature is a capitalist. If not, IMHO, we would all still be in caves or living with our ape brothers. May be we would all be singing "Ellarum Ellamum Pera Vendum" in the ape language :) It is the urge to get more for ourselves that has made all the inventions and discoveries possible.

As George Bernard Shaw said ""Any man who is not a communist at the age of twenty is a fool. Any man who is still a communist at the age of thirty is an even bigger fool."

Not open for further replies.

Latest ads