Topic: Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here. - page 15. (Read 21323 times)

I have looked into them, and addressed your point already. Morcora laws are not Socialist, they are centralized command economy structure within Capitalism. All you do all day long is try to make it look like Socialism some how produced the wealth it stole from Capitalists. SOCIALISM PRODUCES NOTHING.

I have plenty of interest in debate, and that is exactly what I have been doing. You are demanding that I agree on your baseless premise that there is some how some magical version of Socialism we haven't tried yet that won't end up like all the other horrible disasters that resulted from almost every attempt.

Some people define insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If that is true, Socialists are fucking insane.

The examples of Marcora laws and worker cooperatives are not fantasy though.  If you would look into them, they have worked successfully for a very long time and affected real people and real economies.  You continue to ignore my point to go back to argue against something no one is arguing on behalf of.  The definition of socialism has been posted by multiple users but it is you that continues to use your own definition. 

This seems to be what is happening and I am done responding if you have no interest in debating and only want to misdirect the conversation to be a critique on authoritarian governments. 

Your intent is irrelevant. The results are relevant. There has NEVER been a successful scaled up version of Socialism/Communism/Marxism, and anything you call "success" was only a temporary effect left from residual Capital created under the rubric of Capitalism. Everything you are saying is PURE FANTASY. You are free to your own opinions, but your are not free to redefine words and reality so it fits in your delusional box.

I think we socialists agree with TECSHARE on most things but we clearly disagree on the definition of socialism.  Everyone agrees that what he calls socialism is awful and everyone agrees that workers should have freedom and not have the fruits of the labor taken away.  Lets not get hung up over word choice unless you are injecting those examples into the debate to intentionally mislead others about what we actually want.

Well I want to make clear the the actual results you are referring to have nothing in common with my ideas or the ideas of any American socialist I have come across in the 21st century.

We don't want to have the government scale it up, we just want these opportunities to be an available option to everyone.  No one wants the government controlling everyones lives.  Our ideal economy consists of a bunch of small-scale worker cooperatives just like the ones I have described that you call impressive.  These "tiny examples" that you call impressive are what we mean when we talk about socialism.

The Soviet Union was one national so called cooperative where the autocrat had complete control of the entire economy.  We want a democratic economy and all of the examples you think about when you think about socialism involve a totalitarian dictated economy.

The differences between what we call socialism (the definition) and what you call socialism (20th century examples of communist parties running everything) are really as simple as democracy vs totalitarianism.   Maybe your response to socialism should make us socialists thing long and hard about the use of the word.  I don't know how to get around this but perhaps people's perception of the word has been so badly damaged that we should use a new word to get around the trauma caused by perversions of socialism.  What do you think?

We don't want any of that and to be clear, we simply want to put the power to decide what to do with the products of ones labor into the hands of the workers.  We consider capitalism as a force that takes the products of ones labor and hands it to another.   According to this post (especially the bolded part, you want the exact same thing as us socialists.  This is why discussion is so important.  All this time we were using different words to describe our common goals.

This is not true because new wealth is always being generated.  You can collectivize new wealth without taking anyone's old wealth. That is why I keep referring you to Marcora laws as a functioning example of transitioning an economy towards socialism. Also keep in mind, that we are not asking for nationalized collectives or government-ran collectives.  We want an economy that consists of many worker ran cooperatives.  

Capitalism:  Companies have shareholders/owners who don't work but take the products of the labor and also control the company

What TECSHARE calls socialism:  The government takes the products of the labor and controls all companies (everyone hates this so its not even being debated)

What we want: Companies have shareholders who are the workers of that company and democratically decide what to do with the products of their own labor.

The problem is that it ALWAYS leads down that route. There is no way to operate a system of collective wealth on a large scale WITHOUT taking private property by force. Once the productive people have had enough, and they run out of people to rob, the system must then eat the wealth of the average citizens (ie the worker class) to operate.


None of this is by accident. Capitalism is not stalling, the current economic model is stalling, by design. If you do some more careful research you will find Marxism itself was funded and supported by the banking elite on Wallstreet as a system of controlled opposition to Capitalism. It is right in your face. Look at the symbol of Communism, the hammer and sickle. They are ancient symbols. The hammer represents building and creation and the sickle represents destruction and the harvest. Capitalism is the hammer, Communism is the sickle.

Capitalism issues credit and induces production, then the system is compromised usually by inflation or other financial shenanigans, credit is contracted, everyone is stuck paying debts they can't afford, they sell their real property at fire sale prices, and the bankers buy it up for pennies on the dollar just before they introduce Communism. Communism then comes in and picks the bones under a friendly pink warm fuzzy mask to ease the sheep into the slaughter under a pretext of helping them. The economy is destroyed, a new system is created. Then Capitalism is reintroduced again. Repeat.

Don't submit to harvesting.

This is a false equivalency. Capitalism has quite demonstrably improved the quality of life of humanity and reduced poverty, something Socialism could never take credit for. Socialism only takes credit for riding gains created under Capitalism because it is parasitic by nature. At least Capitalism has an element of voluntarism and promotes abundance. This isn't even debatable, it is a fact. Is Capitalism perfect? Absolutely not. Life is not perfect. Does it work more than it doesn't work? Absolutely. Would Socialism fix those problems or do a better job? Absolutely not.

Saw the following definition of Socialism and would like to share it here, since it makes sense:

These days, the word socialism gets tossed around so much, it's almost lost all meaning. Originally, though, it was the bedrock of Marxism and meant that workers and their community should control the market for what they make.

Because the Soviet state eventually strayed far from Marx's idea of socialism towards Lenin's totalitarian communism, socialism is now often used to mean everything from "fascism" to "progressivism." But in its purest form, socialism was a political, social, and economic system meant to empower the working class. In the U.S. today, though, it's often used as shorthand for "the services that government provides and which are paid for by taxes." Depending on who's talking, that idea is either a goal or a target. (source: vocabulary . com/dictionary/socialism) [bold mine]

It looks like "Capitalism" is nearing stalling speed, and since freedom is very important to us all, and what the discussion is really about, we should carefully contemplate and consider the above quoted pure definition of what socialism is about, to fine tune the meanings of the words we use in the discussion.

I think both are flawed systems and both ruin society and peoples lives in different ways. I am a purport-er of alternative ways to run society there was an interesting project called the venus project if anyone wants to check it out.

But socialism vs capitalism is really a pointless argument they're both crap!

I've tried to explain to you what my ideas look like when implemented but you just revert back to the tired USSR strawman.  Its not like I'm just making a cop out that socilaism has never been done.  It has, just not in the examples capitalists want you think about.  I mentioned worker cooperatives and Marcora law in the first post but here are some more resources to introduce you to socialism in action.

Capitalism a love story segment on Coops (3 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VdbFzwe8fQ&list=PLaJhh0k4dkH35GDiLjh7rmM9CKmtJQB8T


Mondragon during the economic crisis (5 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaJ1hfVPUe8


Italian law that led to 30% worker owned GDP in the Bologna leader
https://www.wikipreneurship.eu/index.php/Marcora_Law

The biggest problem for socialism is that people have been incorrectly trained to think it means authoritarian rule and never bothered to research.

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.