Topic: Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here. - page 15. (Read 21361 times)

Shrewd political leaders wanted to come to power by making fool of innocent masses of countries.  They showed golden shining dreams to the people. And came to power calling it socialism.  People were optimistic of getting better standard of living.  But their independence was snatched from them.  Freedom was just a dream for them.  They were exploited financially; politically and religious freedom was also no more with them.  Russia is the biggest example of ex socialism / communism.  People were so much tortured and exploited that there was a big revolution against the governments.  People threw communists out of power.  Now they (citizens) are breathing in independent atmosphere.

Capitalism on the other  hand gives much freedom to live the life.  People are free to do business; service; industry; agriculture etc.  But under this type of rule there are chances of a big gap between the rich and the poor.  This gap increases.   Small fish is prey to the big one. So I think there need to be some government intervention. 
Poor people  are mostly helped with the taxes received from rich people.  But justice also needs to be done while taxing the rich.  It should be ensured that poor do not become habitual of getting free bread and butter and intentionally not working despite there being chances of employment.  (because they are getting free). 
Justice is possible in capitalism; almost impossible in socialism.

the movie 'sorry to bother you' is very interesting in trying to address  how capitalism affects us.

Coins4commies, I have to say you are like a walking Communist cliche. It would be hilarious if the results of this moronic ideology didn't seem so helpful on the surface and result in such hell on Earth any time an attempt is made to implement it.

Yes the capitalist class owns the means of production as well as the time of the working class.  The working class is forced by coercion to sell their labor to the capitalist class or probably die.  Most people don't have time to go start a business as missing their next paycheck means their family doesn't eat.    No one is attempting to attack you as a person or take your accomplishments away but you are speaking from a position of privilege.  You say you are in a class of your own and perhaps that is due to your exceptional talent or prowess in a certain area that allowed you to defy the general trends of the system to break into the capitalist class.  Socialists just think freedom shouldn't be limited just to those with exceptional talent but should be available to all workers.

I wasn't talking about the Spanish government.  I was clearly talking about Mondragon corporation.  Why do you insist on diverting the conversation away from economics and into government control?  Probably because state socialism is the only thing you are prepared to refute even though NO ONE IS ADVOCATING IT.  

Today's socialist believes in empowering the people to organize their labor democratically (see Marcora laws) so it turns out we are getting somewhere because beneath all of the layers, your ideals may actually be socialist or compatible with socialism. Especially the bolded quote.
Check your privilege because most workers under capitalism do not have that luxury and they have no say in their working conditions.  Its either sell your labor to this capitalist on their conditions, sell your labor to that capitalist on their conditions, or starve.   You are making this all about you which is causing you to view the system with position bias.  Lets try to focus on everyone involved in the economic system.  Of course switching to socialism would not advance the ~10% of people who are in the capitalist class.

Please point it out then.  I'm here to have an open discussion with people from diverse backgrounds and belief systems.  I'm not here to call anyone names but simply to learn more about how people digest ideas.  I am a scientist and always approach things with an open-mind.  Thats the only way I could become a socialist coming from a capitalist, christian, wealthy household.  


Its all evidence based.  I'm simply trying to solve the problems of modern capitalism and the examples of solutions have been presented (worker cooperatives), so I'm not going to let 30 years of people telling me socialism is the boogeyman override the actual theory and practice.  If someone presents an alternative solution to the problems I seek to solve, I will apply design thinking and do my best to evaluate them appropriately.

An example of my flexibility is the fact that as a socialist, I am open to welfare capitalism as an alternative solution.  It doesn't seem as ideal as socialism but seems to be working pretty well in Scandanavia so I am open to it. Are you?

Capitalist class?  So now it's a CLASS?  Typical commie double-speak.  I've started and sold two businesses in my life, one I started with $300.  I'm an immigrant in this country, not a member of any CLASS!  I'm in a class of my own!



Spain isn't socialist or communist, that's why there are corporations there.  In a free market a corporation can organize itself in anyway it sees fit.  I've worked for an ESOP, I've got nothing against people making their own choices, that's why I choose freedom.



That is the most foolish thing I've ever heard.  I work for a multinational corporation and I have great working conditions.  Keep spreading your lies, maybe the gullible and inexperienced will fall for your scam.

The irony of your post is palpable.  There's so much that supports my argument and contradicts your own.  You seem to be so steadfast in your beliefs, almost like a religious fervor.

