Jump to content
Mohamed1993

Choice between communism and capitalism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Somewhere in between both. Promise the rewards of capitalism for all regardless of race, gender or religion with a strong wage and a right to an adequate living that is provided for all people in the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hasanhh said:

How is capitalism bad? l know there is craissez faire free-for-all irresponsible stuff, but what else?

Unfettered capitalism is only bad if there is also greed and a lack of compassion. 

So pretty much any time humans are involved. 

 

Communism is only bad when there is greed and lack of compassion....

 

So my vote is for neither. I think we should have a socialist safety net so everyone's got access to basic human needs, and then let the market take care of the rest. Let the rich be rich if they want, but not at the expense of everyone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, notme said:

Unfettered capitalism is only bad if there is also greed and a lack of compassion. What do you mean by "unfettered"? And l always have a 'compassion' for money.

So pretty much any time humans are involved.  There is no money with out humans. A chimp is going to sell me a banana?

 

Communism is only bad when there is greed and lack of compassion....   In American idiomatic expression: What? Gov't is gooder than baby J ?

 

So my vote is for neither. With the belief system you expressed, l do hope you do not vote at all.  :D

I think we should have a socialist safety net so everyone's got access to basic human needs, and then let the market take care of the rest. Ehhhh?

Let the rich be rich if they want, ...   :clap:

...but not at the expense of everyone else. What? Poor people go around giving their money to rich people? Rich people had something to sell.

Yarrabi. Save US from them thar tree-hugging, pinko-progressives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Yarrabi. Save US from them thar tree-hugging, pinko-progressives.

No old man, I vote. I and my generation are the now. The future is even more pink than I am. 

Why do you hate trees and progress? 

And why aren't conservatives conservationists? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, notme said:

No old man, I vote.      . :cry:"The Horror...the Horror."

 I and my generation are the now wannabes

 The future is even more pink than I am. Ahamduallah, l won't live to see such socialist charades.

Why do you hate trees and progress? Example: you cannot hate trees and progress if you are in the limber business. Dichotomies like this illustrate the pomposity of pinko-progressives.

And why aren't conservatives conservationists? Because you are mixing metaphors based on homonyms.

As l wrote before:

 

21 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Yarrabi. Save US from them thar tree-hugging, pinko-progressives.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Yarrabi, deliver us from the evils of people believing in Cold War propaganda and impeding on the right to more stable and social America.

Exactly. Them thar pinkos always take the socialist side as if gov't was created gooder than baby J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, E.L King said:

Right, and Islam does not encourage a man to rely on welfare.

Correct. But it is wajib on Muslims to feed and shelter their community's poor. I don't know if it is wajib, but I'd also feel uncomfortable being rich and knowing that my neighbor needed education or medical care and could not afford it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Exactly. Them thar pinkos always take the socialist side as if gov't was created gooder than baby J.

I've repeatedly said the government is evil, so I must not be one of those "pinkos" you refer to. I just think it's disgraceful that people are born into poverty and unable to live to their potential in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The world has a finite amount of resources. Those who make the claim that rich people getting richer makes poor people richer too are lacking in logic. Rich people getting richer makes everyone else poorer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, E.L King said:

Right, and Islam does not encourage a man to rely on welfare.

Obviously, but if a person is disabled, then I believe in an islamic country, there would be provisions to help him/her, as well as the sick who can't afford to pay for decent healthcare, as well as an orphaned child who can't afford to get an education without assistance financially. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, notme said:

I've repeatedly said the government is evil, so I must not be one of those "pinkos" you refer to. I just think it's disgraceful that people are born into poverty and unable to live to their potential in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The world has a finite amount of resources. Those who make the claim that rich people getting richer makes poor people richer too are lacking in logic. Rich people getting richer makes everyone else poorer. 

l do not agree. Many people l grew up knowing were born in the 19-teens, 20s and 30s. During the Depression, anybody who did have a little money coming-in was afraid to spend it --even on their own children. Ever hear of a "shoe-bootie"? A "bowl cut"? Sewn rags?

But what they all did have was free public education. They lived to their potentials.

So why can't "your" poor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Obviously, but if a person is disabled, then I believe in an islamic country, there would be provisions to help him/her, as well as the sick who can't afford to pay for decent healthcare, as well as an orphaned child who can't afford to get an education without assistance financially. 

What is "disabled"?

Ever read Henry Ford's jobs for the handicapped.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

I think that every system could work if there was no corruption and everybody was ethical in their life. But that simply does not exist. That's why the most important in a economical or political system is that the institutions have to be run by the most ethical people there can be. And that's where wilayat al faqih comes in. I'm not saying tell fuqaha are pure and infallible but they're the ones to be less prone to unethical behavior and actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly even if we have the most ethical people running, those institutions have to be built to work in the most efficient way possible. Here's where the smartest of us come in to play. Education is key for achieving intelligence and morals/ethics.

Basically we're living in a world run by politicians who are unethical and dumb, and that's why we still struggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Obviously, but if a person is disabled, then I believe in an islamic country, there would be provisions to help him/her, as well as the sick who can't afford to pay for decent healthcare, as well as an orphaned child who can't afford to get an education without assistance financially. 

Maybe I should have rephrased it better. If they have the ability to work, then they are expected not to rely on zakat. 

