Topic: Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here. - page 2. (Read 21323 times)

90% of China is irreligios
73% of Sweden
72% of Czech Republic
United Kingdom   69.00%
Netherlands   66.00%
Belgium   64.00%
Australia   63.00%
Hong Kong   63.00%
Norway 62%
Denmark   61.00%   
South Korea   60.00%
Japan   60.00%   
Germany   60.00%   
Estonia   60.00%   
Switzerland   58.00%   
Spain   57.00%   
Canada   57.00%   
Ireland   56.00%   
Finland   55.00%   
Slovenia   53.00%   
Austria   53.00%   
Latvia   52.00%   
France   50.00%

capitalism doesn't work without some kind of support through religion, or opposition from a soviet union, american and british banksters will simply scam everyone working for their money, and destroy them.

I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people that want equality of outcome.
Few people can never own everything because they'll always need to trade with other people, they'll need to purchase services and items from others for which they'll have to pay since no one's going to work for free and by exchanging money there's always going to be circulation of currency.

You're missing on how the world works.
If you limit Bezos on 20billion instead of 120billion, maybe he's not going to have Amazon Prime anymore and people won't have a service that delivers items to their door in 2 days. By limiting profit, you limit services, because you're taking away the incentive to make something possible and to make peoples lives easier.

Others aren't capable to do that. Bezos is. That's why he's there and why he's done the things he's done. He deserves to earn those billions since he provided so many services to so many people.

Just two questions:  Was it fairness that motivated Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates?  Is your life better as a result of their motivation?

Human nature trumps fairness.  Every one of us wants more than "the other guy," and some of us have an abundance of skill, intellect, and motivations to achieve.  If you truly care about fairness, then what makes you think you are entitled to share in the accomplishments of others?  To me that sounds absurdly unfair.

Socialism keeps check of distribution , much maintains an oligopoly market, keeps check of prices , inflation and laws of land and labor. Socialism for me is fairer as compared to capitalism. Giving too much power to privates can turn one selfish as it is finally about making money and earning profits.

Surprise surprise. More shifting of definitions form Captain Postmodern. Communists and socialists ramble on about "equality" all the time, so save the act. Is the part in bold even in English? What the fuck are you trying to pull out of your rotting cranial cavity here other than jibberish purposely intended to obfuscate the situation?

Oh you don't want to do that? [Immediately then explains how you want to do that]

This is why I have zero respect for communists and socialists in general, but especially you. I find it absolutely revolting and it turns my stomach you might actually be in a position to be "educating" people. You are doing your students and the world at large a great disservice. You don't have logical arguments, you have rhetoric, sophistry, and mental gymnastics. Literally nothing, not one word of what you said makes any sense or has any basis in reality. P.S. Jeff Bezos isn't a policy position.

No one wants equality of outcome so lose the strawman.  He simply said more equality and meant less inequality.  Its a sliding scale.  No one wants to strive for equality of outcome but that doesn't mean we want a system that accelerates inequality of outcome until a few people own everything.  Those are the two extremes of the spectrum.  Socialism is about installing a floor where everyone has access to basic necessities.  We don't want to put a ceiling on how much anyone can earn. With that said, we do want policies that have a secondary consequence of affecting how fast someone like Bezos accumulates wealth.  Bezos having lets say 20billion instead of 120 billion is far from "equality of outcome"

Equality doesn't exist. No one is equal to anyone else, that is the definition of being individual. Of course equality of opportunity should be striven for, but equality of outcome is not an attainable goal, or at least not one anyone really wants. They think they do but they don't. If you deliver equality with an equal number of bullets to each person's head so they share an equal amount of life, that is also equality. Achieving equality requires taking from some to give to others. People always fantasize that they will be the ones receiving and never the ones taken from of course. They seem to forget that universal slavery is also equality. Increasing your relative position by reducing that of others is not gain, but that is a requirement to acheive equality. The term equality itself is meaningless and arbitrary.

Socialism doesn't take care of price, inflation or unemployment.

Most of socialist countries experienced shortages because there was no invisible hand to show the scarcity of items, they experienced tremendous amounts of inflation because goverments were printing money in order finance their spending and they only hide the unemployment rates by hiring people on non-existant positions.

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is the extent of government intervention in the economy.
A capitalist economic system is characterised by private ownership of assets and business. While a socialist economic system is characterised by greater government intervention to re-allocate resources. Socialism takes care of prices , inflation and unemployment while capitalism cares about profits as owned by private players. Therenis more equality too in socialist society as compared to capitalist society.

I think both are equal to capitalism vs. socialism Both are used in the field of society The effect of capitalism is more on the lower classes of society If they are exploited and oppressed by the rich people of society then it is not a form of socialism if the society is obstructed It has a serious impact on the economy of the country.

They both equally beneficial to a country's economy sometimes a regulated system or government needs to intercept private owner's that wants to overprice their products or services which is why capitalism if left alone to individual owners would ruin fair standard pricing that socialism provides.

Capitalism is not antithetical to voluntarism. Socialism and communism however are.

