Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

~ MOD ALERT ~


What is Capitalism?

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Politically, it is the system of laissez-faire (freedom). Legally it is a system of objective laws (rule of law as opposed to rule of man). Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its’ result is the free-market.

What is Socialism?

An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement, and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value they produce. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care.

In my opinion only Capitalism as regulated by laws which protect the consumer from fraud is successful enough as an economic system capable of taking care of all its people.

I don't believe socialism can be the primary economic system in any country that is not a dictatorship or has an autocratic leadership, and I believe that the only equality of prosperity in a socialist is the equality of poverty or near poverty.

 

Indeed, except that socialism doesn't necessarily require a state. There's many kinds of socialisms, including anarchistic ones.

I'm much more of a capitalist but I realise that capitalism has its flaws. It's not very good for providing good living conditions for the least fortunate for example. The goal is ultimately to maximse human happiness, and we need to realise that capitalism in itself doesn't share that goal. Capitalism is only concerned with making money. Capitalism is though, a very good tool for achieving the happiness goal but it's very important to remeber that it's a tool and not an end of itself.

 

More accuratly put...it's an economic and political system based on government ownership of the means of production.

Marxism consists of transitional policies implemented to create a socialist government as a stated goal.

Too many people think if a President wants to raise taxes he's a socialist. Not true, in socialist economies they don't have taxes, because nobody owns anything

 

No, the collective owns the means of production. Some forms of socialism would do that via that government, but not all forms.

Marxism is a psuedo-science that has a materialistic world view of history, and socialism is a goal but communism is the ultimate goal. Or prediction rather. Socialism and communism are very influenced by marxism, but there's non-marxist variations.

Private property still exists in socialism. Socialism means collective ownership of the means of production, and redistribution of that produce by the principle of 'from each according to ability, to each according to deed'. Compare that to the cummist motto of 'from each according to ability, to each according to need'.

 

In my opinion Capitalism is the only economic system which creates enough prosperity to take care of the least of our citizens. A good mixture of capitalism, altruism mixed with social programs is my goal.

 

The idea is you are taking a bigger chunk of the pie, or getting closer to taking it all. Or in other words, closer to socialism.

Far at to often it's used incorrectly though I agree.

 

it does indeed create the needed wealth, but sometimes it fails to distribute it to those that are in need. those social programs. are the solution for that, and they are socialists. its necessary to have a mixed system even though capitalism is dominant. I agree with your position

 

Well then this eliminates the United States since we are one of the more unequal nations in the entire world. We rank up there with 3rd world countries in terms of how unequal we really are. But I guess you must be equating yourself to welfare recipients and people on food stamps. Sad.

 

I can't believe this is even still a conversation that anyone tries to have after how abysmal history has proven the latter to be. Comparing capitalism to socialism isn't even like comparing VHS to Betamax. It's like comparing MPEG to Betamax. One creates billionaires. The other murders millions. If you have a hard time deciding which one is the better system, you are probably either schizophrenic or brain damaged.

 

I'd say a more fair comparison would be Dirigibles to Airplanes. They both can theoretically work, it's just that a lot more work has been put into making an ideal version in the latter, and the former is a lot more likely to crash and burn in extremely spectacular fashion. As such, there's no real point - there's no significant advantage to socialism over capitalism.

...Also, when did Betamax murder millions?

 

Socialism is better because workers own their workplace and they get fully compensated for their labor , also as a political idea removes the decision making from central governments and gives it to communities / municipalities / regions. Socialism is in no way against personal property , you are not allowed to hold stocks or investment capital but other than that nobody tells you what to do with your money

When the state owns the means of production we are talking about state capitalism not socialism , in socialism the 100 people who work in a business own the business .

Since in socialism legislation and decision making is done by local authorities it can never apply in an autocratic , dictatorial or in any way centralised country , it can only work in decentralised ones.

 

The '80s. It was a very dark period for home video.

 

Ah right. The GroundNet riots of '82. How could I forget.

 

I don't think, in my occasional critiques of capitalism, I have ever accused it, as an economic system, of the murder of millions. But somehow socialism seems to be able to do so. Remarkable.

 

socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production (among other things) and in some forms the collective is represented bby the state. i think you are wrong when you say government ownership isnt socialism

 

The collective is a very broad term , in socialism you can not work in a workplace owned by someone else because this makes you waged labor which is prohibited. Under your mentality a board of directors is a collective ....

 

Both capitalism and socialism are systems that take away freedom eventually, that's why they clearly have been masterminded (such systems are never in advantage of population, even while it looks that way. People even start to believe in capitalism or socialism, means they will defend it, and when a mass of people is defending the same system, they are mass organized without they can even see it. What capitalism fundamentally does is very unbalanced dustribution of wealth, very rich (upper class) and powerful (rulers/government) vs masses of poorer people (under class) Socialism is a political term, it does not cause a more civil and social society, but the opposite. Because the more social chaos the more resistance (the political topics are all based on how a society functions; healthcare, guns, gender, race, labour, housing, etc all have been politicized, over every topic large groups of people argue and pick a side, defend or respond emotionally, so they are all organized.
Every created system (including the political system) or problem is causing people's organisation, that is the fundamental thing about every politicized topic. And this is verifiable, because these topics stack up (never so many) Name a topic and see how many people are fighting one, smoking ban, tsa groping, gender, race, fed, banks, etc etc, are either a capitalist based topic or a social based topic.
This is how establishments are able to organize populations invisibly. And they succesfully did it/are doing it again (count the number of people that believe in capitalism and socialism and defend it, a very large majority)

 

In what way is Capitalism based on the individual rights and liberties of its citizens, apart from their interaction with the free market? Singapore is a very successful capitalist country but restrictions on its citizens are quite draconian. You could even argue that modern technology means you can contract the available pool of labor and still have an effective capitalist system, which means a return to slavery for some is only mandated by social and ethical beliefs rather than capitalist ones.

 

Comparing socialism to Betamax is highly unfair...to Betamax.

Betamax worked. It just wasn't as well marketed as VHS. Like VHS it has been rendered obsolete by tenchnological change.

Socialism just never worked. It got an appearance of working through heavy government repression, but it simply collapsed under the weight of failure.

 

Not my mentality, but the mentality of different kinds of socialisms that you refuse to recognise as such.

 

I am not equating my self or you or anyone. I merely posted a definition with a little explanation of what the two economic systems are. I grant you, the US is not socialist, not even a little bit, in spite of having numerous social programs to help the needy.

 

Just a few thoughts thrown out there for consideration, and it all has to do with human behavior and emotions:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. How well does everyone think this will work in a socialist society?

There are a number of things to consider. Will those who need less resent those who need more?

Who gets to determine what research should be done for the inventions an economy needs to drive the economy?

Will the person who sees someone else getting more for what ever reason accept that his willingness to work harder and achieve more is ok and he should still only receive what he needs?

What happens to motivation?

What happens to ambition?​

 

Laissez-faire is freedom for the rich.

 

I see, so you are wrapped around one part of capitalism and you failed to take into consideration an earlier post which discussed regulations which precluded fraud and stopped excessive unfair trade issues.

 

Which brings up several points!

Are rich people inherently evil? Greedy?

Are rich people needed to balance out our economy?

Is the ideal solution to insure the bottom quintile of earners is elevated to the next tier up, or even two quintiles up?

If the bottom quintile of earners is elevated to be equal to the 4th quintile what happens to everyone else's income?

What then becomes the bottom quintile?