CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Socialism vs. Capitalism
Philosophy:
Capitalism: Capital (or the "means of production") is owned, operated, and traded for the purpose of generating profits for private owners or shareholders. Emphasis on individual profit rather than on workers or society as a whole
Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce in addition to receiving a wage.
Ideally socialism would be able to guarantee living standards which promote creativity, invention, and the progression of humanity. With basic needs meant individuals would be able to contribute to society according to their strengths instead of being forced to contribute according to survival.
Capitalism after only a couple of generations at its best only can act as a replacement for darwin-type survival, where instead of survival depending on speed, strength, and brains, it depends on your parents' means, and if they pass money and property down to you.
These are sort of the extreme conclusions of each theory.
So ideally, socialism is a better system for humanity, and I fully expect some form of it will need to be adopted at some point in our evolution.
Our brains aren't there yet though.
We are too greedy, lazy, and corruptible for a socialist society to last.
We seem to do best when we use the competitive nature of capitalism, with social strategies that ensure the rich are not able to stifle all opportunity for the rest of humanity through the influence that comes from money.
We need balance in all things at this point. Money against the power of representation, rights against special interests, media against government, social economic provisions against capitalist incentive; all butting heads to ensure an extreme doesn't allow for the few to lord over the many--which has been the case through most of human history, and still is for the majority of humans outside of westernized societies, by the way.
I pretty much agree with every point you made. What scares me is the continuing presence of free-market ideology (read extreme capitalism) in academia. Extreme ideologies are always bad. always.
With that said. The goal of socialism is beautiful and poetic. The goal of capitalism is cold and calculating. Social attempts to harness our better, more moral instincts- love of our fellow man. Capitalism makes a general rule of one of our most base- personal greed. For that reason, I choose socialism.
I would like to point out here, that in my post I was referring to the philosophical basis of socialism and capitalism. You may be correct to point out the real-world results of each system, which unfortunately are pretty undeniable; However, I would note that we haven't experimented with socialism nearly as long as we have experimented with capitalism. The failure of most socialist societies has had more to do with how power is concentrated and less with how wealth is distributed.
Capitalism encourages competition in the hopes of personal monetary gain. Whether or not this can successfully drive an economy is not what bothers me about it. I think humans do best and feel most fulfilled as members of an inclusive society. Unfortunately this is very difficult in a capitalist society because there are always clear economic winners and losers.
Besides, Socialism is based on cooperation. Don't you remember from kindergarten? Sharing is good.
Besides, Socialism is based on cooperation. Don't you remember from kindergarten? Sharing is good.
Indeed. We are on the road to a mixed economy, like that of Sweden and other European countries. I think this will be more beneficial than a strict implementation of either economic system.
Unfortunately this is very difficult in a capitalist society because there are always clear economic winners and losers.
Not always. There are only losers when there are people who do not produce.
The winners are those who produce wealth to trade (value for value). The losers are those who do not.
Capitalism is not a zero sum game. When 2 people trade, they are both winners, because they each traded something they valued less, for something they valued more. If not, they would not trade.
Besides, Socialism is based on cooperation. Don't you remember from kindergarten? Sharing is good.
Voluntary sharing is good, and foments goodwill. Socialism isn't about voluntary sharing. It is about forced sharing. Forced sharing foments resentment.
Let's say you studied hard for a class and got an A. Your classmate goofed off, and got a D. She complains to the teacher. The teacher decides that she wasn't as smart as you, and you didn't need an A to do well, so he lowers your score to a B (still good) and raises the dufus's score to a C.
How do you feel about the other student?
How do you feel about the teacher?
What is your incentive to study hard for the next class?
--------------
Let's say that you worked all summer and saved up for a car.
Now let's say that your parents tell you you must ferry your younger sister around, as much as you drive for yourself, because it isn't fair that she doesn't have a car.
Socialism seeks to eradicate poverty. Capitalism encourages poverty. This cannot be denied.
I deny it, as does reality. Everywhere there is more economic freedom, there is greater prosperity.
A higher standard for some, but not all.
The poorest people in the US, even running on what is left of the capitalist system, is higher than that of countries with a greater degree of central planning (socialism) in the economy.
Capitalism originates as economic freedom, but it quickly becomes polluted and turns into economic oppression. Socialism is true economic freedom. The workers control their work place.
On your second point, I would be much obliged if you would clarify.
Capitalism originates as economic freedom, but it quickly becomes polluted and turns into economic oppression.
Define economic oppression.
What pollutes the capitalism?
How does the pollution turn into economic oppression?
On your second point, I would be much obliged if you would clarify.
The poorest people in the US (formerly much more economically free) are still doing better (have more wealth) than average people in many other industrialized countries.
It might be instructive to ask why the poor in America have more wealth than the average individual in the developing world. One possible answer to this is that America has managed to export its brand of cut-throat capitalism to the rest of the world. On the world stage, the U.S. is the bourgeois, and the developing world is the proletariat, who often quite literally work at subsistence wage to create wealth for U.S. Corporations.
Economic oppression is the subservience of the poor to the gentry; although existing throughout all economic systems, it is most prevalent in unregulated Capitalism where wealth and resources are able to be concentrated into a few hands.
What pollutes the capitalism?
Capitalism is polluted by the concentration of wealth and resources into too few hands, leaving large swaths of the population without enough to get by. In well-regulated capitalism, this is deterred by regulations (especially anti-trust legislation).
How does the pollution turn into economic oppression?
In truth, the pollution and the oppression are the same thing; concentration of wealth and resources.
What is the mechanism whereby resources are concentrated?
Unlimited purchasing power and accrual of resources.
Name a situation where an anti-trust case was brought against a business that was harming the consumer (not competitors).
Microsoft controlling the prices of their products while ensuring competition remained virtually nonexistent. Apple is doing much the same thing, currently.
Name a case where a harmful (to the consumer) monopoly was gained or maintained without the help of government "regulations".
Being as all corporations are subject to regulations of the US, none. However, these regulations can and have been overcome to build a monopoly on certain goods and services.
Unlimited purchasing power and accrual of resources.
Unlimited? or just large?
If you know that someone will pay big bucks for something do you charge them little?
Microsoft controlling the prices of their products while ensuring competition remained virtually nonexistent.
Patents and copyright are government grants of monopoly on intellectual "property".
How did they ensure no competition?
I use Linux. My friends use Mac.
Being as all corporations are subject to regulations of the US, none.
I'll name a famous "monopoly" case: Standard oil.
They increased their efficiency, lowering prices, bringing them down so everyone could afford their products. Their competitors petitioned to have it broken up as a monopoly. At the time of their break up, they had no fewer than 150 competitors. There has never been a case where a harmful monopoly was successfully gained or maintained, in a free market. Even before the "anti-trust" laws.
The nature of free market capitalism makes it almost impossible.
However, these regulations can and have been overcome to build a monopoly on certain goods and services.
Name a case where a coercive monopoly has gained its position without the help of government.
"certain goods and services" compete with all other goods and services, for the money of the consumer.
If you want to know why money in the US seems to flow toward the richest (and it does) look no farther than the fiat currency and fractional reserve banking system, enforced by our government.
This is not capitalism. It is government interference in the economy, through the most prevalent economic good: the medium of exchange.
If you know that someone will pay big bucks for something do you charge them little?
Unlimited. The nature of free-market capitalism is such that it is possible for one individual to control all means of production over a large geographical region.
Patents and copyright are government grants of monopoly on intellectual "property". Approved unanimously by the Founding Fathers and, prior to the Constitution, 12 of the 13 original colonies.
Intel Vice President Steven McGeady said Microsoft hopes to " hopes to 'embrace, extend and extinguish' competition by substituting the company's proprietary software for the public-domain, open technologies that have driven the frenetic growth of the Internet."
I'll name a famous "monopoly" case: Standard oil.
If Standard Oil had been allowed to maintain a monopoly on the oil market, those 150 competitors would have been driven out of business, costing jobs and money for the US. If Standard Oil had survived to the present day, gas prices would certainly be much more inflated than they are now.
Name a case where a coercive monopoly has gained its position without the help of government.
What do you constitute as help from the government? It seems to me you define it as "allowing a business to exist at all," but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Unlimited. The nature of free-market capitalism is such that it is possible for one individual to control all means of production over a large geographical region.
This is an assertion, not evidence. By what mechanism would this happen?
Approved unanimously by the Founding Fathers and, prior to the Constitution, 12 of the 13 original colonies.
Yup, nobody's perfect. ;)
hopes to
Hopes to and being able to do so are different.
Ibm hoped to extinguish competition with microchannel, back in the 80s, too. Didn't happen. People tend to use what is most useful. Proprietary tech tends to be less useful.
If Standard Oil had been allowed to maintain a monopoly on the oil market, those 150 competitors would have been driven out of business, costing jobs and money for the US. If Standard Oil had survived to the present day, gas prices would certainly be much more inflated than they are now.
Another assertion. What is your evidence?
Most anti-trust legislation is brought, not because the company is gouging consumers, but because it is being more efficient than jealous competitors.
What do you constitute as help from the government?
Lobbying for special laws or regulations to keep competitors out of the market. An example would be the AMA, monopoly on medical school certification, and use of the medicare codes. Oil company and green energy company subsidies are also included, as are farm subsidies. The companies that rate bonds (whose names are written into law as the "official" rating agencies to comply with some regulations), licensing for crap that shouldn't need a license, like interior decorating, all keep competition out of the market.
boogle and copycat, you guys might like this. I was doing some research on antitrust laws while reading your debate and came across this little tidbit on wikipedia.
One of the earliest invocations of the Act [Sherman anti-trust act] was in 1894, against the American Railway Union led by Eugene V. Debs, with the intent to settle the Pullman Strike.[9] Several years would pass before the first use of the Act against its intended perpetrator, corporate monopolies.
How do you like that? The law created after public outcry against huge corporate trusts was first used to break up a union run by America's most famous socialist. Truth really is stranger than fiction.
One of the earliest invocations of the Act [Sherman anti-trust act] was in 1894, against the American Railway Union led by Eugene V. Debs, with the intent to settle the Pullman Strike.[9] Several years would pass before the first use of the Act against its intended perpetrator, corporate monopolies.
This is an assertion, not evidence. This was a large part of Standard Oil’s business practice.
Hopes to and being able to do so are different. So, hoping to undermine the economic system that allowed you to achieve your success is alright?
Proprietary tech tends to be less useful.
And by selling proprietary software bundled with nearly every home computer, as well as most business related computers, Microsoft gained a near omnipresence in the world. Other software competitors have only recovered in the past decade.
Apple is a great example. They weren’t doing wonderfully before the Microsoft Anti-Trust case, and now they boarder on a monopoly themselves. Allowing competitors to gain greater exposure in the market has allowed technology to progress in more diverse ways than if Microsoft had continued its dominance.
Another assertion. What is your evidence?
I’ll admit that is an assertion, but I base it on an extrapolation of Standard’s market dominance, coupled with an extrapolation of the decline of their competitors sustainability.
I agree with you on lobbying and most subsidies. But Medicare Reimbursement codes only apply to Medicare patients and Usual and Customary rates for provider reimbursement. And licensing can be a hassle, but some people insist on having their labor licensed.
This was a large part of Standard Oil’s business practice.
They lowered prices for the consumer. That is good for the consumer. No firm has ever been able to follow through with the lower/kill competition/raise prices, formula. Competition always comes back.
So, hoping to undermine the economic system that allowed you to achieve your success is alright?
Hoping, and ability are different. No one has ever successfully done it, and kept the market.
and by selling proprietary software bundled with nearly every home computer, as well as most business related computers... in the market has allowed technology to progress in more diverse ways than if Microsoft had continued its dominance.
Prices for consumers have continued to fall, throughout the process, including the "monopoly" years.