Neither, Voluntarism is the way forward. Earn as much possible, give as much as possible to the "right" cause. 
Will-based system.

"#31 The Origins of Communism and Its Tactics | China Unscripted"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwPScbShR_0

"#55 How Communism Destroys a Society | Joshua Philipp"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjBUPB009Qo

You really need to watch the second video especially. This guy is exceptionally informed about the psychology and function of communism/socialism, and why it is by definition malignant.

no one right in the mind joins capitalism if he is not part of the elite.

the problem with those capitalists elites is that sooner or later they will need a victim (working class) to supply their followership

Lol. Sure it is, anecdotal evidence is all you have when you have no logical argument. My personal motivations are as irrelevant as your personal anecdotes. The Finland UBI experiment was like 2000 people, that is hardly a national economy shifting development and not indicative of anything. That program was so successful they ended it BTW.

Let me break it down using simple logic. Most people don't do work they want to do, they do the work that provides the most value to the economy that they are capable of. If people didn't have to work, we would have a billion people who want to be famous rock guitarists or basket ball players. We don't need a billion famous rock guitarists or basketball players. Furthermore just because some one wants to do some thing doesn't mean they are any good at it. That is the purpose of supply and demand within the economy, to provide the skills and resources we most need the most reward, and to reward the people who fill those rolls and do so efficiently. Even if your premise was correct that people would not be influenced to work less, the simple economic fact is that handing out free money does not magically make more resources appear. More money handed out for nothing just creates more demand for resources, driving up the prices. All you are doing is creating inflation and ending up right back at square one with the haves and the have-nots.

Entitlement programs create dependence. Dependence is exclusive of independence. Independence is agency and responsibility. Dependence strips people of agency and responsibility making them less able to be independent as time goes on and they are not continually expanding their abilities via exercising their agency. Just like the body atrophies without exercise, the mind and the will atrophy without being challenged by responsibility. Liberty and responsibility are inherently linked, you can not have one without the other. Even IF your nonsense premise was true, all you are doing is giving the government ever increasing power over the population, and turning the government from the servant of the people, into the master of the people. That is a huge problem. Especially when the resources run out and labor becomes mandatory and government controlled... like every other time Communism is tried. There are endless reasons your premise of free shit for everyone is a failed concept.


"Labor-force participation fell substantially after the crisis, contributing 2.5 percentage points to the shortfall in output. The decline showed no sign of reverting as of 2013. Part is demographic and will stabilize, and part reflects low job-finding rates, which should return to normal slowly. But an important part may be related to the large growth in beneficiaries of disability and food-stamp programs. Bulges in their enrollments appear to be highly persistent. Both programs place high taxes on earnings [emphasis added] and so discourage labor-force participation among beneficiaries. The bulge in program dependence …  may impede output and employment growth for some years into the future."


https://fee.org/articles/surprise-welfare-incentives-discourage-work/

https://www.politico.eu/article/welfare-discourages-work-labor-market-employment-social-rights/

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/dependency-work-incentives-and-the-growing-welfare-state/

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/welfare-better-deal-work

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/welfare-reform-analysis-issues/view/full_report

https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0046.html#Conclusion

https://rbj.net/2016/10/21/welfare-system-that-discourages-work-ambitions-needs-fixing/

Sometimes, anecdotal evidence is all we have.  You are right here in this thread and haven't answered the questions about your personal motivation.   I have given anecdotal evidence and you have given no evidence.  I acknowledged my experiences could all be a fluke but your claim are completely unsubstantiated. 

If you were correct, no one in Finland would be working at all anymore.  The entirety of the Country and countries like it are part of my anecdotal evidence.   

I challenge anyone in this thread who has their basic needs met, is healthy, and educated but does not work to reveal themselves.


-Many want luxury
-Many want to help people
-Many want to fulfill a purpose


You are basing your entire argument on people who don't exist.

That is what is called "anecdotal evidence". Even if it was true, your personal experiences are not statistically relevant. You are basing your argument on assumptions, not facts and evidence. All these entitlements not only create dependency (the opposite of independence), they also remove the primary motivations people have to better themselves and work harder. Plenty of people are perfectly satisfied having their basic needs met, and if those are handed out freely, what motivation do they have to ever do more? Why would people who are working really hard to make it keep working so hard if they can just give up at any moment knowing the government safety net is there to take care of them? What happens to the ability of society to produce all the resources and services we need to survive when everyone starts checking out and relying on these entitlements? Most importantly what kind of power and influence is created over the population by the government with such a large dependent class? You are arguing from a position of Pathos, not a position of Logos.

I've never come across another human who was healthy, educated, and had just their basic needs met but didn't want to work.  Do you know people like this? Do you work? Do you not have your basic needs met?

On the contrary, I've come across a lot of people who didn't want to work and none of them had all of those things.  I've also seen them obtain those things over time AND end up wanting to work.  

Many want luxury
Many want to help people
Many want to fulfill a purpose

Some want all three but I've never seen one who didn't want any of those things. Thousands of people and I can't think of a single exception.

Please tell me what evidence you have of the contrary. Maybe my life experience is all just a wild fluke.