1 hour ago, notme said:

Correct. But it is wajib on Muslims to feed and shelter their community's poor. I don't know if it is wajib, but I'd also feel uncomfortable being rich and knowing that my neighbor needed education or medical care and could not afford it. 

It's not wajib in and of itself but morally incorrect to not help the poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, notme said:

I've repeatedly said the government is evil, so I must not be one of those "pinkos" you refer to. I just think it's disgraceful that people are born into poverty and unable to live to their potential in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The world has a finite amount of resources. Those who make the claim that rich people getting richer makes poor people richer too are lacking in logic. Rich people getting richer makes everyone else poorer. 

Question is: how should these finite resources be distributed to ensure everyone has their faire share? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pearl178 said:

Question is: how should these finite resources be distributed to ensure everyone has their faire share? 

When creating an institution of government, three things should be considered: The institution has to work effectively and efficiently, the institution has to work ethically, and the there can be no flaws in the institutions that would lead to corruption or unethical behavior. Let's not forget that besides being "evil", governments are often poorly and stupidly made(see the West).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pearl178 said:

Question is: how should these finite resources be distributed to ensure everyone has their faire share? 

I'm in favor of using tax money to give a universal basic income, but I don't know how to deal with caregivers who will abuse their position and steal from their own children or disabled family members. Maybe instead of income, we should institute a program of universal basic resources: each person is given an allotment for food, housing, transportation. Everyone has access to education and necessary medical care. 

With a social safety net in place, we can eliminate the federal minimum wage entirely, which will help businesses. Additionally, if businesses don't have to pay for health insurance, they can create more work. 

So what I'm in favor of is heavy taxation on wealthy individuals and large businesses, moderate taxation on everyone else, and wise use of resources to provide a secure safety net. After basic needs have been met, let capitalism run its course. 

Workers who are not enslaved to their jobs by economy will do better work. Universal access to education and health care will produce a more educated, healthier, and more stable workforce. 

As for which resources are a necessity, that's going to change over time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly believe that goal of taxation is to minimize taxation in the future. The goal is to use the tax money in projects that would benefit everybody which would lead the society into prosperity and taxes won't be needed as much because the market is going to fix itself. All this if people respect the values and morals of the nation of course, otherwise heavy taxation is the only way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2017 at 3:33 AM, E.L King said:

So you wouldn't call 19th Century America the most capitalist society since the industrial era?

It depends, most of US growth has been driven by heavy state involvement and highly protectionist policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • «ظَهَرَ ٱلْفَسَادُ فِي ٱلْبَرِّ وَٱلْبَحْرِ ¨ahara alfas¡du filbarri walba¦ri “Corruption has appeared in the land and the sea بِمَا كَسَبَتْ ايْدِي ٱلنَّاسِ.» bim¡ kasabat ayd¢ alnn¡si on account of what the hands of men have wrought.” فَاظْهِرِ ٱللَّهُمَّ لَنَا وَلِيَّكَ fa'a¨hir all¡humma lan¡ waliyyaka So, O Allah, (please) show us Your vicegerent,   http://www.duas.org/ahad.htm
    • Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5108651/American-mercenaries-torturing-Saudi-princes.html#ixzz4zFCVug9P 
        This may or may not be true. But I think it does make sense that the initial round-up of the billionaires was done by a foreign agency and not Saudis. The simple reason being that if Saudis had been involved someone would have tipped off the currents guests of the Carlton Ritz. IMHO.
    • We human beings are open systems, we need continuous interaction with environment to survive. The environment of space is not suitable for us, hence it seems impossible that we would evolve such organs which help us to survive up there. We are built to live on earth, that is the truth, we must remember that fact. And we should also remember the fact that everything has a fate, including this whole universe. So if we start planning to leave earth now, we would need to plan to leave the milky way galaxy afterwards.... 

        
    • I personally dont own a car. I have a driving licence but I am not brave enough to drive. When I took part in driving classes I really liked driving and I thought that my driving was very good but when the instructor told me that I was not good in half-clutch driving, I somewhat lost my confidence. Even once I got in my father's car and started driving but I forgot to release the parking brake and so I drove with much difficulty because the brake was unreleased. Then when I returned and parked the car, I found out my mistake!
    • SCIENCE alone is insufficient.
      It can only determine truth in the Physical. It can only determine truth about an observable phenomenon. But with SCIENCE came Technology. Technology has made it so easy to look up information that there is no reason to think or have to do work. There is no emphasis on REASON anymore! We are becoming slaves to the materialistic system.  But Pure Reason is also insufficient. 
      Aristotle was one of the great champions of pure reason in ancient Greece. He believed heavy objects fall faster than light ones. And since Aristotle believed it and Aristotle was an authority on such matters, it remained the accepted wisdom for over a thousand years until Galileo decided to test the proposition. 
      As it turns out, heavy objects fall at the same rate as light objects (discounting wind resistance). So Aristotle was wrong and it took a single well designed experiment to overturn a thousand years of received wisdom.  Every object on this planet, independent of size, experiences the same (Constant acceleration) gravitational acceleration so all falling objects have the same acceleration.  That is what Galileo did. That was the part that was missing from pure reason. That is the part that science adds. 
      *
×