And licensing can be a hassle, but some people insist on having their labor licensed.
not licensing. state governments have the only authority to license. State gvts have universally given the AMA the monopoly power to accredit med schools. This is one of the reasons for the high price of doctors and med schools.
The initial lower prices undermined smaller businesses, making it virtually impossible to establish any useful market presence. Competition comes back, and n one has ever successfully kept a market, due to Federal intervention. This is the case in Standard & Microsoft.
Prices may have fallen, but at the cost of a quality product.
state governments have the only authority to license.
Also, your mises.org sources are nothing but ideological hogwash; libertarian nonsense. With courses in "Atlas Shrugged", "Anarcho-Capitalism", and one entitled "Libertarian Ethics", it's clear this is another neocon money mill preying on those who are terrified of their own Government; terrified into thinking they are being cheated, robbed, and oppressed by the very institution that has led this country to its prosperity.
Unless, you'd prefer America to be more like Medieval Iceland.
Economic oppression is when people do not have what is necessary to live, and do not have control over production.
Capitalism becomes polluted because of some people are better at business than others. These people gain more and more money and put down competition. They end up with the vast majority of power. The capitalistic social pyramid is similarly to the food pyramid in nature. These people then control all means of production and attempt to use debt as a means to control the population.
The poorest people in the US (formerly much more economically free) are still doing better (have more wealth) than average people in many other industrialized countries.
Economic oppression is when people do not have what is necessary to live, and do not have control over production.
Labor is the primary component of production. Individuals have a great deal of control over their own supply of labor.
Capitalism becomes polluted because of some people are better at business than others.
So, they should be punished for their ability?
These people gain more and more money and put down competition.
By satisfying the demands of the consumer, more efficiently than the competitor.
They end up with the vast majority of power.
What sort of power?
Political? Keep government out of the market and this is not a problem.
Economic? As long as they are satisfying the needs of the consumer, the most efficiently, this is a boon for the consumer. If they stop giving value for value, they invite competitors (both in their field, and substitutes for their product) to gain market share.
They don't do better than those in Sweden :)
Actually, they do.
*"Relative to household in the United States, Swedish family income is considerably less. In fact, the study concludes, average income in Sweden is less than average income for black Americans, which comprise the lowest-income socioeconomic group in this country."
Labor is the primary component of production. Individuals have a great deal of control over their own supply of labor.
This is what it should be, but that is easier said than done. When people go on strike, they are usually not paid or fired. The workers have their families in mind.
So, they should be punished for their ability?
Not unless it infringes on the economic rights of others. (Which they usually do)
What sort of power?
Most certainly economic power, but political power can be bought.
And on Sweden, I would rather have slightly less income, then pay a 50 000 dollar medical bill.
When people go on strike, they are usually not paid or fired. The workers have their families in mind.
That's what unions are for. But unions should have no special bargaining privileges granted by government. They should be more like "employment insurance".
Not unless it infringes on the economic rights of others. (Which they usually do)
The only economic rights are the right to own property, and the right to the mutually voluntary trade of that property.
Without theft or fraud, how can these rights be infringed upon?
Most certainly economic power,
To maintain economic power, one must continue to satisfy the demands of the consumer.
political power can be bought.
Again, this would require government interference in the market. This is not capitalism, it is rent-seeking.
I would rather have slightly less income, then pay a 50 000 dollar medical bill.
Sacrifice is a noble thing, so long as it is someone else who is doing it. ;)
This is opinionated. Economic rights are very extensive, and and can very greatly. Influence in means of production should be included.
This is no less opinionated.
My list of rights do not have to be supplied by the action or labor of others, do yours?
If others must labor to supply your rights, that means you have a right to the labor of others. If this is true, then others have the right to your labor. If we all have equal rights, then each has a right to an equal share of everyone's labor, and the net gain in the right to the labor of others is zero. Why not just skip the middle man and agree that we only have a right to our own labor, and that no other may enslave us?
Each has influence in the means of production to the degree that he produces goods or services for trade. This keeps loafers from influencing things to which they have not contributed. Think of it like sharing a cab with someone who is broke. If they don't contribute to the fare, they should not decide where the cab goes.
I live in Canada. What you call sacrifice, we call mutual assistance.
If you can't opt out, it isn't "mutual assistance", it is legal robbery.
Planned-Socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.
Planned-Socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.
Can you describe the details of the market-socialism model?
Market socialism is an attempt by a Soviet-style economy to introduce market elements into its economic system to improve economic growth. It was first attempted during the 1920s in the Soviet Union as NEP, or the New Economic Policy, but soon abandoned. Later, elements of "market socialism" were introduced in Hungary (where it was nicknamed "goulash socialism"), Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia (see Titoism) in the 1970s and 1980s. It is also the system introduced in the People's Republic of China by Deng Xiaoping in the late 1970s and has evolved into what some economists, outside of China, would argue is modern Chinese capitalism. Modern Vietnam and Laos also describe themselves as market socialist systems. The Soviet Union attempted to introduce a market socialist system with its perestroika reforms under Mikhael Gorbachev prior to the collapse of the USSR in 1991.
Historically, market socialist systems attempt to retain government ownership of the "commanding heights of the economy" such as heavy industry, energy, and infrastructure, while introducing decentralised decision making and giving local managers more freedom to make decisions and respond to market demands. Market socialist systems also allow private ownership and entrepreneurship in the service and other secondary economic sectors. The market is allowed to determine prices for consumer goods and agricultural products and farmers and sometimes other producers are allowed to sell all or some of their products on the open market and keep some or all of the profit as an incentive to increased and improved production. However, the Chinese experience with market socialism has led to another situation.
Not unless it infringes on the economic rights of others. (Which they usually do)
The only economic rights are the right to own property, and the right to the mutually voluntary trade of that property.
Without theft or fraud, how can these rights be infringed upon?
When you work, you are always having the value of your work stolen from you. You, by essential right should maintain the value of your work as you see fit, meaning you charge what you want to charge for your work, as you see fair. In a workplace, for your employer to make a profit, you're contribution MUST be undervalued.
"Relative to household in the United States, Swedish family income is considerably less. In fact, the study concludes, average income in Sweden is less than average income for black Americans, which comprise the lowest-income socioeconomic group in this country."
How is there poverty when no one has more than another? Poverty is a relative term.
The goal of capitalism is cold and calculating.
The effect of capitalism is a higher standard of living for everyone in the society.
Take a walk down Younge St. and say that to the homeless, you'll find rather quickly that you are very, very wrong.
Capitalism makes a general rule of one of our most base- personal greed.
Capitalism has each of us competing to fulfil the needs of our fellow man. Whoever does this the best, prospers the most.
Yes, Capitalism has man competing. But no, it is NOT to fulfill the needs of fellow man. It is to preserve your own status in the society. That is greed, do not confuse it for love. No matter how you rationalize it, if you have more than a fellow man, you are not holding him as your equal. All men were created equal, so the old adage goes. To believe that any other man is incapable of being your equal is to be the very evil your previous logic professes to defend against.
Capitalism is "I"
Socialism is "WE"
No matter how you cut the cake, that's the way it is.
You present no facts to back this up. I live in Canada, a fairly socialized country. And let me tell you America looks like Honduras to us right now. Germany, Sweden, and other prospering European nations agree. Bet Greece wishes it had been paying taxes right now.
Capitalism is a race to the bottom. Who can pay as little to have something done so we all make nothing.
I disagree that capitalism raises the standard of living of everyone. Capitalist try to cut the wages of their workers to increase their profits. Capitalists strive for slavery and allow people to die to increase their profits. Capitalists will pollute our environment to make a profit. They will destroy our sources of water. There isn't anything they won't do to increase their profits. Our culture believes that we should take care of the disadvantaged but the capitalists don't agree. They have and will exploit anything to make a buck.
I pretty much agree with every point you made. What scares me is the continuing presence of free-market ideology (read extreme capitalism) in academia. Extreme ideologies are always bad. always.
With that said. The goal of socialism is beautiful and poetic. The goal of capitalism is cold and calculating. Social attempts to harness our better, more moral instincts- love of our fellow man. Capitalism makes a general rule of one of our most base- personal greed. For that reason, I choose socialism.
This is excellently put. Capitalism nurtures and stimulates the irrational, emotional side of the brain. The part which gets excited when you receive a pay cheque. Socialism is an attempt to rationalise society.
See what I mean. You act agreeable to the normies to hide the fact that you are a radical and a douche bag, that way it is easier to get away with being a douche bag to everyone else and whether they deserve it or not they are the outliers and you are the Normal Nom who sides with all the Average Als out there.
Capitalism nurtures and stimulates the irrational, emotional side of the brain.
The post you supposedly agreed with called capitalism cold and calculating, not emotional and irrational.
Socialism is an attempt to rationalise society.
No it's not, socialism is an attempt to do the impossible and make everyone equal. The only system which inherently values the rational is Technocracy. Socialism values equality above all which is inherently irrational because it is an unrealistic goal.
You're not very good at actually reading arguments. You cling to a point in your head and just kind of go back to your playbook from there.
I'm pretty clear that something in human nature would need to change in order for socialism to work, and that humans aren't there yet. We are headed there though. At some point, 10,000 years, 100,000 years, a blink of the eye in terms of this planets existence, we should get to the point where socialism can work without violence.
And at that point it is more beneficial than capitalism...
Actually, I did read the whole argument as my argument still stands, socialism will always fail regardless of the weak correlation between socialism and evolution. I will concede socialism working if everyone shared ONE BRAIN, but this will also never happen.
What you are calling capitalism is interventionism, corporatism, and rent-seeking.
---------------------
Capitalism does not involve a private central bank setting interest rates.
Capitalism does not involve a private central bank adjusting the money supply.
Capitalism does not involve a system of fiat currency that requires legal tender laws to make people use it.
Capitalism does not involve protection for lenders, such as commercial bank bailouts.
Capitalism does not involve protections for investors, such as FDIC deposit insurance or investment firm bailouts.
Capitalism does not involve a government responsible for spending 40% of the nations GDP.
Capitalism does not involve massive amounts of regulations on business.
Capitalism does not involve government subsidies to certain industries.
Capitalism does not involve government contracts with corporations.
Capitalism does not involve using tax payer dollars to clean up private corporate disasters.
Capitalism does not involve government buying up the majority of resource rich land, then leasing that land out to favored corporations, such as major oil producers and mining corporations.
Capitalism does not involve restrictions on private property owners being able to harvest resources from the land they own.
Capitalism does not involve tax payer backed mortgage firms.
Capitalism does not involve a massive military industrial complex that makes all of its profits from tax dollars, unwillingly taken from the public.
Capitalism does not involve government seizing private property through eminent domain and then handing that land to private developers.
Capitalism does not involve government creating jobs.
Capitalism does not involve taxes on money (real money, such as gold and silver).
Capitalism does not involve corporate lobbying for government contracts, kickbacks, tax breaks, subsidies, favorable regulations, regulations that hinder competition, regulations that hinder startups from competing, or any other government involvement in industry.
Capitalism does not involve forcible redistribution of wealth.
Capitalism does not involve a heavy progressive income tax on people's labor.
------------------
What does capitalism involve?
Protection of private property rights, where a person can use their property as they see fit.
Protection of private property rights, where a person gets to keep what they produce (money).
Protection of private contracts, where people are free to negotiate voluntary contracts with each other and have the courts uphold those contracts.
Free markets, where people can voluntarily exchange goods and services with each other as they see fit.
Protection of money's value, where those who counterfeit and artificially inflate the money supply are charged with a crime, rather than be rewarded with profits.
-------
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
-Benito Mussolini, author of The Doctrine of Fascism, Italian Fascist Dictator (Duce) 1943 – 1945
So I gather that you are not calling the US Capitalist. I will accept that. However, what about all the other failed countries which have Capitalist systems. These countries do not have some of the things that you listed.
List them then. Even if he could argue that Capitalists had no influence whatsoever in the governments, it does not matter. This is a debate. You dispute him and he disputes you.
