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.
Topic: Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here. - page 16. (Read 21323 times)
A couple of recent threads saw us going off topic and we found ourselves arguing the merits of capitalism vs. pitfalls of socialism. ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OutDikuUBs
Capitalism and Socialism are two economic systems that have different or opposite point of views to attain it.
Capitalism is centred around competition and privatisation while, Socialism is based on social equality.
Capitalism is centred around competition and privatisation while, Socialism is based on social equality.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kind of strange how anyone could associate an authoritarian state with communism when statelessness one of the key characteristics communism.
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.
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).
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.
capitalism helps in economic strength, its like making overview look good. But Socialism helps in community strength and economy may be stagnant.
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?
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?
Jump to: