Topic: How Capitalism defeated socialism? - page 2. (Read 453 times)

Social democracy, democratic socialism, socialism, communism. These are all different variants of "left" that many nations like USA couldn't really comprehend. Like for example public libraries that you do not pay for and just go and read and only pay if you take something out and can't bring it back on time, that is a system where the state pays for it, or the firemen that comes to your house and put out the fire, or the cops. These are all paid by the government. In another case, in many major nations, hospitals are just like police and firemen, doctors are paid by the government.

If you think cops should be paid by the government with your taxes but doctors shouldn't be, you do not really understand socialism. France doesn't just give equal pay to everyone and distribute food or something like that, it is not a communist nation, but it does have healthcare to begin with, and plenty other leftists stuff, and yet seen as not so leftist for Europe, since there are even far lefter nations.

If we think in a socialist-minded country then nothing is successful if it is used for an economic system, an example of an idealistic and socialist country is North Korea, where economic life is completely controlled by the government and there is no private role, but the result is poverty and hardship. makes us feel alive in the era of 50 years ago if we go to North Korea.

In all socialist countries, a double morality was established. The elite lived according to their own unwritten laws, and harsh conditions for life and life were established for the broad masses. Double morality was in all spheres of life and over time it manifested itself in everything. In many respects, the situation reached the point of absurdity. Therefore, what was on paper did not correspond to reality. Socialism turned out to be an even more ugly retreat from the normal and free life of man than capitalism. Even Nostradamus wrote that for 73 years people will move away from the natural path of development and this path will turn out to be a dead end. For so many years there was Soviet power in the USSR.

We have a bad idea of ​​capitalism and socialism. Every economic system has its good and bad qualities. Today, the largest number of countries have a mixed form of capitalism with some degree of state regulation as in socialism. And there is nothing strange in this. These two economic systems are opposites, but both of these systems have the right to exist.

I don't take sides, but you seem to have only said the good things about capitalism and saw the negatives of socialism. As long as they do well and bring a good life to their national leader, we can all find the face mopji for each social governance system, so if we do not support each other moving forward, our competitive society will never be free from negative problems. I can't imagine a future where there will be a new operating system to combine the good things of the above government machines, but it always comes to my mind that one day it will.

Every system has to adjust to the nature of humans.
Ask yourself this question: Who wants socialism? People who don't want to work hard but want to have the same standard of living as hard-working ones have right now.
And what's the nature of humanity? Deep in our hearts we are egoists, we want everything for ourselves, we don't want to work hard for others, we work hard for ourselves and it's okay, we should be like this, otherwise, humanity would never evolve.

People usually make parallels with USSR when you ask them an opinion about socialism. Why? Because the USSR was a great example. If we have a look at their history, socialism was working very well, it helped people to get wealthy. If you didn't have a home, you could get one after working for some years in a company. The government was pushing companies to do that. In theory, socialism is heaven and it's releasable heaven but the problem lies within people, there were some who wanted to benefit from others, there was corruption, everyone was trying to use their power to move forward financially and socially (i.e. to become a part of a higher class instead of equality). That problem with other factors, including the weakness of the communist party, their mentality and some holes in the system caused the destruction of socialism in their union.

---

By the way, capitalism hasn't really defeated socialism, not in Europe. Isn't it socialism when European countries offer tons of benefits to refugees and asylum claimers? Isn't it socialism when your medical bills are covered by the government? Isn't it socialism when supermarket consultant and IT specialist have the same salary? With a very slight difference? Especially in Sweden.

He shouldn't enjoy the same degree of wealth as a homeless drug addict but he shouldn't touch everything, he shouldn't own everything, he shouldn't be the monopolist, he shouldn't own strategic objects. The problem with capitalism is that as time goes by, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. It strengthens the root of rich people while weakens the middle/poor class and enslaves them.

I wouldn't really say that capitalism defeated socialism, rather socialism together with communism defeated itself. Looking at the political systems today we all agree that capitalism was the better system. USA grew so much stronger in the last 80 years than Soviet Union or China. Socialism is strongly connected to communism and share a lot of the same principals. On paper it is a good system, it focuses on the common good of a country and helping everybody to have a better life. Things like central plannings makes that everybody should have enough and nobody is missing out. The problem is that people at the top are changing with power. Even if they were very good people before coming in office, once they taste all the power and money they will change. Instead of focusing on the common good eventually the politicians start to focusing on their own good, accumulating wealth and being open to corruption.

I don't know what do you mean by "socialism".Many European countries are "welfare states" and they have many "socialist" elements embedded in their social security systems.
If you are talking about the socialism in Venezuela,Cuba,North Korea and the former USSR,this is more like communism,rather than socialism.
Capitalism is all about protecting the private property and the free market.Communism is about state property and a government-controlled command economy with almost no free markets.
Many socialist countries respect the private property and they have free markets,so I guess that you are oversimplifying a little bit.
The debate about "socialism" vs. capitalism has ended years ago.Capitalism can also be really bad,many capitalist countries are very poor and they can't get out of poverty,even though they are capitalist.

The individual interest is the thing had changed the socialist to capitalism.Capitalism had created the huge people to earn less and individual to earn more.The individual again start to earn more.At the last equality will be fly.The main thing of the Socialist economy is,government will treat all the people equal and give food to all.If they are contributing the government or not.

Enforced equality of outcome is certainly a terrible idea, as it disincentivises everything. But equality of opportunity is an ideal that we should strive for, and one which unfettered capitalism actively works against. Many people have effectively zero chance of becoming wealthy or even owning their own home, due to the inequalities of opportunity within the system.




I've never met anyone who thinks this way. Does anyone at all really believe that talented, driven, innovative entrepreneurs such as Musk should have the same outcome as someone who never even tries? I think you'd struggle to find a single person who believes that. But we also need to consider your homeless drug addict, why is he homeless? Is his situation entirely his fault? Is he more likely to have been born the son of a billionaire, or the son of someone struggling to survive at the lower end of society? Might this affect the opportunities he has in life?

Democratic capitalism is the best system we have, because it involves greater accountability for the people at the top. Unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism would lead to monopolies and cartels and unbridled exploitation of almost everyone, and be little better than the most autocratic communist regime. Democratic capitalism works better than anything else because the government acts to rein in the wildest excesses of corporations. The biggest issue is that governments nowadays have drifted too far to the right, and are becoming more like enablers of these excesses, and not working for the benefit of the people they represent. Equality of outcome is a bad idea, but also inequality of outcome is only fine up until the point that it impinges on people's equality of opportunity. Many of the ultra-rich realise this, and are actively campaigning to pay more taxes.

The issue with people saying "the rich deserve to be rich", is that really big numbers just don't make sense to the human brain. I'd agree that it's fine for the rich to be rich, but not as rich as they are. For some more context, have a look at this thread, but in particular the link below. It's a visualisation that I've shared many times over the last couple of years. I challenge anyone to scroll all the way through that visual, and then come back here and argue that Musk/Bezos etc really should be as rich as they are.

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

That is a tendency that bothers me as well, I mean I understand that we should be equal in front of the law and we should strive to get as many opportunities to grow to the majority of the population, however to try to strive into an equality of outcome regardless of the decisions that we take with our lives is a mistake, those that take better decisions need to be rewarded, and under a society with no restrictions the rewards come by themselves, because even if you are not Elon in terms of your potential taking the right decisions will bring you a happier, healthier and wealthier life than if you took the incorrect choices, but for some this is somehow something that needs to be corrected.

The roots of evil is in the government officials, if they don't do something about monopoly then it is a burden to the people of their country. Look what is happening back then in our country. My example is the internet Service Providers, there are only two and these companies makes it harder than ever merging together, limiting services. The leaders of the countries should be wise, like what the recent one did (president), he open an opportunity to other big Telcos to enter and invest in the country, and it did not stop there. The new Telcos could not be merge by other existing ones, it is a brilliant idea forcing these guys to compete for real. So if the government officials are somehow taking bribes from the evil ones, the mass will suffer and it could also lead to the country's fall.

Capitalism isn't perfect but it gives you freedom, it depends on the people, their evil desires puts them in that(being greedy) situation. I'd rather be in a capitalist side than in a socialism one, just look at how their country runs, and see if want to live in there with equality they are telling you about. There are bad sides on both, and there are good ones too, in the end it relies on the people who holds the power to decide for the best. If there is goodness in ones rulers heart, his subjects should be living in harmony, see how countries with good leaders do. They are somehow in one body, if one parts hurts the others feel it too, we just need to be good humans that is all.