Show me a country where a capitalist system failed, and I will show you the government interference (not part of capitalism) that caused it.
That's ridiculous. The same could be said of any system in the world which has ever existed. Nazism? Great idea, but Hitler screwed it all up. Imperialism? Great for the economy, but the Roman government overreached. Communism? Would have been awesome if it weren't for Stalin.
You're asking someone a question while simultaneously trying to give yourself carte blanche to reject their answer. That's a clear logical fallacy.
It is laughable that you compared fascist capitalism to free market capitalism as if they are the same, so then communist socialism is the same as democratic socialism. Time to get a clue.
Capitalism always decays. Socialism does not. Once again, I bet the people suffering under various regimes in Africa and Latin America would not find that laughable.
Despite government intervention, America witnessed the greatest growth in wealth in the history of mankind because of capital markets. Socialism only decays, every single socialist nation has either failed or failing.
Regimes are not capitalism, these are usually referred to as dictorial.
Vietnam and Cuba are some of poorest countries in the world. Finland, Sweden are not socialist countries, they are mixed economies, which means they have capital markets.
Sweden and Finland have had Socialist majorities in their Parliaments. Please do not make un-supported claims. Also, what would happen if Vietnam became Capitalist? I do not want to think of the result.
And on Cuba, do you not realize that it is a Latin American success story? What has Capitalism done to other countries in the region? It has impoverished them! Cuba has one of the best Health care systems in the world, they complete in the Olympics and win medals, and they have a great education system.
United States was the closest true capitalist country until the turn of the 20th Century. It has the highest standard of living in the world though government intervention is consuming our wealth through high taxation, paper money and regulatory bureaucracy.
If socialism is superior to capitalism, why is Cuba not have the highest standard of living in the world?
Why does Cuba have the highest standard of living in Latin America?
This does not answer the question that our friend asked you.
If socialism is superior to capitalism, why is Cuba not have the highest standard of living in the world?
You have pretty much made it clear what the answer to this question is. Or are you going to answer it for me? Can you even answer it? So far you have proven that you can't. But you can prove me wrong.
Look at all the countries in Latin America, South America, Africa and Asia that adopted socialism that failed horribly. There are too many to count. But if you would like a list I will be happy to oblige.
Ideally socialism would be able to guarantee living standards which promote creativity, invention, and the progression of humanity. With basic needs meant individuals would be able to contribute to society according to their strengths instead of being forced to contribute according to survival.
Ideally, but not in reality.
Capitalism after only a couple of generations at its best only can act as a replacement for darwin-type survival, where instead of survival depending on speed, strength, and brains, it depends on your parents' means, and if they pass money and property down to you.
Actually no, it does not depend on your parent's means. In a capitalist society, if you work hard, you will get paid well. Whether you parents pass things down to you or not, you can either become poor (by making bad life choices), Middle Class (by making good life choices but not necessarily wanting to go the distance to get rich), or rich (by making good life choices and going the extra mile to climb up the ranks and get paid more and more money as you go). I can list multiple examples of people who grew up poor but became rich:
1. Guy Laliberté
founded Cirque du Soleil
2. Alan Gerry
kickstarted a TV network that went on to become Cablevision
3. Kenny Troutt
the founder of Excel Communications
4. Mohed Altrad
Montpellier rugby club president and Entrepreneur of the Year
5. Howard Schultz
Starbucks founder
The list could keep going on. But I don't need any more examples, I have proven my point.
These are sort of the extreme conclusions of each theory.
I know that, and still, it can be disputable.
So ideally, socialism is a better system for humanity, and I fully expect some form of it will need to be adopted at some point in our evolution.
Our brains aren't there yet though.
Our brains will never get there because nobody is and will ever be perfect.
We are too greedy, lazy, and corruptible for a socialist society to last.
We seem to do best when we use the competitive nature of capitalism, with social strategies that ensure the rich are not able to stifle all opportunity for the rest of humanity through the influence that comes from money.
I totally agree. This is why socialist societies fail all over the world.
We seem to do best when we use the competitive nature of capitalism, with social strategies that ensure the rich are not able to stifle all opportunity for the rest of humanity through the influence that comes from money.
I am going to again agree with this statement.
We need balance in all things at this point. Money against the power of representation, rights against special interests, media against government, social economic provisions against capitalist incentive; all butting heads to ensure an extreme doesn't allow for the few to lord over the many--which has been the case through most of human history, and still is for the majority of humans outside of westernized societies, by the way.
So you mean like each thing has a check so that there are no loopholes in anything?
Feudalists said exactly the same before society moved to capitalism. Monarchists said the same before society moved to feudalism. It is a fallacy to claim something doesn't work if the reason it doesn't work is that the status quo is entrenched in one particular way of life. Take a team of 11 soccer players and give them each a stick. Throw a ball in there. Does hockey now not work "in reality"?
if you work hard, you will get paid well.
Another pernicious myth. My old man got up at 5 am every morning for his entire life and climbed up poles all day to fix telephone lines. Now he lives off a state pension.
or rich (by making good life choices and going the extra mile to climb up the ranks and get paid more and more money as you go).
People do not get rich by working hard. This is the most damaging and false myth about capitalism. They get rich by taking advantage of the people who are working hard.
Feudalists said exactly the same before society moved to capitalism. Monarchists said the same before society moved to feudalism. It is a fallacy to claim something doesn't work if the reason it doesn't work is that the status quo is entrenched in one particular way of life. Take a team of 11 soccer players and give them each a stick. Throw a ball in there. Does hockey now not work "in reality"?
Alright, that is a good point.
Another pernicious myth. My old man got up at 5 am every morning for his entire life and climbed up poles all day to fix telephone lines. Now he lives off a state pension.
It might depend on where you live. My grandfather did the same thing as your father and my grandfather lives a great middle-class life.
People do not get rich by working hard. This is the most damaging and false myth about capitalism. They get rich by taking advantage of the people who are working hard.
That is not a myth. There are people who take advantage of you and that is definitely wrong, but not all people under a capitalist society are bad. An example is my uncle. He is second in command to the owner of a company that makes medical robots. He does not take advantage of anybody. He started off as an electrical engineer. He slowly got raises and promotions as he showed himself capable and slowly but surely he climbed his way up to be the manager of the managers. If my uncle took advantage of his employees that would be wrong in so many ways. He knows this and is going to work for the good of the company, not just for himself.
That is not a myth. There are people who take advantage of you and that is definitely wrong, but not all people under a capitalist society are bad.
Definitely not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is no direct relationship between working hard and getting rich. That is a myth.
What people need to understand is that capitalism is a pyramid scheme. I don't mean figuratively. I mean that is literally what it is. The people at the bottom do the work and the people at the top profit from it. Passive income is how people get rich under capitalism. They start a business, employ people who work hard, and then they skim off the top.
What people need to understand is that capitalism is a pyramid scheme. I don't mean figuratively. I mean that is literally what it is. The people at the bottom do the work and the people at the top profit from it. Passive income is how people get rich under capitalism. They start a business, employ people who work hard, and then they skim off the top.
No. You act like the people at the top are just sitting there and not doing anything. They are the ones who are working hard. They are the ones who are making the decisions. They are the ones who are taking the risks. They are the ones who are making the sacrifices. They are the ones who started the company in the first place. Don't act like that's easy in any way because it isn't. You are just so ignorant that you don't even know what you are talking about.
I don't realise why people in America always freak when they hear the word socialism or communism. You don't see Castro hiding under his bed covers at the thought of a possible new wave of capitalist ideology! Although I think his bed is where he's going to stay now..!
Notice countries with a degree of socialism in their government tend to fair better than other countries? This is no coincidence, when society benefits as a whole, the country does better. This is good for everyone. This being said, socialism must be executed properly.
While I agree socialism is better, you're wrong. All government is technically socialism. It just depends on the degree. Now I have to go dispute something else too balance this out.
Socialism definitely fares better for the society.Unlike animals human beings are characterized by the quality of labour. Animals perform repetitive, cyclic work which is compelled by natural instincts. But human labour begins with conceptualization and ends with execution and involves satisfaction and identification with your labour. But capitalism has alienated man from the activity of labour. This commodification of everything along with one's labour has made it impossible for humans to identify, satisfy, enjoy and associate with work. Thus capitalism has made humans detest labour. No wonder students no longer want to go to schools longing for holidays and workers hate to be confined to their cubicles.
Also, capitalism leads to the inevitable domination of economic development over other forms of development. Eventually progress gets reduced to statistics and numbers. Thus human predicament fades in the background which is evident in the occupy wall street movements and low human rights concern in countries with apparent economic development.
what if its a socialism with a democracy? not all socialist governments have to be dictatorships, and the converse it true as well, not all capitalist governments have to be democracies. its just that people for some reason have it in their minds that communism = dictatorship which is absolutely not true because it contradicts definitions. i will say though that a capitalist government can very easily evolve into a corporate democracy which is a very bad form of government because it already has the backbone to stem this kind of government in the first place, however based on extensive research it would likely be difficult for a socialist democracy to evolve into a dictatorship in a relatively short time period.
Well don't confuse free-market capitalism with pure capitalism that what you guys are all thinking of that's what led to the monopoles. Yeah we got rid of that free market capitalism is much more small business friendly and doesn't allow for so much corporate backstabbing
socialism is a very good system as it gets the best of both worlds. while not being extreme one way or the other. its a peoples system and its a business's system simultaneously without giving the business too much power to interfere unecessarily into peoples lives. when the people need support the can get it, while at the same time enjoy a modern and healthy lifestyle. look at Sweden, they enjoy one of the best health care systems in the world, esspecially considering its free, and they are some of the happiest people in the world as statistics would show. despite the high tax rate, because things are not inflated the people their can afford everything your average american can afford. a full on capitalism is all about business and people tend to forget about the actual people side of society. in a socialism both the people and economics are tended to without making anyone go into poverty, and if someone were to somehow take an economic tumble, they have very good support systems to get them back up and running in no time. there is so much more i could get into, but many of my comrades below me have listed all of the other necessary reasons why its a better system below me
Yes comrade firing squads and gulags are good for democracy. Don't question the government or think for yourself such things are bad for democracy. Democracy is where everyone who agrees with the communist party has the right to make there voices heard. Democracy is where Those who do not agree with the communist party have the right to chose between working for free until they die or dieing
Your understanding of Socialism is truly archaic. If you are attempting to say that the USSR was Socialist, then you are incorrect. Socialism is Democracy. I highly suggest you read the information provided below.
I see how they are different however that being said they are also very much the same in some key areas. Socialism while not as bad as communism still allows for WAY to much government intervention into business which always hurts the economy governments should break up monopolies and that's it. Also the workers have a say in management? Why? That would gunk up the system look at how long it takes congress to do any thing. Governments are supposed to be slow and gunked so they can't gain to much power and become oppressive whereas companies are supposed to be efficient and streamlined so they can get products out to the consumers faster and generate more profits because that's how an economy works kids. And lastly socialist programs are costly and as a result they ether end up putting us in debt (like we are now) or raise taxes astronomically (like Obamacare is going to) socialism is a nice idea but its just not ecmonomiclly viable sorry kiddies
Governments are not supposed to be slow and gunked up, they are supposed to work quickly to protect the interests and livelihoods of their constituents.
and by your ideas of workers not having a say in management, i can also infer that you are, at heart, a supporter of dictatorships. Your boss is a dictator if he/she does not allow the opinions of their employees.
By the way,
Don't compare business to congress. Business knows what it wants. Congress doesn't. It's like comparing adults to children. Adults know what they want, for the most part.
Children don't even know what they NEED.
Finally.
Socialist programs are costly, yes, when put into the framework of a capitalist system.
