Capitalism VS Communism

[MorpheusSandman]

The only difference in my surmise
Capitalism assumes people are equals
And allows them to prove otherwise
Communism forces people to be equals
And watches them prove otherwise

(My least poetic and most political poem ever - more an exercise in rhetoric than anything; probably a one-off)

[free]

Nicely put together for reading, and interesting for discussing.

[blank|verse]

I would agree with your honest summation - and with your generous comments on others' work, you're making it difficult to be too critical!

It's an interesting seed of a poem though, and perhaps one you should work on, because there's a thoughtful political-philosophical position being expressed; I think it's just a case of finding a poetic way of expressing it. There's something in the balance and 'equality' of the lines, though.

Maybe you could do a 'commentary on the 20th century'-type poem, with a comparison of political systems somehow built in - a sonnet, of course! Does that sound easy enough??

I'm not sure I agree that capitalism 'assumes people are equals...' - I'd say that it knows people are different and forces them into a system which exaggerates the inequalities between them. But that doesn't scan as well!

[tailor STATELY]

Maybe if you crafted the first line "The only difference is" into a more poetic style rather than a statement.

Just a thought and a bit'o poetic license:

But a subtle difference to my surprise
Where communism forces people to be equals
sadly watching them prove otherwise
Capitalism assumes people are equals
yet allows them to prove they're wise

[PrinceMyshkin]

Hmm. May I suggest a revision (no more poetic than the original)?

The only difference is
Capitalism assumes people will believe
Anything they're told often enough.
Communism assumes people are no better
And far less powerful than their leaders.

[tailor STATELY]

The only difference is
Capitalism assumes people will believe
Anything they're told often enough.
Communism assumes people are no better
And far less powerful than their leaders.

Lol, too true.

[paperleaves]

I LOVE THIS. It is so honest, and real, and....dare I say it?
............true!

I'm in an honors sociology class right now, and this brings to mind a quote from our supplementary reading about how reality is what we choose to believe as the truth, moulded by social factors (C. Wright Mills' "The Sociological Imagination will explain in more depth)...but fundamentally, we are all human and that is all that poetry is! Poetry is being human, there is a poem in everything we say and do, and although I'm rambling, I hope you see this as a compliment.


Pardon the tired ramblings,
love,
Kate

[MorpheusSandman]

I love all of the comments so far; thanks to free, tailor, Prince, blnk vrz and paper. I think my own disinterest in politics is reflected in the laziness of turning this into something more... poetic. I would really file this under an exercise in rhetoric opposed to poetry - not that the two are mutually exclusive, since much of Shakespeare's poetic power comes from his mastery of rhetoric - and would probably fit better in a short story or some kind of more elaborate poem but I'm not sure if I care enough to pursue it.

@tailor: Actually, you did give me an idea of how to make this more poetic. I might work on it a bit; but thanks for the idea!

@ blnk vrz; Especial thanks for the thoughtful criticism. Here's my reply:


with your generous comments on others' work, you're making it difficult to be too critical!Don't ever worry about this! I find constructive criticism much more helpful than simple praise because I'm not really looking to boost my ego but to sharpen my poetic skills and I can't do that if I'm lead to believe everything I do is 'teh awesome'. :)


There's something in the balance and 'equality' of the lines, though.That's the rhetorical aspect. I really should get a good book on rhetoric because even what little I've read of it in Shakespearean analysis I've found fascinating. Repetition and balance are two of the main features of a lot of rhetoric.


Maybe you could do a 'commentary on the 20th century'-type poem, with a comparison of political systems somehow built in - a sonnet, of course! Does that sound easy enough??I think if I found the commentary/concept more interesting myself I probably would but I think I'm going to have a hard time getting motivated. I might rework it merely as a poetic exercise but, as I said, I have little interest in politics but this idea came to me and I thought it was worth writing down.


I'm not sure I agree that capitalism 'assumes people are equals...' -My thought there was the idea of America being "the land of equal opportunity", but there's also a certain amount of irony because while Capitalism may begin with equals it quickly creates a system of inequality where those "on top" have the means to keep it in there favor at the expense of those "on the bottom" and even "in the middle".

[PrinceMyshkin]

I love all of the comments so far; thanks to free, tailor, Prince, blnk vrz and paper. I think my own disinterest in politics is reflected in the laziness of turning this into something more... poetic. I would really file this under an exercise in rhetoric opposed to poetry

"Out of our quarrels with others we make rhetoric. Out of our quarrels with ourselves we make poetry"
W.B. Guess-who?

[blazeofglory]

The only difference in my surmise
Capitalism assumes people are equals
And allows them to prove otherwise
Communism forces people to be equals
And watches them prove otherwise

(My least poetic and most political poem ever - more an exercise in rhetoric than anything; probably a one-off)

This proves the craftsmanship of the poet. A poem can transcend a limit on him or her and can make anything inclusive.

