Topic: How Capitalism defeated socialism? (Read 458 times)

Remember: the foundation of capitalism (as well as any other economy, state form... the whole circus) is enforced levy (internal: tax, external: tribute) which is sanctionized on the due date. It is the birth of state structures, surplus production (= economy), property, interest, "money", markets ... the birth of the civilian by legislation of the most powerful. This is the contrary of human nature where one lives in communities with solidaric substinence but no individualism.

The verdict is in? Capitalism has been shown as the most amazing effective economic system for many decades. As it embraces human nature rather than trying to restructure natural urges. There are always people who will work harder, be smarter and strive to get to the top. There are others who are content at doing the bare minimum in life. Socialism tries to reorder society and reallocates resources in an ineffective method. That being said, capitalism does need strong and careful regulation to benefit people - this is constantly undermined by the richest.

The motivation for innovation is driven by the individual participation of wealth. The primary driver is - this may sound amazing to some - asset preservation and the secondary driver is asset growth (accumulation).

Within socialist societies and, by the way, also communities like the Kibbutz, general individual wealth is not sought at all, and in extreme cases (communism) it is even abolished (except for the ruling class... what a miracle). Therefore, the motivation to be innovative and therefore more competitive is far less present than in capitalistic or economic liberal societies. This leads, e.g. also in the Kibbutz, to the fact that the individuals contribute less to the general work effort, since one has nothing from it. On the contrary, so-called "heroes of labor" (who increased the expected productivity through their zeal for work) were generally hated in the former GDR.

Speaking of truth,

In my opinion the socialism system has been abandoned by many countries and switched to capitalism, socialism has received a lot of resistance from citizens because it cannot provide freedom in many ways, and China is an example of a successful country and becomes a strong country because it turns to the capitalism system.

It depends on how successfully the socialist or capitalist concept is applied to the state,
For China, it seems that their ideology has been replaced from socialist to capitalist, although not completely like that.
but what is clear is that many countries currently use the capitalist concept

Trends and changes will continue to occur, if at the beginning of the revolution socialism was widely used to regulate the country but now many countries have abandoned socialism because they have failed to make progress, even China has become a capitalist country even though the country still has a socialist concept.

In China, there are many rich businessmen, and also many of them are the richest people in the world. In my opinion, it is no longer a purely socialist country, because it has a capitalist element. where in this way the country will develop rapidly in terms of the economy, because the people are given the freedom to develop their business even though later there will be taxes that will return to all the people

Yes socialist system is suppose to be that way and take care of the citizen but I don't think things are now the way we read them back in time in the economic text books. I believe that there are now changes to what it was then. Major example of socialist countries are China, Cuba, Lao, Vietnam and take the example of China in the economic narratives is becoming a capitalist country, so much involved in trade and business including development and this is not really what Karl Max described as a socialist type of country in his theory.

The first phrase was actually perfect, but then not at all

If you live in California on the coast, where there are classes and roads - the choice of a Ferrari is logical. If you are a farmer in the outback of Texas - sorry, but in a Ferrari you will look very stupid there You probably wanted to say a little about something else - about the constant craving of people for a higher standard of living, which capitalism can provide? It is a fact. But the implementation of socialism "in the format of the USSR" is a "leveling" where you will be fed with propaganda slogans, but you will walk in 2 models of shoes all your life, and have 3 models of shirts! And you will dream of "imported jeans and sneakers", which in "the most developed, fair and resource-rich country" for some reason cost 2 middle-class salaries!
Total:
- Capitalism makes it possible. No, it does not guarantee, it just gives the opportunity and very broad rights of choice (no, there is also no complete freedom, but there are more freedoms)
- socialism (in the implementation of the USSR) is a lie, and all life is limited and guaranteed a low standard of living. At the same time, "breaking to the top" is actually not feasible because of the class model of society. You are either a proletarian and a worker, or the elite of the Central Committee or the like. And these two layers never intersect. Believe me - I personally observed this in the USSR

There are two socio-economic formations - socialism and communism.  Mankind has no experience of life under communism (war communism in Russia in the 1920s does not count). 