Socialist programs within a socialist system are essentially free. Education is free. NO longer will we have aspiring doctors crushed by the high costs of schooling
In addition, no longer will we have doctors who became doctors for the paycheque. Since everyone is essentially paid the same, there is no drive besides the pure need to help.
You work at what you love, not what you have to in order to survive
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.
Democratic socialism, a group of political movements that aim to build socialism from grassroots-level organizations through either reformist or revolutionary means
Much better, this way you don't get as many greedy bastards with millions stacked up in offshore accounts whilst the poor are freezing to death in the winter.
With all the talk of socialism meaning immediate tyranny, i feel i must ask:
Has anyone here considered that perhaps the tyranny would be necessary to instill the ideas into FUTURE generations? Perhaps one or two generations would have to suffer to make the lives of the rest of humanity's existence better?
Things always get worse before they get better. That's the way it always seems to work. Revolution is a dangerous and bloody, wholly unlikeable business, but the people who lead revolutions know that they are sacrificing their comfort to improve the lives of the people who come after them.
I can see that the general consensus here is: Socialism is good, but unworkable currently.
Cool.
But, i can recall from my history texts that unfavorable conditions are the conditions under which the most famous and celebrated revolutions in history were enacted. The French Revolution, the American Revolution. the list goes on.
Sure, our generation may never be able to take all the ideals of socialism into our societies, but the generation that has yet to be born can. Why? Because they can be taught differently. They can be taught that what they love to do matters. They can be taught to be kind, not unscrupulous. They can be taught to be responsible for the sake of their fellows rather than to be responsible for the sake of a continued paycheque.
In short, that generation could be taught that PEOPLE matter more than MONEY
In that idea lies the basis of socialism and in that idea, lies a better tomorrow.
It would seem to me that precisely the system that fails horribly in the hands of the human can be a standard for some species to avoid the lethal properties of the mutation of intelligence. They would be more likely live on to convert all matter in the universe into energy until the big rip.
A truly capitalistic system only benefits the wealthy, because the people who runs and have stakes in cooperations and political institutions only looks out for their own interests. We have seen numerous examples of this, where the latest, is a story that concluded that the richest people have billions after billions in foreign accounts on the grounds that they do not have to pay taxes from these amounts. However, the people who owns the billions, normally grew up in states where they benefitted from the community of the state. Therefore, it would be only natural that they gave something back to those, who helped them become succesful.
This argument is also in concert with the argument about globalization. There is no such thing as being loyal and proud of ones own state anymore, as people see themselves as people of the world. This results in that everyone who have means, choose to entertain themselves internationally and as all scholars from studies such as International Studies and International Relations will inform you the international system is basically anarchic. People can do as they please, because there unfortunately is not a international regime or organization that have the power to enforce laws internationally yet. Therefore, I will not support capitalism, even though the idea is great if you perceive it nationally.
The only plausible, even FAIR argument for capitalism is that everyone is given an equal chance to make money, it just depends on their effort on how much they pursue it. IF this was true, I'd completely agree.
But as a wise man once said, "it's not."
In today's world, there is no "equal opportunity."
There is no "fairness," there is no equal start to finish.
As a previous debater said, where you start in life, is where your parents left off.
If your parents left off in a bad neighborhood, that's where you start. If they left off poor, with nothing to their names, that's where you're beginning. This, compared to someone being born into millions isn't equal opportunity to wealth. It's the opposite.
Even the gov't programs to assist the "less fortunate" widen the gap. What is "fair" about government assistance? Affirmative action, for example. Does creating an easier entry for minorities send a message of fairness? If someone is hiring, and they have to resumes, exactly the same sitting in front of them, but there's only one difference:
Subject A: Graduated from Berkley University on a full-ride academic scholarship.
Subject B: Graduated from Berkley University on a full-ride Affirmative Action scholarship.
The person would pick A. Any assistance makes the unfairness more unfair, and the handicap worse. No matter what the case, under current capitalist circumstances, the rich get richer over the poor getting poorer. That is why I agree with Albert Einstein is support of socialism, because capitalism is a fractured system.
Socialism and capitalism are not incompatible. Depending on what we define as capitalism and socialism the best political model is a mix like social democracy, social liberalismo, free market socialism, liberal socialism, the nordic model and so on.
Socialism does not give up economic liberty. It ensures it. In capitalism, the average working class man must sell himself to those who control the means of production. This is not economic liberty. In Socialism, the means of production are controlled with the workers in mind. This ensures that everyone prospers.
"More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life."
Socialism does not give up economic liberty. It ensures it.
When you are told who to give the check to for what service, you don't have economic liberty. When you can't choose between health care providers because the government monopolized it, you don't have economic liberty. When you are forced to fund government projects that you don't agree with or would rather have the market handle, you don't have economic liberty.
In capitalism, the average working class man must sell himself to those who control the means of production. This is not economic liberty.
You don't "Sell" yourself, you voluntarily agree to do a service in return for money and/or benefits. You have the right to start up your own business at any time or you could work for someone else's business and get some of their profit and climb your way higher in the company.
Liberty =/= guaranteed happiness and job satisfaction
Liberty = the ability of individuals to have control over their own actions
In Socialism, the means of production are controlled with the workers in mind.
Actually no, all means of production are owned by the government.
This ensures that everyone prospers.
No, it ensure the government will have a monopoly, you have to pay for their goods and services because 1. they are the only provider and 2. if you don't they can take legal action against you.
Socialism does not give up economic liberty. This is because workers have direct control over the means of production. Thus, the workers control the capital. This is economic freedom.
You don't "Sell" yourself, you voluntarily agree to do a service in return for money and/or benefits.
This is simply not true. Their is no choice for many workers, especially those who reside in markets with limited employment. They must sell themselves to acquire capital.
Actually no, all means of production are owned by the government
This is also not true. In Socialism the workers control the means of production.
Socialism does not give up economic liberty. This is because workers have direct control over the means of production.
The workers don't own the means of production, the government does.
This is simply not true. Their is no choice for many workers, especially those who reside in markets with limited employment. They must sell themselves to acquire capital.
Working for someone is not "selling" yourself. When someone does work for capital and both parties gave their consent, it is not selling themselves. Even if one party takes advantage of the other there is an extremely high chance that deal was is mutually beneficial and leaves both parties better of then they were before.
The factory owners don't enslave them, they say "we are selling plastics, help us make the plastics and you can get a share of it, if you're not interested feel free to decline the offer."
This is also not true. In Socialism the workers control the means of production.
If you are referring to unions, then you are mistaken that is still Capitalism. In Capitalism the workers and unions get more power as the economy gets better, instead of producers just having to compete for the consumers they now have to compete for the labor.
The workers have a monopoly, not the government.
Actually no, in socialism the government has a monopoly.
I assume that you must have been grossly mis-informed about Socialism. The workers own the means of production, we are referring to Socialism, not the Soviet Union. Socialism means prosperity for everyone in society, there is no economic disparity, unlike capitalism.
The workers own the means of production, we are referring to Socialism, not the Soviet Union.
Unless you are referring to anarcho-socialism or talking like one of those politicians who just says "the workers" and "the people" every few seconds, you are referring to unionism. Unionism is still capitalism.
Also, you seemed to be grossly mis-informed about Socialism, or its definition at least. Socialism can mean collective or government ownership, in most cases, it has been government ownership.
Have you completely ignored the information that I have given to you? It appears you have.
Have you completely ignored the information I have presented to you? apparently you have...
The Socialism that I am referring to is similar to that implemented in Scandinavian countries.
Although America has more economic freedoms, Scandinavian countries are not socialist. Actually, in comparison to the United States, every Scandinavian country (except for Norway) have MORE economic freedom when it comes to businesses.
Calling a country like Sweden socialist would be like calling The United States Laissez-faire, its just not true.
Ever notice that Scandinavian countries are at the top of the list for most things? The common thread is the element of Socialism.
China and Russia's economies are booming, despite both these countries pasts they are both very Capitalist. Scandinavia isn't socialist.
Calling a country like Sweden socialist would be like calling The United States Laissez-faire, its just not true.
News Flash!! There was a Socialist Majority in Sweden's Parliament up until recently, and the socialists still hold power.
China and Russia's economies are booming
Russia's economy is not booming. You can't go in the Neva River because of the bones of the deceased. These are not from Stalin's time, they are from the Mafia.
News Flash!! There was a Socialist Majority in Sweden's Parliament up until recently, and the socialists still hold power.
News Flash!! Did you listen to anything I just said? The only thing that makes Sweden "socialist" is their high income tax on the rich and their redistribution/welfare... oh wait, America has that to! Just because the "socialist" hold power does not mean that a) the politicians are actually socialist or b) the country is socialist.
Also, large, privately owned companies do not match up with the idea of socialism, and considering IKEA, H&M;and Ericsson are all very large, wealthy and privately owned companies, I wouldn't say that their industry is very socialist...
Russia's economy is not booming. You can't go in the Neva River because of the bones of the deceased. These are not from Stalin's time, they are from the Mafia.
I said their economy is going, not their crime rate is dropping.
Technically it can be denied; however, there is irrefutable evidence, so denying it would be groundless. Sweden is not 100% Socialist, but it has a good deal of its elements.
No country is 100% anything, however, when it comes to "socialism" they just have a welfare state and government health care, that's it. Its a bit over simplified, but still, it would almost be like calling Canada socialist. There is no "irrefutable evidence" you act as if them having a high income tax and the following services I listed above makes the country socialist, even though it is far from it. Did you even look at the sources I gave you?
Socialism is not just about being a ''welfare'' state. It is about control over the means of production. And yes, I did look at the sources, too much capitalism for me I'm afraid.
I know it is not just about the welfare state, that is what I am saying, just because Sweden has a welfare state, state run health and high income taxes does not make them socialist. Again, calling Sweden socialist would be like calling America laissez faire, its just not accurate.
This proves the Party was at one time full of Communists.
The Democratic Party of America was pro-racial slavery at a time, does it mean they are today? No. Party names and history do not have to do with their current actions, seriously, the Communist Party of China runs a country that is more capitalist than most.
This is purely subjective to judgment, but it still is Socialistic.
All government is Socialistic and Capitalistic, and currently, the Capitalistic ideas out weight the Socialistic ones and Sweden is currently moving more to the right.
Them being socialistic (just like most governments) does not mean they are socialist.
You were trying to prove that the SDP of Sweden was never Socialist. I proved that.
Where do you see me say "The Swedish Social Democratic Party was never ever socialist"
"The name of the party in control is the "Swedish Social Democratic Party" it does not mean that:
a) Sweden is a democratic socialist state
b) The party is currently socialist
c) The party was ever socialist
Names of parties =/= proof"
I "trying to prove" saying they were never socialist, I was stating that simply because they have the label "Social Democratic Party" does not mean they are socialist, and as of the past decade or to, they have not been and Sweden has been getting better.
I just gave you all the proof in the world for that!
I also proved the additional points.
Do I have to say it again?
"The name of the party in control is the "Swedish Social Democratic Party" it does not mean that:
a) Sweden is a democratic socialist state
b) The party is currently socialist
c) The party was ever socialist"
I am not saying they were never socialist, I am saying that in your previous argument where you used the excuse "There was a Socialist Majority in Sweden's Parliament up until recently" that them having the name "Social" in their party does not make them Socialist, they are no longer socialist. Seriously, the Communist Party of China of once full Communist and they are now Capitalist, parties change, the "Socialists" having power doesn't mean anything when they... well, aren't socialist.
You're right, the name does not mean anything at all. One of the first Socialist parties in Canada was known as the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation. And the CCP is definitely just a bunch of Capitalists who use Communism as an excuse to hold onto power. This being said, you will have noticed in the constitution of the Swedish Social Democracy party, Socialism is mentioned, so it is part of Party ideology.
Yes, however, we are talking about the CURRENT times, the constitution means nothing. Look at America for example, its constitution is very Capitalist and Libertarian, but in modern times (as in now) it is not, it is a very Centrist and Authoritarian country.