Marxism/Socialism/Communism exists simply to give a pretty utopian coat over the shearing of the sheep so they don't struggle too much as they are lead to slaughter to make room for the next herd.

Baseless claims that are simply being regurgitated by bootlickers.  At no point, have you even attempted to draw a connection between socialism and these claims.  I can address each to support the claim that socialism enhances all of them.

Entrepreneurship
Capitalism limits business ownership to the capitalist class that makes up a small percentage of the population while socialism provides all workers the opportunity to be entrepreneurs.  For example, Marcora law In Italy allows for unemployment to be used as a lump sum of capital to start a business and now over 30% of the population in the Bologna region work in cooperatives.  

Innovation
Mondragon corporation is a worker cooperative in Spain.  They are a very innovative company with their own R&D program.  Microsoft and GM have leased space in their R&D labs because the socialist culture of the company is so incredibly productive and innovative.

Motivation
It is absurd to suggest workers would be more motivated to take orders in poor working conditions just  to fill the pockets of someone they don’t even know.  Of course motivation would be much higher in a democratic work environment where the worker benefits directly from the fruit of their labor.  It should be obvious that people take much more pride in working for a company they own.  

Education
Do you really think for-profit education is the way to go?  Capitalist schools are in the minority, but Pheonix strayer Capella and Devry all have poor reputations while publicly owned and non-profit schools are well-respected.

Its the definition I prefer because its the definition.  You can't just change the definition because some bad people long ago called themselves communists. We are talking about economic theory not a label you get to place on historical events. Communism is the end goal but is not something that could work without a very long transition period of socialism.  Its so far off into the future that the details are not really worth discussing in 2018.  No one who grew up in capitalism could ever be capable of comprehending how a communist society would work.  We have been conditioned to think about things in terms of money and authority in terms of state.  We should only be discussing socialism first.

You are asking about "state socialism" which means the state owns the means of production "on behalf of the people".  Its a tired strawman because everyone is already against an entire country's government being one big socialist enterprise.  As a socialist and political organizer, I have never come across anyone who advocates for a move to "state socialism".  "State socialism" is a perversion of socialism because it simply replaces capitalists with government officials and can never transition to communism.

Sure, state socialism has had some successes that capitalism could never achieve, but no one would actually advocate for it for all of the reasons you guys have listed.  Lets drop the tired argument against "state socialism" (since no one is advocating for it) and get back on the topic with discussion about actual socialism.  The definitions bolded above should make the distinction easy for those of you who have never seen them.

there is no vs. if you do too much capitalism, people will be forced to live like robots and decentralise the capitalist system, if you do to much socialism the socialist system gets abused by capitalists,

there is always a balance between both

I think you bring up a good point here. The only way to bring about total equality is to take everyone's finances, beauty, intelligence, etc. and bring them down to the lowest common denominator.

That's a good one.


I have one thing to ask those who support socialism or communism. Name one country that managed to be ruled in true socialism or communism for at least 50 years and came to prosper under it. I can name at least 20 that turned into poor shitholes where people were struggling to buy food. Socialist states operate so much worse than capitalist ones that after some time they're always forced to stop people from moving money abroad, working abroad, and so on.

Socialism is akin to democracy in the work place, in my eyes.

The major flaw of socialism in the past, was the requirement for it to be centralized. Capitalism has always been decentralized (except for the entity issuing the monetary currency).

Overall, I think in the future, socialism can come back as we enter the information era. To track a shirt from sheep to sale would have been impossible 100 years ago. Now, it's just a few cameras, a few algorithms, and a beefy distributed database.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OutDikuUBs

They both have their good and bad qualities. I think that capitalism represents man's true desire, which is to strive for power at all costs, whereas socialism represents idealistic (and unrealistic) values. In an ideal world, we could feel as though we had power while at the same time having equality and opportunity for all. This, I think, is the ultimate aim of technology and will become our reality as life becomes increasingly digitized.

A wonderful set of Utopian ideals that are completely in conflict with human nature.  And fortunately so.  Your argument will eventually lead us to discuss greed, and you will argue that it brings out the worst of human aggression.  While that's true, one can also argue that we only have the quality of life we enjoy today due to the greed of others.

Casualties of socialism include entrepreneurship, innovation, motivation, and education.  It's just a matter of time before laziness takes hold, and a scammer assumes all power through deception.
  