In particular, this is due to the fact that the technologies of the 20th century were not able to ensure the smooth operation of the planned economy.  In the 21st century, the situation has changed.  Many modern technologies are able to ensure the functioning of a humanistic communist society. 

For example, DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations).  Imagine that all people on earth are members of the DAD "Communist Society".  This will make it possible to build a system for managing society and the opportunity for all people to directly participate in the management process.  The digitization of all socio-economic processes in society in the future makes it possible to build digital communism.  Its goal will not be to make a profit (as under capitalism), but to develop a roadmap for the development of Humanity. 

At the same time, the interests of specific individuals will be harmoniously combined with the goal of the survival of mankind as a species of living beings.

Personally, in my opinion, your question has been answered in the millennial era now, in the digital era and in the btc era, socialism is slowly disappearing, it can be said that actually we have entered the capitalist world for a long time, maybe the comparison is now 70-30, people who using socialists is likely only 30%.

Some countries still have socialist understanding such as North Korea, Cuba and China, and in my opinion China has left a socialist system because it gives freedom to individuals and private to actively do business in China, while Cuba and North Korea still do not allow the private sector, making it difficult for the country to develop.

I think I'd probably qualify that, we are partly selfish and therefore democratic capitalism suits us the best.

Pure socialism doesn't work, because it relies on everyone being totally selfless. But they aren't, so the system is very easy to exploit.
Pure capitalism in practice would be almost indistinguishable from pure socialism in practice... winner becomes fabulously wealthy, majority of the population are so poor that they struggle to survive.

What makes things work is democracy (however imperfect it may be). This is because it provides an essential counterweight against extremist ideology. People often disagree quite vehemently about how governments should behave, and the extent to which they should work for the populace against the extent to which they should enable businesses to flourish... but it's generally simply a question of degree. Most people would agree that any system that lacks a counterweight would be a terrible idea, and cause a lot of suffering.

I can support this view in both senses.  It was the unbalanced imposition of capitalist society that led to the formation of the "99 vs 1" movement in the US in early 2011. The influence of capitalism clearly manifests influential views throughout the region politics where the power of money dominates, the democracy of the people is overwhelmed. 

In contrast, socialism does not bring generosity like painted and beautified pictures, equality, and fairness are not definitive.  Pursuing purely economic interests to ignore democracy and sovereignty will succeed in the future???  Oh no.  It will have to happen a new, a trade-off for change.  My view is that both of these democracies have vulnerabilities that any orientation will cost.

Socialism has become a understanding that many countries abandoned, Vietnam is a country that successfully leaves socialism because to stop the turmoil of citizens is a difficult thing, even China which is the center of communist today does not see any influence of socialism in life every day, only becomes a symbol of the state There is no real practice.

I ask a question that has capital been practiced truely with the way that it is suppose to be without the corruption and government influence that captures all the infrastructure in the hands of few. The system of capitalism is suppose to be free but I see it having some influencing of the government people inside of it. They say what they say and go on to take over with the general people wealth to convert as the for them and family around them. This is not pure capitalism that can allow the individual genuine investment and why support is from government.

There is a good reason for nations that have high happiness and good amount of money all end up with a mixed situation. Sure, you could have a capitalist system where a business could make billions of dollars worth profit, one of the richest man in the world is a French guy who owns clothing companies after all.

However, you also ask them to pay their fair share and get rich after that. They encourage you to make 20 billion dollars in profit, they help you do that as much as they can, they even ignore some stuff and lax regulations for it, but after you do that, they tax you heavily so that you would have to pay for it. Elon Musk says he paid a shit ton of tax, meanwhile Tesla keeps on reinvesting all their profits and do not really pay a lot, that is not how it works in Europe, that is the difference.

Capitalism is just human nature.

Ferrari make cars. Toyota make cars too. And yet, most people would prefer Ferrari to Toyota if they had the riches. Replace Ferrari with BMW and you'll get the same results.

There is a whole difference between living in an apartment flat and a mansion. According to socialism, they are both living. According to capitalism, apartment dude is not living which is pretty much true when you compare the apartment dude's life to the mansion guy.