America was once Capitalist and Sweden was once Socialist. America is no longer Capitalist and Sweden is no longer Socialist.
You're wasting your time with him... unless you're doing it for entertainment or for passing time. He is extremely biased, narrow-minded, and closed-minded. You can keep repeating the same over and over but he will never listen, he won't even try to understand anything (probably 'cause he cannot, for whatever reason).
You can keep repeating the same over and over but he will never listen, he won't even try to understand anything (probably 'cause he cannot, for whatever reason).
It is funny how when people don't see it your way (or very similar to your way) you immediately start ranting about how they don't understand or listen and how they are ignorant and narrow minded.
Yes, what he said may be a bit crude; however, on this issue, you do seem to be repeating yourself and ignoring the legitimate facts that I have provided.
The only reason I said you don't understand or listen is because you do not. The fact that you are stupid and narrow-minded, etc., comes from the previous arguments I've had with you.
You are incapable of looking objectively at the world we live in, and you are also incapable of objectively looking at yourself, evidently, and now you proved it again. This conclusion is based on your arguments.
There is no right or wrong, there is no good or evil, there is no meaning for anything. But since it happened so that we exist and since all life seems to work toward survival it is reasonable to assume that as the utmost importance to us. After all, what would be the point for all that we do if we didn't care about our survival and then one day just went extinct? As to survival, what would be the best characteristics that should be striven for - capitalism, does not support those characteristics. I'll leave the rest for you to figure out, while knowing you are incapable of doing so.
The only reason I said you don't understand or listen is because you do not. The fact that you are stupid and narrow-minded, etc., comes from the previous arguments I've had with you.
You are incapable of looking objectively at the world we live in, and you are also incapable of objectively looking at yourself, evidently, and now you proved it again. This conclusion is based on your arguments.
Mainly due to me seeing it in a different light than you do. You have a way of thinking where you argue in a "think like me or you didn't think" although you deny this and tend to just throw childish insults at me, it is very true. Part of thinking freely is accepting that when others think freely they will think differently, just because they are on the opposite side does not mean they didn't think.
When you are told who to give the check to for what service, you don't have economic liberty.
This is from bias.
When you can't choose between health care providers because the government monopolized it, you don't have economic liberty.
Bias.
What would be the point to choose if all healthcare is concentrated under one leadership who ensures best quality of service for anyone in need?
When you are forced to fund government projects that you don't agree with or would rather have the market handle, you don't have economic liberty.
Like paying taxes but you don't have a say where that money goes? Oh, you are talking about present system. But seriously, biased again.
You don't "Sell" yourself, you voluntarily agree to do a service in return for money and/or benefits.
It is selling oneself, unless the person does it for the job itself, if the person likes that job, is happy doing it, wants to do it. Right now, most people are selling themselves simply to stay alive, or from ignorance of how things really are or could be if they knew or cared about it, instead of only looking right in front of them and uncaring of what is farther beyond - the stuff that too matters a great deal. Do most people like the jobs they do? They don't think about it, if they did they'd hate the job or just the conditions they work in. I'm gonna leave this short... need to sleep too you know.
Voluntarily agreeing? Not at all, if they do not have a job they do not have money, if they do not have money they starve to death or start begging for help. You understand what that means? They do not agree, they are forced to do it against their will, not all but I'll say most. This, what is going on right now, this capitalism, breeds ignorant people, people who do not think about what really matters, people who are raised to live for money and not really care about anything else and definitely not look farther, not think farther and how things really are and what really matters. And you are one of them - bred to be a moron, sounds harsh and insulting yes? Yet very much true. I see who you are, as much as your arguments can reveal, and there's nothing good. Perhaps it's simply that you have mature more, a lot more.
Oh, almost forgot... biased again, your's that is.
You have the right to start up your own business at any time or you could work for someone else's business and get some of their profit and climb your way higher in the company.
Biased again. And just wrong...
You think in socialism people couldn't start their own "business"? Sure they could if what they came up with were useful in some way and if there were demand for it.
Working the way up in a company? What for? A person either is suited for the job, has the necessary skills, and wants the job, or the person should not get the position. Working the way up is living for money, as the higher up it goes the bigger the pay. Living for money is not the way to live.
Liberty =/= guaranteed happiness and job satisfaction
Liberty = the ability of individuals to have control over their own actions
Wtf??? Not just biased but moronic. You fail to see the connection between the first and the second? Being able to control one's own actions, not just actions but being able to control one's own life has the potential to give happiness and a satisfying job.
Actually no, all means of production are owned by the government.
Bias.
No, it ensure the government will have a monopoly, you have to pay for their goods and services because 1. they are the only provider and 2. if you don't they can take legal action against you.
Biased again.
Monopoly is not a bad thing, you know... How can you not know it? If the people in control know what is right and wrong and act according to what is right then a monopoly is an extremely fucking good thing!
Is everything you say biased? If not biased then downright stupid? Thus far seems so, at least when it comes to these kinds of subjects.
Thanks for reducing my sleep hours slightly. Then again it was worth it...
Liberty is the ability to for individuals to have control of their choices. Economics wise, if you are told who to pay for what good or service, you don't have economic liberty. That's not bias.
Bias.
What would be the point to choose if all health care is concentrated under one leadership who ensures best quality of service for anyone in need?
What says that it will ensure the best quality of care? In a free market if you health care provider is bad, you go to a new one, if the government health care is bad and there are no other options then you're shit out of luck, you still have to pay for it even if you don't wish to use it.
Like paying taxes but you don't have a say where that money goes? Oh, you are talking about present system. But seriously, biased again.
It is not bias, you have to pay taxes, there are many projects and programs that people don't agree with and might even find offensive or downright immoral, however, since there is a gun to their head they have to pay. In socialism you don't pick and choose which projects and programs you support you are still forced to fund them.
Voluntarily agreeing? Not at all, if they do not have a job they do not have money, if they do not have money they starve to death or start begging for help.
Voluntary. When the man says "hey, you can do this job and I'll give you this money" they have the option to voluntarily say yes or no, it is their choice. When the man says "give me your money or I'll shoot" that is not voluntary, that is force and threat.
They do not agree, they are forced to do it against their will, not all but I'll say most.
No one is forcing them. No one is threatening them. No one is using violence. No one is extorting them. They voluntarily take the job.
Oh, almost forgot... biased again, your's that is.
Oh the ignorant and biased one calling me biased, oh the irony.
You think in socialism people couldn't start their own "business"? Sure they could if what they came up with were useful in some way and if there were demand for it.
That is how capitalism works, if you have an idea and people think it is useful and demand it, you can go ahead and start a business.
Working the way up in a company? What for? A person either is suited for the job, has the necessary skills, and wants the job, or the person should not get the position.
You don't just show up on your first day and say "I'm qualified to be the leader" you need skills for jobs, most of these skills are developed by working. Also, when you run a company, it is best to know how the company works from bottom to top.
Working the way up is living for money, as the higher up it goes the bigger the pay. Living for money is not the way to live.
You confuse promotions with raises. Getting a raise just lets you have more money, getting a promotion gives you a new job. In other words, you start at the lower jobs, learn those skills and work your way up to other more advanced jobs.
Working for money isn't the way to live, choose a job you love and you never work a day in your life.
Wtf??? Not just biased but moronic. You fail to see the connection between the first and the second? Being able to control one's own actions, not just actions but being able to control one's own life has the potential to give happiness and a satisfying job.
You have control over your life. You can work hard at something and try to make a living out of it, you have the choice to do that. When someone from the government says "I support what your doing, but we need 40% of your earnings to fund our projects, pay up now" you do not have the choice.
It does not mean guaranteed happiness, you can make some choices that will make you very unhappy, but hey, that's your choice.
Bias.
Saying "Bias." is not an argument. Try again next time.
Monopoly is not a bad thing, you know... How can you not know it? If the people in control know what is right and wrong and act according to what is right then a monopoly is an extremely fucking good thing!
I don't think all monopolies are bad, I just think most government monopolies are bad. In the free market if you abuse your monopoly and treat your workers like shit and have high prices, Joe Shmoe can open up a store and steal all your customers, he barley even has to try now. When the government abuses their monopoly or are not very good at handling what ever they are running, someone can't start competition, its the government, they have the final say.
As for the people incharge being good, incase you haven't noticed, most voters are idiots, don't have ANY knowledge or ideology and simply just think about the elections for 5 minutes then decided which moron they want to vote for. The chance of someone good getting elected is very slim, generally because it doesn't happen very often.
What says that it will ensure the best quality of care?
Uuh, this is what happens when capitalists try to think outside their money box. You miss crucial context.
The point is, YOU ensure that only the best quality of care exists because YOU are the one who needs the care. See what I'm getting at here?
Everything in socialism is done for the good of the PEOPLE, now unless you're a Martian or a bottle-nosed dolphin, you count. I'm sorry that you're not really better than anyone else, you're essentially the same.
Now instead of lamenting at how average you are, you could just focus on the point of our friend's argument.
Only the best quality of service is allowed because the people in charge of the means demand only the best quality of service. Guess who is in charge of the means :o
You, me, that blonde over there, that fat guy. And i've got news for you, we ALL want good healthcare. I don't want to go to a doctor who says my lung cancer is just advanced asthma. I'm gonna guess that you don't want that either. Who does? no one. But in capitalism, it's okay to have terrible quality healthcare as long as it's priced low. Rich people will always get better healthcare, because they're rich and can afford it. But what about the people who can't?
In Socialism, the means of production are controlled with the workers in mind.
Actually no, all means of production are owned by the government.
You're thinking of socialism from a capitalist perspective.
That government that own the means is a government whose sole concern is the welfare of the people. Such government does not seek profit from the work of their people, they seek people profiting from their work. I use profit in a broader sense than monetary.
In capitalism, the average working class man must sell himself to those who control the means of production. This is not economic liberty.
You don't "Sell" yourself, you voluntarily agree to do a service in return for money and/or benefits. You have the right to start up your own business at any time or you could work for someone else's business and get some of their profit and climb your way higher in the company.
If "voluntarily agreeing to do a service in return for money and/or benefits" is not just a classy way of saying "Sell yourself", then I am obviously missing the grand beauty that is a world where the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. The concept of performing a service for a company in return for money implies that the person performing the service is undervalued. If you were being paid fairly for your work, then your employer would not gain a profit. Now, they can and will appease you by saying things such as, "It's only a starting wage" or "there is always opportunity for advancement" but what is happening all the way up the ladder is that the people who are above you are underpaying you so that they can turn a profit.
Put in a basic business equation:
IF (Wage paid to worker)+(Cost of materials)= (Value of Goods), the business will never turn a profit.
One of the two must be undervalued to gain profit. Since the materials are more or less constant, the only thing to modify significantly is the wage paid to workers. A business equation that works in a capitalist environment is:
IF (Wage paid to worker)+(Cost of Materials)<(Value of Goods), the business turns a profit. as i said before, as a general rule, the (Cost of materials) is a constant. The (Value of Goods) is determined by the current market, basic supply/demand principles, so for the basis of argument, is also constant, however, always greater than the (Cost of Materials).(In the model of a SUCCESSFUL business). The variable is (Wage paid to Worker). Since the value of an object is determined by cost of material and work put into production, the worker MUST be underpaid to turn a profit.
This ensures that everyone prospers.
No, it ensure the government will have a monopoly, you have to pay for their goods and services because 1. they are the only provider and 2. if you don't they can take legal action against you.
Once again, you're assuming the government is Capitalist-minded rather than Socialist-minded. We're proposing a Socialist government. That, once again, means a government BY the people, FOR the people. The people's needs and wants always take precedence in this form of government.
You are speaking of communism not socialism. You are assuming a perfect Capitalistic Society so to fit the argument to your own examples we must look at a perfect socialist society as well.
