Topic: Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here. - page 3. (Read 21323 times)

And on what evidence exactly are you basing your conclusion that these entitlements will result in people wanting to work? If people have all of their basic needs covered free of charge, what incentive do they have to better themselves or work?

everyone has their own opinion on this

I didn't say the US was socialism...it was a hybrid.   Social Democracy is a good term.

Capitalists don't make money except that they make everyone prosperous by each person's own work and initiative. This means that the best thing that capitalists can do is make the situation fertile for each person to WANT to work. Here we have Bernie aiming for Venezuelan kind of capitalism... otherwise known as socialism.


Economic Bill of Rights: Bernie Wants Same Healthcare Promise as Venezuela




Check the links in the article.

I see argument against both ideologies, none seems appropriate to lead us into the next industrial revolution.

 tragedy of the commons ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons )


This problem our society is facing never got bigger than now a days.

How to provide freedom to the people, and at the same time prevent people from depleting or spoiling common resource ?

My feeling is that both system are inappropriate and new ideologies / social organisation must been followed. the problem have no binary answer : Capitalism vs. Socialism.

That's social democracy (aka. Nordic capitalism), not socialism.

A strong welfare state might make life a bit more comfortable for the poor but it is still squarely within the framework of a free market capitalist society. There is nothing about removing the capitalist class or abolishing private property or nationalizing large swaths of the economy for example.

In recent years, it's been made more confusing by the fact that many democratic socialists (e.g. Bernie Sanders) and democratic socialist parties in Europe run on what are more accurately described as social democratic platforms. Democratic socialism and social democracy both arose from the same roots but while the former aims to implement socialism gradually over time through democratic reforms, the latter is essentially just capitalism with regulations and a big safety net.

Sarcasm?

Welfare subsidies everywhere...

social security, medicare, medicaid, food assistance, public housing, flood zone subsidies, tax credits, student grants...list goes on.

Socialism is scary

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah the very known social programs of USA xD

Well known for this yeah

Is it safe to say that a hybrid system is required due to human nature?
I mean that is basically what the U.S. is now with all the social programs that exists.

You will always have go-getters, people who are lazy/un-motivated and then those in between.

Fat cats and starving dogs has been around for centuries.  I don't see that changing.

Very sorry I didn't use the same dictionnary than you. It's clearly manipulation from my side and not just you who should have given your complete definition and how it proves your point. If I have to complete your argument because you were too lazy don't accuse me of manipulation.
Please prove your assertion.
Sure direct democracy has already been put in place. Can you point out where?
No absolutely not, abolition of private property of the means of production is core tenets of Communism, not abolition of all private property. You would know this if, as you said, you had really studied Marx.
You're welcome as I also believe private property should not be abolished. It seems we agree on something.
Very sorry your brain can't handle so much complexity. Don't hesitate if you need a drawing.
Exactly, no trade shares means no investment, because there can be no investment without trade share 
Clearly it's the same to forbid share trade and the right to own a house. Not at all a biased stupid comparison here.
Exactly because It's what I said. How did you manage to read "Company closing can be nationalized" as "people will have to work without wanting to"?

Dude, you can't imagine a company without shares, what do you want me to explain you if you can't even imagine a company without external private investment funds while 99% of companies ARE ALREADY created without them??

You conveniently left out several requisites for the definition of a republic to include only the part you believe makes your argument. That is like saying Usain Bolt isn't a world class runner because you only describe everything above his waist, and use his lack of legs as an argument. More specifically a Constitutional Republic is not mob rule.

Why do I need to ask? You are the one making the argument, either make it and substantiate it or don't. lets go over your supposed changes point by point.

1- "Power is directly hold by the population, there is no strong government, only strong people"

This has been claimed before and failed. Furthermore the government consists of people, they are on in the same.


2- "Private property is no longer abolished as it has not reason to be"

Yet the abolition of private property is one of the core tenets of Communism. Thank you for supporting my argument private property should not be abolished.