Of course philosophical or political issues and theories can be woven into wonderful poems and all that demands of a poet is sheer skill and the poet here has it and perfected this art.

[ennison]

Neat. But "watches" suggests a disinterested observer, something the atheists of the communist states are never inclined to be.

[JackieGinger]

It's excellent, he only thing I'd say is what's up with the title?
Is it capit vs commun?
If it is so, I think, don't be offended, but it seems a bit commercial...in contrast with the poem. My opinion!

[MorpheusSandman]

"Out of our quarrels with others we make rhetoric. Out of our quarrels with ourselves we make poetry"
W.B. Guess-who?Ooh, I love that quote. Me thinks I'll steal it in the future. But, really, maybe poetry and rhetoric are both at their best when they're married rather than when they're quarreling and separated; don't ya think?


Is it capit vs commun?
If it is so, I think, don't be offended, but it seems a bit commercial...in contrast with the poem. My opinion!I'm not sure what you mean, Jackie...

[JackieGinger]

I'm not sure what you mean, Jackie...

I mean that the title seems a bit cheap, like the title of an article in a cheap newspaper, but hey, feel free not to agree with me ;)
So I mean that the poem itself is very much of the opposite in style comparing to the title!

[MorpheusSandman]

Aha, I get your meaning. I would probably agree. Though, now that I think about it, I kinda like the ironic contrast between them... Do you have another suggestion for a better title?

[firefangled]

Morpheus, first Prince and now you for providing such thought provoking poems. There is some poetic value in this in the balance of the line endings. So, it is a poem, or as blnk_vrz said a good seed. The music is off, but then you admitted that up front.

The commentary and your responses are excellent. My personal opinion is that "equal" is too generalized here for poem or socioeconomic statement. It depends, as you indicated, if you are speaking of human equality, spiritual, social, economic, or political equality. Capitalism insists people can't be equal, and in that insistence lies its doom some day (as it currently operates). One would have to say Communism (are we talking Marxism or its bastardization), in its pure form, realizes that eventually all people will need (have) to be equal.

Stanley Aronowitz addresses this in his writing from just about every direction, social structure, working class paradigms, education. He is an very interesting thinker and writer. Also, both deceased, Harry Braverman and Michael Harrington (Twilight of Capitalism, The Other America).

I appreciate your thinking and poetry on this site very much.

[Dinkleberry2010]

There are many writers who have stated that capitalism is dying or is already dead, and there are many who have stated that communism is dying or is already dead. History will decide.

[MorpheusSandman]

GK Chesterton foretold the downfall of capitalism and communism a century ago; I think, looking at the world, he was probably right.


My personal opinion is that "equal" is too generalized here for poem or socioeconomic statement. It depends, as you indicated, if you are speaking of human equality, spiritual, social, economic, or political equality. Capitalism insists people can't be equal, and in that insistence lies its doom some day (as it currently operates). One would have to say Communism (are we talking Marxism or its bastardization), in its pure form, realizes that eventually all people will need (have) to be equal.First, thanks for the kind comments fire.

As for this quote, here's my own political interpretation on the matter (though definitely note I wrote the piece to very much BE ambiguous so as not to force my own opinions on the reader):The reason I used equal is precisely because of its ambiguity. It has an irony in its application to my Capitalist verse the same way it has a literalness to my Communist verse. Capitalism begins with a level playing field; everyone is free to go out and make their fortune; "the land of opportunity" and all that. But over time Capitalism creates such inherent inequality and a hogging of resources that that once equal opportunity no longer exists. It isn't merely the nepotism of the rich VS the poverty that the offspring of the poor must overcome but an entire social structure that's controlled by the rich intent on hoarding what they have and not allowing anyone else to enter that realms. So while Capitalism starts with and assumes equality and "allows" people to prove otherwise it just as quickly begins to force inequality. Almost the exact reverse is true of Communism. Perhaps my point is that while people are unequal on any number of levels (intelligence, work ethic, qualifications, natural gifts/abilities, etc.) they are also equal on just as many. So it seems that any system which assumes or forces equality or inequality is inherently damaging to humans over the long run. I've often wondered if there's any system of balance between the two extremes.

[paperleaves]

How coincidental it is, Morpheus, that you post your explanation at such a perfect time--I have been having a discussion about this with a few of my colleagues on the university forum--and I just used your poem as a springboard for ideas! (With proper credit and approval, naturally) but it has been the perfect complement to our discussion and I can't wait to share with you what we come up with!

regardless, this is still such a provoking poem! love it :)

love
paper

[JackieGinger]

Morpheus: can not really come up w a title, it is your poem. Though I might tend to agree that it is good if we take it ironically.
Oh, and the poem, as I said, is excellent, its title is much less important...