No we shouldn't. Why would you ever look to 1776 on answers on anything. If your car broke down, would you think " I wonder what Benjamin Franklin would do here". We've learned a lot, leave the past were it is.
The point is their philosophies which are very relevant today. 1776 is when the idea of property rights for all was finally tried in a big way. Sharing the "means of production" is a much older and outdated idea. Land used to belong to kings and lords (government) whose duty is was to protect their people. This is socialism, and it's outdated.
Capitalism is simply property rights and freedom. Freedom means independent action, absent coercion. Freedom does not mean that I am a slave because I only have the skills for manual labor.
How is information about demand communicated to producers in a socialist society?
In Socialist countries, there is still a supply and demand, it is just more regulated. Central planning also looks at what people need and to an extent, what people want. This information is passed on to producers.
How is capital for building new projects/factories raised?
Through trade, hard currency is earned. i.e. Oil for Gold. This gives the currency value. Taxes are then collected and the government can pay for projects.
Who decides what projects get built and how?
The workers, central planning organization, or government. This depends on the type of Socialism.
An economy based on economic planning appropriates its resources as needed, so that allocation comes in the form of internal transfers as opposed to market transactions involving the purchasing of assets by one government agency or firm by another. Decision-making is made by workers and consumers on the enterprise-level.
Dude. Seriously? "How is the demand communicated?"
Have you been living in a place where the internet doesn't exist.. or where phones don't exist, or letters, reports. Do you know that in some places, people carry out studies to find out more about other people?
I mean, living under a rock must be fun and all, but if you can SPEAK, you can communicate. Common sense dictates that people communicate with each other.
I want to be sure I understand this. To communicate demand, say for milk, rather than going and buying milk you would simply "communicate" that demand online? All the things you need you would just fill out surveys?
In Russia demand was communicated through very long bread lines. The demand for bread was clear, but the supply was absent. At least today they wouldn't have to stand in line, they can sit at home and communicate their demand. How would they communicate demand for more phones and computers?
Copycat is hitting the nail on the head. Historically, Socialist nations have relied on Capitalistic nations for their price information concerning markets. It's important to remember that since workers are busy working, they don't have the time or skill for all this planning. That's why central planners are so important in socialism. This is also why inequality is such a bigger problem in Socialist countries.
Soviet equestria is a joke. No seriously it was created as a joke.
The equestria in the show most closely resembles a theocracy with a capitalist economy. This is shown by the fact that the rulers are seen as gods. And that privet ownership of both business and property is common in fact film and flam could be described as free enterprise antruponures.
a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.
And, sixty years later, we see britain and the rest of europe, for the most part, surviving on a growing socialist ideal.
Wisdom is not dictated by what you say, but the way you say it.
He was speaking out politically, against the obvious threat of the National Socialists. When the Nazis were growing in power, of COURSE he would say that socialism can't work and is against freedom.
If he'd come out to the British people and said "You know, in theory, socialism makes the world a better place." there would have been more Nazi sympathizers in Britain. They were fighting a war, of COURSE they denounced the other side. -_- love it when people take things out of historical context.
And, sixty years later, we see britain and the rest of europe, for the most part, surviving on a growing socialist ideal.
The extent to which a nation thrives, not just survives, correlates with the extent to which it adopts capitalistic policies. China isn't a communist nation, it is increasingly capitalistic, which is why it is on the rise. It's also why they lectured the US on Capitalistic methods. As Capitalistic nations adopt Socialism, they economically decline. It happens every time though not all at once. The fact that it happens slowly is the reason socialists always look and say "see? it's working!"...No it isn't.
My main problem with socialism is that its only 2 degrees right of full on communism government control hurts the abilities of companies to operate efficiently as dose bringing democracy into the office it's not nessisary because if you don't like your job you can just quit unlike governments. Not to mention haw cumbersome socialist programs are welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, these are all examples of overfunded underperforming socialist programs that are dragging our country deeper and deeper int to debt and making our taxes increase more and more. Socialism give the government too much power and control over the economy and by extension society. So bottom line is a capitalist is some one who wants to be employed a socialist is some one who wants to be enslaved
You work for less money than your work is worth so your employer can make a profit.
Also, so, somebody who works minimum wage and has to pay bills and rent, can quit their job if they don't like it? No, they can't. They lose their home, they lose their livelihoods because they didn't want to do something they didn't like. Now doesn't that sound like slavery? Oh, and did i mention being perpetually underpaid? Oh yes, i think i did.
Oh and let's talk about minimum wage.
Where would that be without unions (democracy in the workplace) and socialist laws.
Oh yes, right.
NON EXISTENT.
We'd be working for pennies because the rich don't care about the poor. Human procreate, there will always be workers, why should the ones who have all the luxuries care if a few die of starvation every couple weeks. They didn't before those laws came into place and they still wouldn't, if the laws didn't exist.
If we abolished those laws tomorrow, you can bet your next rent payment isn't being made, you won't have groceries and you won't get to debate with us anymore because your wages would drop from 10.50 an hour (where I live) to all of 50c, the wage of asian child labourers. but guess what, after 8 hours of work a day, you come home with four dollars. Minus taxes? 3 dollars. what good meal could you provide for your family while you paid your housing bills on that wage.
Capitalism, if left unchecked, takes advantage of the worker if not by definition, then in practice.
Socialism and by extention, communism empowers the worker by making them an integral part of the means of production. They are no longer a tool, they are a partner.
Capitalism is good for those who can benefit from it, but creates poverty for those who don't. People talk freedom of market, but what good is that freedom if one can't afford it. If their argument is that (everyone) can make it by not being lazy then they contradicted themselves because that's socialism. Capitalism is a perpetual big fish eat smaller fish until smaller fish says no more, that's how capitalism will always lead to civil strife in any society where one gains the most. Greed perpetuates greed.
Capitalism has historically done more for the poverty problem than any other system. The poor in the US are much better off than the poor in other nations. There is no contradiction in the idea that hard work pays off, the difference is in whom decides who will work where and for how much.
If you take Socialism to its logical conclusion, you will have no civil upheaval because all the poor will be under the iron fist of the planners.
If employment is slavery, then the definition of "slavery" for many progressives is nothing more than a bad workplace. Amazon takes ongoing heat for its work environment, with opponents like Business Insider calling it a “slave camp.”
But this comparison mistakes the fundamental nature of coercion.
Many leftists, such as left-libertarian Susan Webber at Naked Capitalism, argue that we must work in order to live and that therefore work is coercive. If you must do X to live, then surely whoever controls your ability to do X is coercing you.
The problem with this argument is that the state of nature is not a Rousseauian paradise, but a brutal place where most die. The state of nature involves poverty and endless drudgery to catch, kill, and cook whatever food one can to stay alive. The workday is every waking moment, and the pay is little more than an occasional meal.
There’s nothing stopping people from living this way in the modern world — say, off the grid — but the beauty of capitalism is that it offers us a way out of this wretched existence. When a company offers a man a job, they are not saying, “work or die!” the way a slaver does; they are promising him that, if he helps them to succeed, they will give him money to improve his life.
Professors Bertram, Gourevitch, and Robin at Crooked Timber make another argument: that the workplace is coercive by virtue of an unequal power balance. Employers can, after all, fire employees if they don’t do X. But this mistakes the nature of work and ignores the power of employees.
Coercion, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is, “The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.” It involves a threat to harm someone if they don’t do X. In a prison or slave camp, prisoners can be beaten or killed for not complying with orders.
This is fundamentally different from the promise of an employer like Amazon, which is to engage in a relationship with workers so long as that relationship is mutually beneficial. As long as the employee performs good work, Amazon will continue to help him improve his life. If the employee no longer provides value to Amazon, then Amazon is under no obligation to continue to help him.
Refusing to continue helping someone is fundamentally different from the use of “force or threats” inherent in coercion. A slaver’s whip makes a person’s status quo worse if he doesn’t do as he’s told. An employer’s continued payments make one’s status quo better if he does as he’s asked.
Admittedly, being fired can leave former employees in a tough spot, and that’s more true if they’re fired without warning. Amazon’s harsh work conditions, combined with the specter of being suddenly let go if we don’t perform every day, don’t constitute a job most of us would choose. But equating this with a slave camp does employees a disservice by denying their agency.
The comparison ignores the power of employees. They can leave a company whenever they want, and wielding that power can leave their former employers in a bind. In a small company or a busy firm, an employee who quits can leave the company without the manpower to meet its obligations. If an accountant suddenly quits H&R Block during tax season, he'll leave their franchise struggling to make up lost ground.
Even in a big firm like Amazon, employees who leave suddenly cost their bosses money. According to the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress, the turnover costs for employees earning under $50,000 per year averages 20 percent of that employee's annual salary. These costs incentivize employers to retain staff and grants bargaining power to employees.
Such language also ignores the fact that people tend to find jobs that represent their best option.
This is true of Amazon’s “fulfillment centers,” which took a lot of heat in 2013. But as The Guardian notes, Amazon builds these centers in, “places of high unemployment and low economic opportunities.” Workers who otherwise wouldn’t find a job flock to Amazon, knowing that it may not be perfect but that it beats their baseline — unemployment. It’s also true of Amazon’s white-collar workers who just happen to be the subject of the latest controversy.
Amazon has, “one of the most rigorous hiring processes in America,” according to Business to Community, and those hired could find jobs at most other tech companies. But they choose to work at Amazon. Rather than considering that these men and women may choose to work at Amazon for a reason, progressives deride their choices and their agency with talk of coercion.
The issue of coercion is important to understand because it’s the central difference between government and the private sector. If you don’t do X, the government can punish you: it can take away your savings, throw you in jail, even shoot you. That’s true coercion. By contrast, if an employer asks you to do X, she can’t threaten you; all she can do if you say no is refuse to keep giving you money.
This difference highlights the essential freedom of the market. In any market-based relationship, one party can leave and the other party can do them no harm. This is a freedom that is noticeably lacking in our interactions with the government.
"Also, so, somebody who works minimum wage and has to pay bills and rent, can quit their job if they don't like it? No, they can't. They lose their home, they lose their livelihoods because they didn't want to do something they didn't like. Now doesn't that sound like slavery?"
Yes, in this situation quitting your job would mean that you lose your home. This is where you just have to stick it out until you find somewhere better to work. Someone who works minimum wage that has a home is either someone that is just getting out of college or they were not accepted in many other jobs. Generally, people are going to get a job that pays more than minimum wage so that they can quit if they want and not have that much financial conflict. Even if they do have financial conflict, this is not a problem since they probably left their job for good reasons such as:
1. Harassment
2. Lack of Payment
3. Change in Job Duties
4. Discrimination
5. Unsafe Work Conditions
If you leave your job for a good reason, you get unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits are intended to bridge the gap between one job and the next, providing workers with monetary payments until they find a new job. If you do not like your job, then why did you choose to get employed in the first place? Those people should have done their own research on the job instead of just winging it. So it is then their own fault for not doing sufficient research on the job first. Those people will just have to stick it out until they are able to find a better job.
Many leftists, such as left-libertarian Susan Webber at Naked Capitalism, argue that we must work in order to live and that therefore work is coercive. If you must do X to live, then surely whoever controls your ability to do X is coercing you.
The problem with this argument is that the state of nature is not a Rousseauian paradise, but a brutal place where most die. The state of nature involves poverty and endless drudgery to catch, kill, and cook whatever food one can to stay alive. The workday is every waking moment, and the pay is little more than an occasional meal.
So, in other words, you agree with Susan Webber, but are merely too stupid to understand that we are part of nature too, and have evolved past killing and eating each other to survive? You really are quite the thickie, aren't you? Yes, in nature lions hunt gazelles, therefore unnecessary poverty and suffering are a good idea? I don't think so. You fail to understand that we are the ones who dictate how human society is run and managed, not some otherworldly force you call nature.
You should really do your research before disputing someone's statement.