3- "No national monopoly but every vital sector (health, transport, energy...) must always have a governmental company providing the service. It can have private competition though"

You are simultaneously describing 3 exclusive concepts. How do you even manage to wipe your ass with that kind of lack of logic?



4- "No shares and trade shares. Any investment in a company is impossible to sell"

Oh, so no investment huh? Well that will go over well. I am sure that won't have any negative consequences like, not allowing peopel to afford to buy homes or cars, or other basic necessities or anything.


5- "No company can close without the State autorization, which has the right to nationalize it"

That sure sounds a lot like fascism, as do some of your other points. So you are going to compel people to work for a company by force of law when they don't want to? That sounds a lot like slavery.


6- "At least half of each company is possessed by the workers"

Why would anyone invest in a crating a company (oh right I forgot investments are banned) if they immediately will have half of their investment taken from them? Also, tell me, how do the workers own half of a company if there are no shares? Your total lack of logic is astounding.


Your ideas are nothing but pure fantasy that collapse under even the most superficial examination.

That's the definition of a republic:
"a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."

That's not a mob rule? Supreme power held by the people and their elected representatives is not mob rule for you?

Can you define "mob rule" then please? Because clearly the "supreme power is held by the people" should be rather close to my definition of "mob rule".

Because you never asked.

Main differences of Communism and Neo-Communism:
-Power is directly hold by the population, there is no strong government, only strong people
-Private property is no longer abolished as it has not reason to be
-No national monopoly but every vital sector (health, transport, energy...) must always have a governmental company providing the service. It can have private competition though
-No shares and trade shares. Any investment in a company is impossible to sell.
-No company can close without the State autorization, which has the right to nationalize it
-At least half of each company is possessed by the workers.

See how it's different? How it has evolved? How it has NOTHING to see with what Marx imagined? Because Marx was a genius but never could have foreseen internet, which allows so much more local management.

Interesting retort. Call me blind and move on. Speaking of blind, you missed the part where I already answered your question, a Republic is not mob rule. You keep saying Communism has changed, but you can't define anything about it that is different. Every single argument you have made for Communism is one that has been used in past failed attempts.

That's incredible. How can you be so blind?

Ok so we're going to try to use your brain a bit. What kind of social organization is NOT a mob rule?
Yes it has, and a lot. You being so deep up your own ass doesn't change the fact that no one refers to Das Kapital as the Bible nowadays because people learned from past mistakes and have changed the idea of Communism. If you think it hasn't changed, you just show your ignorance.

"Direct Democracy" is just a rebranding of a pure Democracy, which is just a more palatable way of saying mob rule. Under mob rule individuals and minority groups have no rights, because the mob can always just vote their rights away. Democracy is by no means infallible, in fact it makes the populations much more easily controlled because getting people to operate as collective unthinking herds is a lot easier than gaming a Republic for example with protected individual rights and rule of law. You just declaring that it can be done is nothing more than your imagination. Your fantasies do not count as substantiation for your arguments. ALL RIGHTS are property rights. Without property rights you have no rights of ANY KIND.

Oh, I see, the world is different now, so Communism will work this time, promise! You are just making a long form rephrasing of "it wasn't true Communism", IE the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The world has changed, but Communism has not, and the basic elements that make Communism a failure have not changed in society either.

Direct democracy which means you can have communism without an abusive government. Which means you can implemant communism without it falling into dictatorship.

And I don't see why "theft of private property" would be a bad thing on its own. Only Americans still consider private property as a sacred divine right.


Oh my god nothing as changed since USSR? We haven't learned anything and science hasn't changed shit? Sorry then, I guess nothing as changed and conditions are exactly the same as before, it means there is no reason for communism to succeed.

Nothing has changed, Communism is still the same failed model as before. Pro tip, if you are going to try to critique someone's knowledge level, try not to look like a total moron doing it.

The difference is that 'almost communism' always results in starvation and dictatorship while 'almost capitalism' results in prosperity.


Which relevant factor has been changed in favor of communism working now?

And which one of it avoids theft of private property?