How many of those 60 million are victims of capitalism, or victims from their own personal decision making? There isn't a perfect economic system that's ever created 100% prosperity. There never will be. There has to be "losers" in every economy within a particular moment. That's not to say someone from the lower class can't build themselves up to a higher economic level over time -- in fact that's what the tradition normally is as time goes on, wealth increases. Capitalism is the simplest system to help propel someone from a lower class into a higher class, just requires time.

I think capitalism is obviously the only way to prosper because capitalism thinking actually matches with the inner instinct of every human. Capitalism was once considered a problem and the reason for that was everyone wasn't given an equal opportunity to mint their way in capitalism, if you are born as a slave you'll be a slave and a son of rich capitalist will always be richer, but sooner with every person trying to make their own fortune these definitions have changed, infact capitalists now themselves make sure to do enough charity in society, it's just about giving equal opportunities, we need government or socialist intervention to give everyone equal opportunities and over that it's your merit, you can't just distribute everything equally.

There was a political cartoon in our civics book when we were small, a one we did not understand a lot but it stated how : rich gets richer and how poors get poorer and that's how the whole system works especially in countries which are filled with not only corruption but also disparities between the masses where education is the only thing that can get you onboard on the race but to win you would have to work 1000 times as hard.

I think cryptocurrencies can bridge this gap to an extent, some of them are proving to be an amazing trading opportunity for most people and some people became millionaires investing some money in certain Altcoins as well.

At the same time it's important to have education as a tool to encompass the monotonous routine as well.

Socialism has nothing to do with communism. These are two diametrically opposed regimes. The idea of ​​socialism is a model of the economic development of the state, in which the production and distribution of resources is controlled directly by society or the government. In other words, we can say this: socialism is an option in which all people work and contribute to the common cause, after which the benefits obtained are distributed among all citizens. It goes without saying that those whose work is more complex and significant will receive more benefits, but this should not cause a class imbalance in economic terms.

Communism is a utopian philosophical idea about the ideal economic and social arrangement of a state where equality and justice flourish. In practice, this idea turned out to be unviable and unrealizable due to many reasons. At the same time, all attempts at implementation were based on the Leninist theory and practice of "red terror" or "terror of the proletariat", which involved the destruction of both groups and entire classes of the population, in order to achieve one goal or another.

Communism is always trying to disguise itself as something else, posing as a "philanthropic regime" although in fact it is the bloodiest, most inhuman regime. And that is why it seems to you that communism and socialism have something in common - looking at the historical examples of the USSR, Cuba, etc.

Capitalism rewards merit? Ok, then tell me about numerous single mothers working two jobs in US who can't afford basic healthy food and a decent living for their kids. Tell me about Amazon workers having to pee in a bottle to keep up with a mandated schedule. Delivery men in South Korea who can't keep up with unrealistic delivery mandates. People living in RWs on the west coast of the US because they, even with a job, can't afford housing. Are they just not good enough and don't deserve adequate compensation (merit)? Why aren't they being brought up from poverty like you said? By that logic, their bosses definitely do more quality work, better work, and are therefore rewarded much more? Right? Bezos works 30 hours a day and risks more so he needs far more compensation, unlike his lazy workers?

So what I am getting at is, that you are against equality? Bold statement, what a nice life it must be.

Yet there are 60 million of poor people in US, around 45 if you choose a lower poverty line. Even Mexico has lower gap. This is not something you see in the news, nevertheless it is true.

There is a middle way, it does not have to be capitalism or socialism in the radical sense. Society has to reward merit, provide opportunities for all and care for those who honestly cannot care for themselves.

When we talk about ideology like this of course there are positive sides and there are also negative sides.
You say as if Capitalism is very good but there are also many problems there such as about Freedom which in my opinion is very worthy to be questioned because indeed in the capitalist system we are all free to do as much capital as possible to develop their power even though it is quite fair because it belongs to us but when we coexistence is certainly very opposite.

In addition, Capitalism also creates social inequality and high individualism because indeed those with this sect think they are capable of doing it themselves, even though this is quite wrong because when talking about humans, they always have limitations and this is very reasonable because the system is from the capitalist system indirectly. makes us seem to continue to have the principle of collecting as much wealth as possible without caring about others.

Socialism is somehow mixed with communism which we all know where it goes. I don't see China to be a land  of free but people there seem to be free though. Heck some people are even cooking meth, it just a matter of when they are going to get caught. And we see lots of Chinese already own big companies as much as we see Us citizen owns big companies particularly tech companies.

So I don't see any difference in Capitalism but at least in China people know what and who they need to avoid getting tangled with. You don't wanna mess up with Communist party.