First off, you automatically and falsely assumed that what I meant by "endless drudgery to catch, kill, and cook whatever food one can to stay alive" was to kill other humans: and have evolved past killing and eating each other to survive
Second, you again automatically and falsely assumed what "state of nature" meant: but are merely too stupid to understand that we are part of nature too
The state of nature as defined by Oxford Dictionary is: "The state of human beings outside civil society". So yes, humans have evolved. Humans eating other humans would not happen unless someone cannot find any other type of food but without any of the modern conveniences of today, they would have to revert back to how they used to live. which would be an endless drudgery to catch, kill, and cook whatever food one can to stay alive (not necessarily including humans, as you assumed). So the workday would be every waking moment, and the pay would be little more than an occasional meal.
Capitalism is superior to any other economic system. When it is the people calling the shots it always works out better than the government having control. The people can decide what to do for their business and the rest of the population can decide whether or not they will support it by buying their product or service. It is a beautiful system.
This way the true needs of the people are met through the people instead of what the government deems as the needs of the people being met by the government.
people (lazy people) like to rant on about how capitalism is unfair and socialism makes everyone equal. but hears the problem with those arguments as i see them. in a capitalist society you are free to persue what ever carrer you chose and reep the benifits of your labore you get what you earn. and as for the whole equlization factore behind socialism it dose make veryone equal that is true but it dose that by makeing everyone slaves you see a socialist system requires a large amount of government controle in order to acomplish its goals and very offten gives way to full on comunisam wich is one of the most oppresive forms of government yet invented.
You're wrong. When Capitalists rule Communist states (i.e. Joseph Stalin) Communism can not work. When a true COMMUNIST rules a communist state, it is the last step before true social freedom. You see, a communist government is made to be the last staging area for a completely free gift economy, what some refer to as a social utopia. A place where anyone can do anything. Artists make art, Doctors help people, Mechanics fix machines. Believe it or not, most "lazy people" who despise capitalism only see the fundamental flaws of the system and see the ultimate irrelevance of their contributions to a capitalist society. You can not put others before yourself, as any civilized person's moral code states, and be successful in a capitalist state. at some point, no matter your intentions, you WILL have to ruin someone else's chances of pursuing their goals. They say it's lonely at the top, but that is because you have to put yourself up there on a pyramid of your peers.
You see capitalism as "free" because you've been conditioned to believe it. Capitalism is ruled by Big Business and Big Business is oppressive. You may not see it on the television, but every day, somebody, somewhere in a capitalist state had their dreams ruined because someone else took advantage of them to further their own cause.
Capitalism prefers the "I" to the "we"
The fact of the matter is, a man only has limited time on this planet to make a difference.
A man who dies poor and a man who dies rich always have something in common, they're both dead and alone.
Capitalism values the dollar sign over personal discovery and integrity. The more dollars you have, the more amoral you can be, simply because you had to be that amoral to get all of that money.
You see, humanity started out with a gift economy and eventually, we will end up back in one. as with all things in the universe, it is a cycle.
"capitalism prefers the I to the we" and communism prefers the government to every thing els. Think of it this way Capitalism is a bunch of people screwing each other over to get to the top. Where as Communism is on man screwing the entire country over to get to the top. Look at every communist regime that has ever existed. The Bolsheviks ( later called the soviets) in Russia, the "People's" republic of china, Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, castro and Che and there murderous band of utopeits in Cuba, and of course who can for get that ever happy paradise known as north Korea. Tell me has there ever been a communist regime that came to power and DIDN'T immedeitly commit mass genocide?
None of these regimes stayed true to the basic ideals of communism. The people who ruled those countries saw themselves as better than their constituents. A true ruler can not believe that and communism relies on the ruler to be for the people. When a communist state's ruler stops being for the people, the state, for all intents and purposes, ceases to be communist, regardless of what they call themselves.
Well you can sit there and spout rhetoric all you like but I base my opinions on what I KNOW and on what history has shown us time and time again. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Well, if we're just going off of what we know, why don't I say this:
More mass genocides have been incurred by people who want more money and power than others, than there have been mass genocides by false communists.
The want for money and power from the money is a purely capitalistic ideal, so I'm forced to believe that more people on this earth have been killed due to the capitalist system we cling so hard to.
So... "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."
by the way, i already recognized the failures of previous communist regimes and also stated the reason they failed. I obviously haven't ignored MY political ideology's history. But, I can safely bet that you did.
So, while you're ignoring your history, i hope you can breathe blood, because we'll all be drowning in it.
Lastly, if socialism is so very wrong, why do people have a base need to help other people.
Come on, don't you feel good for helping someone out? Of course you do.
A socialist society is a society of people helping other people
No matter how much you like having more money than other people, it's not going to last. And remember, rich or poor, we're all the same in the eyes of death.
So, would you rather be remembered for centuries as someone who helped make the world a better place, or be a footnote in the book of things that don't matter anymore?
Money and power are not Capitalist creations, they are natural outgrowths from humanity. Money and power have always been there, Capitalism is fairly recent.
To say that Socialism hasn't ever really been tried ignores that Capitalism hasn't either. But the extent to which Capitalism is adopted is the extent to which a nation prospers. Look at how China and India are rising. Look at Estonia and Singapore and Hong Kong.
A Soviet is a workers council. A Bolshevik was a Soviet Revolutionary.
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia
They were not Socialist, and they were supported by the US. Vietnam invaded Cambodia to remove the murderous regime of Pol Pot and went to war with China over removing the KR
I think you've got you history wrong comrade pol pot was,an admitted communist he tried to wipe out intellectuals, skilled labor, and all traces of western (capitalist) society among other things. He had a really long kill list
Capitalism is the way to go, but there should be more opportunities for impoverished children. There needs to be ways to get everyone a high quality education in America which we currently don't have. People should have equal opportunities but the right to choose what should be done during their lifetime.
Capitalism, no ideals but a fact of life. Some people are smarter, faster and better than others and they will prosper but while they do, they need the help of others and that increases employment but in Socialism the state does not allow that but loves to control everything and hates the idea of flat tax. Socialistic states only succeed in countries where almost everyone is educated and has a good background. ex. Switzerland.
To be fair, Switzerland is successful not because of educated socialists, but because of a huge capitalistic international banking industry that is centered there.
In the USA we are not capitalist, we are free market. We have anti Trust laws that break up monopolies.
Sometimes, especially in our current environment, there is an unfair over correction that is harmful to a business owner. They aren’t big enough to sustain it, but are forced into loosing their businesses because of “a war on capitalism” Like the raisin farmer in California. I believe he won in the Supreme Court, but he didn’t deserve the cost he incurred to stay alive.
These are the people that need protection from this society we are becoming!
I hate to say, I’m not name calling. But that’s just stupid!But if we think its true then it must be. Regardless of history of facts and even the blatant manipulations in our society today.
But keep in mind, without these businesses we'd be far behind in the progress we know and enjoy today. And also they employed much of the population of the day. Although, we did need corrections to improve working conditions, increase safety, and pay higher wages. But the beauty of America isn’t that we were perfect. But the systems we have to correct greed when greed doesn’t correct itself!
We are a land of equal opportunity
Anyone can take an idea and create a successful business, and charge "what the market will bare" and make a living and/or gain wealth.
Many have overcome obstacles for the successes they achieve, with risk.
And as far as inheritance and the hand me down wealth - inheritance tax is probably the highest proportional tax in our society. So if you consider "fair share" we accumulate wealth to provide a better life for our families and to pass to our children.
The starting point, or tipping point varies of both failure and success in over generations. And sometimes it continues as it is for generations without change.
American success is built on ideas, enterprise, risk, and the wants and perceived needs of the general market.
Many through our history are "capitalist" but not many did so without loss, even bankruptcy.
Here is a Capitalist Parade – And while your at it look at the giving back some of these people did. Do you think that would happen in the USSR or Denmark or Turkey?
Milton Hershey – Drooped out of school, he was a poor student. Apprenticed for 4 years then - after two failed attempts, he set up the Lancaster Caramel Co. sold it then made the worlds largest Choc factory – then built a community and a home and school for children.
Walt Disney - fired by a newspaper editor because, "he lacked imagination and had no good ideas, started a number of businesses that didn't last too long and ended with bankruptcy and failure
Henry Ford – businesses failed and left him broke five times
R H Macy - Macy started seven failed business before finally hitting big with his store in New York City
F W Woolworth - Before starting his own business, young Woolworth worked at a dry goods store and was not allowed to wait on customers because his boss said he lacked the sense needed to do so. I guess he said F... YOU, and opened his own store, followed by successful chains of stores!
Good ole Colonel Sanders and his Fried Chicken - rejected 1,009 times before a restaurant accepted it
Albert Einstein - teachers and parents to think he was mentally handicapped
Thomas Edison - teachers told Edison he was "too stupid to learn anything
Sidney Poitier brutally rejected by American Negro Theater for his heavy Bohamian accent
Others with similar stories - H J Heinz - Emily Dickinson - Lucille Ball - P T Barnum - Fred Astaire - Jerry Seinfeld
Like anything in the social front, with twisting, and media led head hunting, and the public's eagerness to follow without knowledge. Capitalism is redefined, then accepted for whatever they want.
Like the urban racial legends believed with a fury, that Democrats and Republicans switched places. So those Republicans who believed in Civil rights and paid for it putting their money and their lives where their heart was on the matter, are NOW called White Supremacists, while Democrats who were always white supremacists (and also some Black slave owners also) are hailed as civil rights heroes!
Teddy Roosevelt broke up the capitalist in the early 1900's. And it needed to be broken. They built great industry. We are where we are because of them. It was corrected, they kept the wealth they made, but the monopoly was broken and out of 1 came many oil and gas companies, for competitive free market competition. .
Note: Short post explanation--can be expanded upon later
One of the main problems with Socialism is that it is founded on an idea which is false--namely, that there are legions of super-compassionate people out there always trying to look out for one another. Overwhelmingly, the "compassion" is a veneer to cover envy, jealousy, hatred of the successful, self-loathing, etc. Then, you are often expecting others to make it their mission to "save"/"help" people that are not seriously trying to help themselves, and would gladly/eagerly f*ck you over if given the opportunity (i.e. "I scratch your back but you never scratch mine").
Capitalism has built into the idea that there are various types of people in the world--as well as a philosophy of 'good & evil' that tugs at humanities core (inside all of us). To visualize; imagine a mountain that scales so high up the summit is out of view. Various groups emerge, by nature; (a) Those who stay on the ground (b) people who climb at a leisurely pace (c) people who climb as fast and high as possible. Inside each camp, there are (1) fans, who cheer on and encourage those climbing up (2) the "foot pullers", who discourage and try to knock them off 'the path'. "Foot pullers" is where the problem comes in, and there are many different strategies to go about it. (i) the direct approach (ii) "concern" for the others safety. Capitalism is founded on the idea of the imagery provided--which I think is a much more accurate view of "human nature". Not that 'Capitalism' is necessarily the optimal route/solution, indefinitely--though it is superior to forcing "mountain climbers/sprinters" etc. to come back down to a "safe" height, for the sake of those who deeply, 'secretly' hope that they will fall to their death, rather than "concern for everyone's safety".
One of the main problems with Socialism is that it is founded on an idea which is false--namely, that there are legions of super-compassionate people out there always trying to look out for one another.
Obviously you know so little about socialism that you somehow believe it's a theory of psychology instead of a theory of economics. Your straw man argumentation is boring and stupid because your understanding of what socialism is could probably be written on the back of a stamp.
Capitalism is the best economic system because it provides more options. Socialism just takes away options. Today, socialism is the "in" thing. Unfortunately, ignorance of the basic concepts of economics has invaded the progressive dialogue.
