Debate: WHATS BETTER CAPITILISM OR COMMUNISM
Side: CCCP workers & peasants party

I can repost with boldings of what I've replying to if you'll prefer. If oil ran out tomorrow, the barriers to entry of green energy would drop dramatically, if the social results of such a thing weren't too bad, then you would see an increase in the amount of small businesses and the some of the old oil and large green energy firms from the past would likely buy up a lot of them. Large companies tend to invent and change slowly. Yet they dominate the market, and make it difficult for small innovative firms to start up. If oil ran out tomorrow,and shortly after we had a green energy society then yes the resiliency of capitalism would be shown, as would how it withholds technological improvement.People immigrant for economic and political reasons, their arrival in large numbers will cause political and economic changes, those changes are a result of how capitalism responds to immigration. A different response could of theoretically of been observed under another system. Its like blaming the out put of some circuit solely on the input of it, and not considering the circuity between the ports. Why was it such a dangerous time to be an unskilled worker? was it because capitalism puts little value on health under certain conditions, once conditions change and people organize against previous conditions(thus changing them, perhaps by government regulation) it does stop being profitable to run an unsafe factory but that is only true under certain conditions. (else, why was there unsafe factories to begin with?)Further more, most businesses will be started by the son's of European immigrants since European immigrants were the majority, weren't discriminated against, etc. These will tend to be the lucky ones, since their peers and most of their peer's fathers were too busy providing the basics to save. Most people today are laborers due to the economic system they are in, not everyone can own a business. Really, we're only a few technological leaps away from assembling a car quite differently then they are now. Open-source is one of the needed technological leaps, in a few hundred years every one could very well have their own energy plant(advancements in green energy will allow for this), manufacturing plant( Advancements in maker-bots and Reprap tech will allow for this), and green house for food, wood and plastics.(bio tech and previously mentioned advancements will allow for this) Once that is accomplished, a car can have its plastics grown for free, parts made for free, assembled for free, etc. All that would be required is the right technologically advance base, and the super structure arising from that would be very communistic. A lot of people try to imagine communism from the current base, and it is then that it seems an impossible pipe dream.Communism isn't so much the answer, as it is the result of them. I imagine drive-thrus won't exist in the future, because people won't find much utility in them.Yes cars cost more, because the unsafe inefficient ones reliant on old technology can't be sold now. The question is, if they could of always been sold, would that advance technology which superseded the old of developed as fast(if at all)?Your describing situations after unions are needed. Unions are needed for when workers are tired of working next to 12 year olds and watching them lose fingers, of when they are tired of seeing the company make large profits while finding it difficult to take care of their family despite working for them most of their life.Does it have to be a particular union, if not he might be able to make his own; depends on what the state thinks apparently(maybe the rest of your family could make a "union")I'll leave fair tax, education privatization and so forth for another debate.The "government" is actually pretty small in a communist society(or even "non-existent"), it might be large under socialism though. Communist understand that government can be used as a tool for rapid change and to sustain a level of living conditions in periods and conditions where capitalism may not regard them highly. There are limits on regulation, and for each regulator a new regulator needs to be to watch them( and thus inefficiency, but some can be better than none if done right). Your right, communism can only work in terms of the community, and your right the government can't be too authoritarian, and so forth. Communities are the result of the material conditions they live under, and in the future you will see a radically different community if we can get the base, technology right. Considering current trends(which are yes a result of capitalism in some aspects) then we should have that base in a few hundred years. That was an interesting article, but despite its intentions it appears to support good regulation over bad or no regulation, that a combination of bad regulation with no-regulation is well, bad. Would we of seen the same results due to only the bad regulation, if de-regulation wouldn't of happened? Surely, some of the happenings in the financial sector would of been quite different. schemers and sharks can only be sued in a court of law, ie where there is some sort of regulation.Capitalism may be dependent on consumers, but suppliers are a major force with in it. For example, I would buy a green nerd energy drink weekly if it was supplied again to my area, instead I must buy an alternative, or pay a substantial sum at once for a large amount of them online which I know would be drank by my family, friends and me with in two or 3 weeks.