It's not strange at all if you've studied history.  Just because the definition you prefer includes the word statelessness that doesn't make communism or socialism any more practical.  Really, how would that work?

Even in a small community there will always be somebody more attractive than you, more charming than you, stronger, smarter, or simply more convincing than you.  Willingly or unwilling that person will have more influence on your neighbors than you, and their ideals will become more valuable to the community than yours.  It's human nature.  It's MOB RULE.

No thank you.  I prefer freedom.

When you see people define socialism and communism everything bad that has been done by "communist" parties throughout history, then it starts to make sense why people hate it and are afraid of it.  ALL of the criticism thus far is criticism of state capitalism.

State Capitalism- a form of capitalism in which the central government controls most of the capital, industry, natural resources, etc.

If you actually use the real definitions and vast amounts of economic theory to properly define socialism and communism, you would end up with something most ethically operating humans agree with.  

This widespread misconception isn't an accident though.  In order to perpetuate an archaic system of capitalism, its necessary to muddy the water around the systems designed as an evolution of capitalism.  

Lets start to sort things out so people can see that they have the definitions all wrong.

Socialism-  a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Socialists are simply trying to put the means of production into the hands of the people and asserting that it should be democratically controlled.  "State socialists" such as the USSR perverted the ideology because they simply replaced capitalists with government officials instead of the actual workers. Soviet officials didn't bring workers to the table to make decisions.  It was top down and authoritarian.  State capitalism would be the best way to describe most of the societies you think were socialist. Worker cooperatives such as mondragon are the best examples of actual socialism.  

Communism: A term describing a stateless, classless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production
If the entire economy was socialist, over time, you would not need a state as all production is democratically controled by the workers, people live in complete liberty, and there is no class struggle.   Equality does not mean that everyone makes the same amount of money or gets the same amount of goods, it simply means equality in a democratic sense.  No one person has power over the masses.  In terms of company decisions, 1 person=1 vote.  


Kind of strange how anyone could associate an authoritarian state with communism when statelessness one of the key characteristics communism.


One of the driving factors is that political parties have identified themselves as communist and ran totalitarian regimes.  These authoritarian regimes of the past do not represent hundreds of years of economic theory in the same way that someone who calls themselves muslim or christian committing an act of terror does not mean their actions represent the ideology as a whole.  

Apart from all the ideological deficiencies of socialism; practically speaking, it means endless waiting in queues, petty bribery, and perpetual corruption. Socialism also fosters a culture of corruption that saps the moral character of the youth. Most importantly, socialism breeds the "welfare queen" temperament, where everyone feels the government is taking care, so nobody does any work; and there is inefficiency and breakdown everywhere. Finally, the "guaranteed job" feature of socialism prevents individual initiative and fosters mediocrity. The mass of indolent socialists rudely suppress the few sparks of efficiency in their midst that seek to excel, driven by their inner spirit.

Some people point out the success of Scandinavian countries in running an efficient socialist polity, and also Great Britain and Canada for their National Health Service (NHS). But, the Scandinavian countries are all founded in an ancient Christian culture that is conducive to fostering socialism, they all have a homogenous ethnicity, and are small states that can be easily governed. Likewise, Britain and Canada too have an ancient Christian culture, and a more or less homogenous majoritarian ethnicity.

In states with a non-Christian culture, socialism has uniformly proven disastrous. Even in countries with a Christian culture, there are sore spots like Venezuela, that expose socialism's true evil face.

The solution then is to have capitalism with a Christian conscience: universal health care, free education even upto college level, and the government strengthening infrastructure and taking care of the environment. Without the core seed of Christian conscience in their character, establishments, whether socialist or capitalist, are doomed to self-destruct like the Former Soviet Union (FSU).

there is no argument to be made for either, capitalism hinders the lower classes, meanwhile, socialism fails due to lack of organization at the "top", truly what you really want is a Patriarchal Kingdom.

Stealing from people is wrong, regardless of what you call it or how many people vote for it.

A couple of recent threads saw us going off topic and we found ourselves arguing the merits of capitalism vs. pitfalls of socialism.   

Can you guess where I stand on the issue?  If not I'll tell you.  Freedom is not compatible with socialism, and I'm more inclined to remain free and provide for myself than I am to accept handouts and be enslaved.

What about you?