Topic: Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here. - page 6. (Read 21323 times)

You guys have done a great job critiquing government control.  Congrats.  Nobody is advocating for that so I'm not sure what you are accomplishing by critiquing systems everyone hates. 

Simple solution: give power to individuals not the government

Excellent to have a honest socialist. Its all about control, coerced control. You obey or else... Socialism is the opposite to freedom, pure and simple.


In a free market you live in freedom, you can exploit but you can also give on your own will, without someone pointing a gun at you. Of course, that means one type of society is more mature than the other, and its not exactly the socialist one...

Let me debunk the lie of inequality. Is inequality bad? NO. You don't care the 1% is richer than the 99%, but that the poorest of those 99% still have  better lives than the majority of "equal" societies ruled by an iron fist or a dystopian police state, like socialism produces in the end (see east Germany).

Socialism wants control of the means of production (and the economy). Do not be fooled by any sweet words, it is about coercion. "Humans are egoist so they must be coerced into sharing", is what they are deep thinking. They come with a thousand excuses to justify this exploitation on a state level, and even try to paint it a "democratic" face, but its all about obeying the leader, and in some extreme cases, paying cult (and tribute, of course).

And this also means, no leader can ever be questioned, because you are an enemy "of the people" for daring to question him or the party or the ideology. Then corruption creeps in and now everything is in hand of corrupt bureaucrats which will burn the last bit of wealth by managing somehow to do nothing for the people they collected that money for...

Let me tell you, this is one of the worst systems ever devised by man, and its so scary because you only get it once you are trapped in it.

"Capitalism" may lead to injustice. Yes, because you have the freedom to do the good and the bad, but in socialism, you will either do "the bad" or you won't be able to survive.

A free market economy is power directly in the hands of the people. You cast a vote with your wallet on every single purchase. This is a decentralized system which scales to the last individual member of society with grace and elegance, producing information real time and adjusted to the situation of everyone.

In socialism this power is snatched away from the hands to the people and given to a small select few who suddenly decides who eats and who doesn't. Who is going to question these decision makers when tomorrow you risk not getting food or worse?

This "select elite" can never replace a free market economy. They can't get the information fast and well enough, they can't process the amount information needed in the required time, they can't ensure the resources allocated reach their intended recipients, they can't come with a solution that works well for every single person at every single moment either, etc, etc. In it terms, its centralized, and un-scalable.

In our context, one way to understand socialism is centralization, with all its risks and weaknesses, and injustice, oh the injustice. Of course, everyone gets the same level of injustice under socialism, except those close to the rulers, that is... Socialism makes monarchies look tame.

I think decentralized infrastructure will invalidate these centralized political infrastructure no matter what it's called, capitalism or sweet socialism.
I also think that bitcoin and its followers bring the imagination to the new world. People and their value will no longer being manipulated by any group they dislike.
This means the independence of the individuals inside the human society. This is very important to protect the human value.

It may lead or signals the beginning of World War 3, since our society today are communicating closely due to the advancement of technology.
Probably, a war between two or several states with different systems.

I stand for free market, because only deliberate and purposeful human action can create the efficient allocation of scarce ressources in order to give the most value to every actor through trade.

Murray Newton Rothbard, Man Economy, and State

the ideology of socialism is great if it is implicated truly.but human nature can not allow it.we can see that soviet union fall because they can not implicate  what they say.if the authority ia hundred percent honest then we can socialism is great,with great power comes great responsibility.in socialist country' the government and high officials get immense power which leads to a situation where they abuse their power,and people loose their freedom of speech.government controls everything and there is little scope for individual freedom.

That's a valid point, every country who found all the signs about the widening gap between the rich and poor should take further steps to lessen the gap. A measures that will help the society avoid such war that will lead to reality shall be formulated soon.

Capitalism is the degradation of society , the way to the slave system,smart people will not be able to get an education, will be distinguished from the disease,

Socialism is human development , smart people will lead the rest of the people and develop humanity, even if you were born in a poor family socialism will give you the opportunity to get a good education in order that you could realize yourself

I think almost all of the countries already chosen their systems. I just want to point out the cons of a capitalism system, is that sooner or later
a revolutionary war might happen given the fact the rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer. The gap of wealth distribution shall be widen and its only a matter of time that a war might happen. The government shall address this issues before its too late to cure it. I think a socialism system is more desirable and better option in a society.

Lots of totalitarians think they are benevolent, then suddenly they realize they weren't so benevolent and everyone wants their heads, and shockingly like magic that changes their outlook and approach to the situation. I have no way to know if you are simply a true believer or some one who does this for a living, but the fact is some one sent you here either by choice or by programming. I never said psychology was totally invalid, just that it is "barely science" in the grand context of all hard sciences, and I am not the only one who shares this view by far. What is not science however for sure is your preferred Frankfurt School of "Critical Theory", which is just Marxism with a superficial veneer of science, commonly known as propaganda.






We aren't here to discuss your fantasies and predictions for the future. History shows your ideology is not only a complete failure but is a horrific stain on humanity itself resulting in hundreds of millions dead. The fact is there is still scarcity of resources regardless of the rest of your horse shit "reasoning". This one fact alone means everyone can't just have everything they want and there have to be limits for society to function. Even if capital is inherited stupid people don't hold on to capital for long meaning regardless they have to work to keep what they already have, and that means providing value for society as a whole.



He is laying down delusional half truths at best. The thing about Communists is they have an argument but their solutions are always worse than the problem they claim they want to solve.

coins4commies laying down the brutal truth


We do not live in a meritocracy and the hardest workers are often the poorest.  Capitalism is all about exploitation and stealing value that workers create.  The system is a complete failure when one person can own hundreds of houses and millions of acres.

Work doesn't determine who makes the most in capitalism, capital does.  A ton of people go to college, work two jobs, and are still barely scraping by. Making money in capitalism only requires capital.  You can inherit capital and create a top income with little work at all. 

No graduate professionals do not earn top salaries under capitalism.  Doctors, professors and engineers are far from . the top but they still do it because its what they want to do. 

Your entire post is based on an outdated premise that there is work to be done for everyone.   We are approaching a world of automation where there is scarcity of work but not scarcity of necessities.  That world just isn't compatible with capitalism.  You are also projecting this idea that people only work to be paid but once peoples' needs are all met, they will work for leisure.

I would study regardless of what it has to do with pay assuming I'm going to have all my needs met.  Don't project your own current tendencies onto humanity.  People naturally want to create things that can be used by others. Not everyone but enough of us.

I think that socialism will always be a disguise towards insured failure, where everyone wants to be equal, but never will that happen, a worker can never earn the same as an Engineer or a Doctor, because it would not make sense to study hard to win as a worker. Under this premise they have a rich country, Venezuela, where their political representative says that no matter what degree of study is achieved, a worker who has not had a study should never earn the same as a teacher or teacher who has a degree. That is why I prefer a thousand times the most radical capitalism that exists, where the one who works a lot earns more and the graduate professional is recognized and valued in terms of salary.

You stand with the capitalist and from you Post my guest is right but my argument is on the fact that hard it been the socialist did not lost the cold war to the capitalist we may have been witnessing another dimension of economic movement in the world because for me I still like the socialist ideas.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky's speech about communism, communists and free speech:

https://youtu.be/V_ioMFHd9PQ

Turn the subtitles on.

This bold part is called disagreement. You don't have to completely breakdown just because we disagree on premise. There are other ways to deal with this disagreement considering I have explained why I don't think my views are authoritarian.

You could:

A. Explain how the things I have described are not marxist
B. Explain how the things I have described are indeed totalitarian
C. Draw a connection between the things I have described and the failures of previous marxist regimes.


I am curious, what kind of job do you think I may be working? Do you think a socialist party has sent me here as a way of campaigning? Please explain.

Its also funny to see someone who dismisses psychological research and doesn't believe psychology is "real science" claim the expertise to diagnose psychological problems through the computer and in addition to that, have the nerve to recommend someone to a "professional" who according to their own claims,  can't truly help because they aren't practicing "real science" in the first place.

Talk about logic.

The bolded part of your statement I feel perfectly exemplifies your inability to even form a basic logical premise. You define conditions by which I argue do not even exist (Marxism is inherently totalitarian), and then demand I meet your impossible contradictory standard in addition to meeting my standard. In short you are doing little more than demanding I ARGUE YOUR POINT FOR YOU.

Seriously man. You need to see a professional psychologist. You have problems. I don't mean that in a dismissive way. There is something seriously wrong with the lens thru which you view the world and I would wager it is the cause of many problems in your life, all of which you likely project upon other causes. Either you are here to do a job or you have serious issues. If you are on the job I am impressed with your acting skills because you fit the bill to a T. If not seek help.

Can you explain how my system leads to the same result?

I think the biggest difference is that the historical examples you're thinking of wanted to achieve communism immediately by force, and I want to achieve communism slowly by improving conditions to the point where the current state of human nature under capitalism is removed and the natural, cooperative version of human nature is restored.

For example, can you find any historical examples of communists who don't believe property should be taken away from the capitalist class? Theres a fundamental difference between people who want to take the power away from the capitalist class and give it to the workers vs people who want to drown out the power of the capitalist class by empowering the working class. 

I would concede your point if you showed me non-authoritarian examples of marxism that failed.

I say fuck both these asshole systems. We the people could dismiss, deny and nullify these oppressive in-bed-with-government systems once and for all. We have the means and power through technology.

And we should be very wary at this time for the other just-as-fucked ass system - fascism, which is the next in line to rear its ugly head, given the point in time we are at.

Definition of fascism (wikipedia): Fascism is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.

Take heed my fellow libertarians.

You're amazing my dear <3

You manage to gather so much nonsense in so little words...

Anyway, I guess you can see why it is NOT useful to try to argue with people like that coins4commies. They have no argument, no reasoning, no logic... They just like to say the same thing over and over again. What you say don't matter, they will answer the same thing.

Even though their answer is completely illogical and self contradictory ^^