That misery index is highly suspect.For sure Britain is more miserable than many countries above it. Why put Iran right near the top. That stinks of manoevering. Brasil is very pleased with its rate of development and on the way to becoming one of the richest in the future.
How come they are more miserable than UK?
Highly biased list. Highly suspect. Macedonia the most miserable? Really? Where is Albania- they aren't too happy either.....and not even on the list.....
"...a pure communist society would probably be the best place to live in..." - how do you mean?
I completely agree with your conclusion that human nature makes communistic societies not only improbable, but nearly impossible to conceive of working.
Well, in stateless communism there are no social classes, so there is no inequality and unfair income redistribution. There is also no government or control and that would mean total freedom for the people. When I said that it is the best place to live in, I meant it because of the equality that would be given to the citizens of such a society and the amount of freedom they would have.
Fair enough - thanks! :)
Stateless communism of course suffers from the same situation god does. It doesn't and cannot exist.
Someone must allocate the wealth that is produced, and it's not the producers; it will ultimately be some individual who gets to do that, and they--and whatever mechanism exists for selecting them--will be the de facto government.
This is a logically impossible question to answer, since in practice neither ideology can function in their purest forms. For instance, communism ignores the fact that a given population and its resources are in constant flux, and that some group of people would have to be charged with ensuring everyone in the population is given their equal share, thus providing such a group with a great deal of power over the rest of the population. Similarly, capitalism ignores the fact that those who eventually become highly successful will, by their human nature, use their accumulating resources to deny others access to them.
A better question to ask would be: "Which ideology, when used as a starting point to develop an economic system, is more successful in balancing resources with the needs of the population: capitalism or communism?" My initial hypothesis would lean toward capitalism, based on my perception that "capitalist" nations (namely, the U.S. and Western Europe) have fared much better economically than "communist" nations (namely, the former Soviet Union and North Korea). China is somewhat of an exception, but only because of its shift toward more capitalist policies. This is not to imply that "capitalist" economies have, in fact, balanced its resources with the needs of their respective populations. We can all agree this is not the case. This is simply a hypothesis rooted in initial observation (perhaps biased) and would need further research.
Edison, you turned on a helpful light: neither system will be pure and they have similarities and differences.
Analysis requires: 1) recognizing that nature is competitive, 2) survival requires cooperation, and 3) corruption happens.
Communism in the USSR failed to acknowledge competition; capitalism in the USA fails to acknowledge cooperation.
G: "Which is better?" can lead to an interesting discussion if we also ask "For whom is one or the other better?"
In America, before the Civil War, capitalism was kind to wealthy folk and unkind to working folk. Taxpayer bailouts were common.
Capitalism became so unkind to so many that the government broke up monopolies, such as John Rockefeller's Standard Oil.
Labor unions formed because owners treated employees badly. The US Supreme Court ruled labor unions illegal.
Andrew Carnegie's steel mills made him wealthy. His assistant said his favorite labor negotiating tool was a machine gun.
That's an extreme case. Employees rebelled and owners hired small private "armies" to settle the issues.
Until the 1930s, the government was all but at war with working people.
Who supported working people? American communists. American capitalists hated American communists.
Search Wikipedia on "business plot" and read of a capitalist plot to overthrow the government and install fascism.
European capitalism is kinder to working people: universal health care, family leave time, longer vacations and more.
Taxpayers continue to bail out troubled businesses.
In theory, it's better for people who are not wealthy. In practice in the world, tyrants rule.
When I was in Catholic schools, a nun said convents are communist organizations. Yet, convents have mother superiors and other nuns have to obey her. Convents were/are economically communist and politically tyrannical. For whom is convent life better?
In the Soviet Union? To create communism, Stalin killed more Soviet citizens than Hitler's armies did during WW2.
In China, after WW2 the communists defeated the warlords who had ruled. Communist rule became a tyranny and millions died.
The question remains: "For whom is capitalism or communism better?"
The problem with this question is that it assumes a polarity that does not exist in the real world. There has never been a genuinely capitalist society, nor has there ever been a genuinely communist society. All real-world economic systems involve combinations of free market elements and government regulation. Historically, many have gyrated between the two, as Will Durant once noted:
Since practical ability differs from person to person, the majority of such abilities in nearly all societies, is gathered in a minority of men. The concentration of wealth is a natural result of this concentration of ability, and regularly recurs in history. The rate of concentration varies (other factors being equal) with the economic freedom permitted by morals and the laws. Despotism may for a time retard the concentration; democracy, allowing the most liberty, accelerates it... In progressive societies the concentration may reach a point where the strength in number of the many poor rivals the strength of ability in the few rich; then the unstable equilibrium generates a critical situation, which history has diversely met by legislation redistributing wealth or revolution redistributing poverty.
Under capitalism, it was dog eat dog.
Under communism it is completely different, it is the other way around.
--old joke told in the Soviet Union.
Thank you, Steve, for adding some needed humor.
haha Nice Joke :-P