Socialism makes people happy on paper but the reality is different. People don't want to get taxed. People don't want to pay for insurances. We are selfish and therefore capitalism suits us the best.

Of course socialism is indeed a lie of equality. Even in the Soviet Union there were rich people, there were just very few of them. There was even corruption. There are many examples and proofs of this.  It is better to live in capitalism and be able to climb the ladder of life than to live on the same level with everyone.

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.

It hasn't. In most countries of the world, the State plays an important role due to the weight of the public sector. Obviously, Hong Kong is not the same as France, but if we look at the larger countries we see that they are far from being purely capitalist. The EU is quite social democratic, with nuances depending on the country, but it cannot be called purely capitalist by far. China, Russia, let us forget. USA with Biden and Canada with Trudeau are more socialist and less capitalist than before, etc.


If we were to do a reset and distribute the wealth absolutely equally, it would not be long before there would be rich and poor again, so we would continue with the same song that the rich have privileges and unfair advantages and that it is necessary to distribute.

Worlds definitely not socialist anymore. I think it’s more or less economic loving space but with more individual approach. If we start with the bottom aspects then today me or you our friends everyone would always try to focus on the incomes and how much money they have in the bank accounts. Same goes for a trader, broker, big institute and corporations. Everyone is trying to achieve that stability. That’s more capitalistic approach for sure.
I also believe it’s nothing wrong. The Deens you is only for the sake of presence of humanity. That’s all.

I think seeing and placing the position of each thought in each period has its good and bad points, so don't look at and evaluate the problem only in one direction. The reality of today's competitive division is not a new thing. Through the ages, society has still functioned from infancy to prosperity and then collapse. I live in a socialist country, and I am aware of the shortcomings of the current operating system, but when I look at other countries, I am proud and grateful to them for bringing a life like the present.

I am not a Socialists ...and I will probably never be one, but I can tell you one thing.... Capitalism is not perfect in any way. Take this example for instance... In some Capitalist countries you will find that the Mega farmers will start to buy out the smaller farms and they will totally dominate the whole agriculture scene or parts of it. (They will then use that power as leverage to manipulate food prices)

The gap between the Super Rich and the poor are widening and the Middle Class are being wiped out. Now you have the situation where millions of people are living in absolute poverty and a few individuals own most of the land and wealth of the country. How can this be better than a more equal distribution of wealth?

Yes I know Super Rich people are creating jobs and they pay most of the taxes, but monopolies and total domination of certain industries are bad for a country. (Price manipulation and no competition create opportunities for misuse and over pricing) 

In the year 2022, it seems many believe a person who works very hard and makes good financial decisions.

Should enjoy the same level of success as someone who doesn't work and makes poor financial decisions.

This appears to be the definition of "equality" most believe in.

They believe Elon Musk should enjoy the same degree of wealth and success as a homeless drug addict living on the streets. And that people should not be rewarded for working harder, making better decisions and taking bigger risks.

I don't understand how that is supposed to work in the real world but people can think whatever they like

The key problem is that the USSR and its henchmen perverted the essence of socialism, and "slipped" shit on the population instead of a croissant. Instead of equality - a "guaranteed" stable low standard of living, instead of legality - a set of restrictions, instead of prospects - a dull existence. And all this was called "socialism", although it is communist-Nazism-totalitarianism with an admixture of red terror and anti-human concepts, under the beautiful words of propaganda. So capitalism did not defeat socialism. Capitalism, as a more pragmatic trend, took and in some countries combined these two concepts!

A lot of historians refer to capitalism producing poverty by enforcing things like hard land ownership and inheritible assets (for European law).

If we got capitalism with strong resets and some level of equality, there'd be less of an argument against it - but that could be closer to socialism.

The verdict is in, and contrary to what socialists say, capitalism, with all its warts, is the preferred economic system to bring the masses out of poverty and to make them productive citizens in our country and in countries around the world. Remember this: Capitalism rewards merit, socialism rewards mediocrity. I mean, socialism talking about equality but it is just a beautiful lie , and capitalism is an ugly truth !