Let's start with a simple question: Is capitalism an economic system or a philosophy? Is capitalism anything more than just a principle? According to Webster's dictionary, an "economy" is defined as: the process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought in a country or region. Let us look at one of the most progressive slogans today: "In the real economy, socialism is not an option." Assuming that current practice is nothing more than an evolving "real economy," the premise is sound. The poster, however, does not distinguish between the "real economy" and economic theory. In fact, it is the very fact that the poster addresses "the real economy", that brings into serious question the validity of the poster's claims. The libertarian revolutionary Charles Edward Russell stated: "Whenever you lay down this arbitrary line demarcating the proper realm of government and the proper sphere of private individuals, you establish a maximum and a minimum wage." [1]
The idea that government has no business in the economic world makes little sense in light of Russell's words. When the phrase "real economy" is separated from the actual economic system of "capitalism," the phrase becomes meaningless. This does not mean that libertarianism is "the real thing." It does mean that the concept of capitalism, the economic system and not philosophical idealism, deserves to be in the discussion. If the poster had noted the line separating the government and "the real economy," it might have spared the rest of us from considering the validity of the rest of the poster's accusations.
Yet, the poster makes a salient point, in general, the socialist vision is a threat to anyone who questions the effectiveness of government. In fact, the "real economy" is the perfect microcosm of the progressive state in general. The government bureaucrat, the progressive manager, the liberal public official is always concerned with "the real economy." In the progressive paradigm, it is "the real economy" that dictates what is morally correct. The capitalist "real economy" dictates only how to produce the most amount of value under the least cost, and how to make a profit. While the capitalist model is critical, it is not the answer.
When the problem is formulated like the question Is socialism better, than capitalism?, the answer usually spells disaster. When Marx and Lenin asked what capitalism was they resorted to the very definition of capitalism, the theory that because the wealthy were dominating the economic system, it was no longer capitalism, but "the antithesis of (capitalism)." By so doing, they automatically set the economic system against its own definition.
The socialist scheme of "them and us" is nothing more than application of the Socialist's "theories of class contradiction". Through the application of the socialists' class theory, capitalists are defined against the people. The "capitalist class", in its attempt to accumulate capital and create profit, is presented as an unsympathetic aggressor against the common people. Even in the case of socialism, the elite, the "vanguard of the proletariat", will be attracted to socialism as a way of life. The socialist goal of control of the economy, will become confused with the common man's thirst for independence. In the end, the socialist system will turn into nothing more than the "vanguard of the proletariat."
In a capitalist system, the masses of people are free to pursue their dreams. In such a system, each is encouraged to strive for greater economic freedom. Due to the accumulation of capital, trade increases and production increases. As production increases, so do the living circumstances of the common people. Supply and demand dictates pricing. Competition creates the most economical means of production. Increased production allows the common people to buy more goods at a lower price. Increased production makes the producer more efficient and productive. As the people become more self-sufficient, the capitalist system rewards them with higher standards of living. As the average citizen gains greater economic knowledge, he develops a feeling of independence. His quest for economic freedom, leads him to embrace all the goods and services of capitalism. As a result, the "real economy" becomes reality. Under the capitalist system, the common people have a better chance to achieve their dreams. Capitalism is the best economic system.
"I am a socialist and a very different kind of socialist from your rich friend Count Reventlow"
This is a quote from 1930, spoken by a rising german politician called Adolf Hitler. In 1930, the contention that fascism had emerged out of socialism was accepted across the board. It was an observed historical fact. Fascists marched under red banners on may day. their leaders believed in high tariffs, in workers control all factories, in a common production of and distribution and exchanges.
The first inmates of the concentration of nazis in Germany were communists and socialists. There is a reason why. It is absolutely true that the socialists of the national and Leninist varieties were bitterly opposed. They were fishing in the same pool. They were competing for the same kind of voter. Though one kind of person that neither brand of socialist had any time for was the classical liberal, what they called the decadent anglo-saxon bourgeois capitalist. Why? Because theirs was an ideology that elevated coercion over freedom.
Now, why do I begin with this Godwin's law, high-stake opening? Two reasons. First of all as a corrective to the self-righteousness that I have already started seeing when people who claim to be socialist then start claiming credit for everything from the extension of the franchise to the extension of universal education.
But my real point is this one: Socialism rests on compulsion, its defining ethic is not equality, but coercion. Socialism and Capitalism are matrices. They are economic systems in which people can be generous, or greedy. They can be selfish, or altruistic. Human nature comes whether from our genes or from our maker. It isn't something that is created by an economic system.
What is unique about socialism, is the readiness of the state to deploy coercive force. Now we have evolved a great vocabulary to describe this. We talk about asking people to pay a bit more tax. Then we see what happens if they choose not to. Behind all that polite sounding stuff, asking them to pay their fair share, to contribute, is the threat of prison. Now of course, there are some occasions, where any society, will need to rely on coercive force, on incarceration. There are some taxes that are necessary in any system. We all accept that. But their use of coercive and ultimately lethal force by the state is its most awesome and awful power. We should tilt the balance as far as we can to Liberty before you say, "no, that power should be used as the prayer-book says of marriage: 'reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly'".
The idea that those of us on the capitalist side are in favor of "dog-eat-dog", is not true. If by "dog-eat-dog" you mean the desire for material improvement, that is a fundamental in human nature under all systems. You had it under the communist regimes, you had it under feudal regimes. But what is unique about capitalism, is that it harnessed that ambition to a socially useful end. Under every other system devised by human intelligence, a group of people sat at the top and the way to get rich was to suck up to those in power. They were kings or bishops or commissars.
We uniquely, in America and then exported, came up with a system where you satisfied your ambition by serving the rest of your fellow citizens under the law. We channel that desire for self-improvement in a socially productive way. That's the reason why socialist countries are not only less wealthy than capitalist ones, but less free. That's the categorical difference between East Germany and West Germany, between North Korea, and South Korea.
It's not just that socialism does not work in the sense that it fails to provide material advance, it doesn't work in that it takes away human dignity and civil rights above all our freedom to make choices as autonomous individuals.
Some may ask: "How is it freedom, to not have your daily bread, to not be able to go to a reasonable school, to not have any opportunities to develop yourself as a young person, or even as an adult". First, let's leave aside whether the asker means positive or negative freedom. If you want decent opportunities, if you want decent schools, and if you want to rise in living standards, would you go to North Korea, or South Korea? Would you look at socialism to provide it, or would you look at the free market?
That's an interesting thing. Karl Marx, who of course invented the thing. Let's not gloss over the fact. Karl Marx thought that as time went, it would become more liberal. That he could take the restraints off, that people wouldn't need to be told what to do. And like every other prediction that Karl Marx made, that was the opposite of the truth. It is extraordinary, Marxists uniquely claimed that thiers is a scientific, rather than a political doctrine. They claim that their truths are empirical, they're not just opinions. And yet every single forecast that Marx made, that there would be more and more unemployment under capitalism, that there would be a smaller group of oligarchs and a larger group of proletariats. Every single one of them turned out to be the opposite of the truth.
I want to tackle one other thing. Somehow on this side, we are more materialistic, greedier, less humane, that we have less by way of fellow-feeling and sympathy than those on the other side. If you can trust socialist and capitalist economies, you see precious little evidence of that. But for what it's worth, I have never met anyone who derives more pleasure from a healthy bank balance, than from listening to Beethoven, or playing with his children, or going for a walk in the country. But what is it that enables us to do those things? it's economic progress. The fact that you have a dishwasher, and don't have to spend all your time doing the washing by hand means that you can go for that walk in the country. The fact that you have a car, and don't have to queue up at the tram station, means that you have more time to listen to Beethoven's symphonies. The fact that you don't have to spend six weeks working just to feed your children, means that you can spend the weekend playing with them. And where did those economic advances come from? From the system that unlocked the inventiveness of a creative people, that tapped into the unlimited potential of human innovation and that raised our species to a standard of living, that a couple of generations ago would have been unimaginable.
Now that has happened for about a billion people in the world. Those of us who can afford the car, those of us who can afford the dishwasher, there are six billion people who cannot afford the cars and the dishwashers. But they will, they will as free exchange, and specialization and comparative advantage run their course raising people to a higher and higher standard of living unless we go down the road of Cuba, and Zimbabwe, or any other socialist country because it doesn't work.
Don't make the mistake of judging socialism as a textbook theory, but judging capitalism by its necessarily imperfect outcomes. Judge like with like.
In the real world, you find me a functioning socialist country that has delivered more than a free-market alternative and I will switch over to socialism at once.
Now, I am going to finish with this point: Among a number of the greatest heroes are the greatest heroes who have lived or argued in any language. There are the Levellers, three of whom, fell in Burford Church in an act of cold-blooded execution which disturbed even the morbid sensibilities of the mid-17th century England. What was it, that the Levellers, those farsighted heroic men, who looked forward to the universal franchise, to something that we would now recognize as constitutional liberty and democracy under the law? What was it that they believed? What was the starting point of their ideology? What was it that Richard Overton argued for in his arrow against all tyrants? Self-ownership. He began by saying "I own my mind I own my body and if I am free to trade the products of my own labor without the intervention of prelate or princes then I will be happy". These were proto libertarians. They were radicals but they understood that freedom was linked as they constantly said that liberty and propriety ownership and freedom were inextricably linked.
Capitalism, this thing that raised our species, developed in some of the Italian northern city states was then refined by the Dutch but it was in America that it reached its fullest flower and was explored addressing the Lords and Commons in 1644.
"Remember what nation it is whereof a nation not slow and dull, but quick and piercing of wit" -John Milton
America has got the whole thing going. America ended slavery, it exported property rights and it exported the rule of law and it was all based on raising the individual above the state rather than the other way around.
This is a quote from 1930, spoken by a rising german politician called Adolf Hitler.
Who just happened to be the biggest liar in political history. Well, until idiots like you emerged that is.
In 1930, the contention that fascism had emerged out of socialism was accepted across the board.
What a spectacularly massive falsehood. Your claim is not merely false: it is absolutely preposterous. It was completely understood that Adolf Hitler was lying in order to appeal to Communist voters who he believed -- correctly -- could help win the Nazis power if enough of them believed his lies about having socialist sympathies. See:-
I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home - the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups.
"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
(Interview with The Guardian, George Sylvester Viereck, 1923)
Of course, there are various other factors besides this which contribute in illustrating that you have an understanding of history which is literally arse-end backwards, including -- though not exclusively -- the fact that Hitler had all the left wingers in his party murdered.
What a spectacularly massive falsehood. Your claim is not merely false: it is absolutely preposterous. It was completely understood that Adolf Hitler was lying in order to appeal to Communist voters who he believed -- correctly -- could help win the Nazis power if enough of them believed his lies about having socialist sympathies.
How can you be so excessively incompetent that you completely misunderstand that the man who said the word 'communism' certainly wasn't a socialist? The fact that Hitler was vocal about his contempt for 'socialists', and all the people that said so, is all the evidence you need to start beating yourself on the head. He was clear that he wanted to be in control of the businesses that he wanted and believed that the businesses that the public had were run too much by speculators who were taking advantage of the public's losses. All the effects that you attribute to socialism, such as the super-sized markets and huge amounts of overheads that we now witness every day in banking, supermarkets, and utility businesses; these are highly a result of nothing more than greed and the demand to make money out of other people's problems. You do not see any governments enforcing fair competition in these sectors, do you? It just comes down to good people with ethics and morals, and making sacrifices where necessary for the common good.
Of course, there are various other factors besides this which contribute in illustrating that you have an understanding of history which is literally arse-end backwards, including -- though not exclusively -- the fact that Hitler had all the left wingers in his party murdered.
dumb much...? Are you seriously suggesting that 33 million men, women and children were murdered at the hands of a man who only killed 'Left wingers'? again, I argue that none of the left wingers were murdered, so don't begin to tell me about the murders of the right wingers. All the deaths that occured were deaths due to horrific wars fought by nazis over territory. And had the left remained in power, history would have been different in many more aspects other than left wingers being killed.
