Capitalism vs Socialism

Postmaster · 03-13-2007, 02:19 AM

Well I thought about it and considering I'm socialist in nature, I say God bless capitalism.

Although it’s a nice idea for everyone in society to be financially equal, the problems starts with the word impose. It's like an arranged marriage, the problem starts with the word impose. You take away the human spirit from it.

Capitalism aids innovation and is a free market to all. And still doesn't take away my choice of wanting to share my profits or wage amongst those who don't have as much. Something not imposed but blessed and spirited.

Don't get me wrong reform is always needed.

Pathless · 03-14-2007, 02:31 AM

Hi Postmaster. ::wave::

I can't agree that capitalism provides a free market for all. Actually things like the North American Free Trade Agreement and this whole concept of "free trade" really only benefit the upper tier of capitalists--from what I can tell. There are many, many places in the world where this so-called "free market" reduces people to lives of what amounts to slave labor and misery.

I would call this an imposition rather than a blessing.

On the other hand, communism also has/had its shortcomings. Yet if you go to the fractured republics of the former Soviet Union, from what I've heard, you would witness all of the excesses of capitalism in caricature-ish perversity--that is, a select few who horde and hold vast amounts of capital, and a massive population of impoverished people.

My thoughts on the issue.

Peace,
Pathless

Postmaster · 03-14-2007, 01:27 PM

Thanks for the reply. Vast amounts of people seem to have had it better under capitalism then socialism. Although at present some capitalist countries have a large divide with the poor, they still have that minute ability to work out of there situation, it just takes time, a change we have had to progress through.

Pathless · 03-14-2007, 06:43 PM

Hmmm. Yeah, I'm not sure about the comparison between capitalism and socialism that you make, either. I don't have enough information/knowledge to refute what you are saying, although I have a feeling that your statement is a grotesque oversimplification.

"Vast amounts of people seem to have had it better under capitalism than socialism."

Seem? From whose perspective? Standing where?

I'm no expert on socialism or capitalism. I do, however, like all of us, live in an environment that is now in the sharp, unsatiable, greedy clutches of unfettered capitalism. The most "succesful" and staunch capitalists will never be satisfied, no matter how many paper notes with dollar signs, euros, silver, gold, stock options, and precious moon rocks (hey, they're greedy *******s!) they amass and put up in the World Bank for safekeeping. And as they continue to increase their status and "wealth" in a capitalist economy, millions of human lives are rendered insignificant, marginal, and impoverished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Although at present some capitalist countries have a large divide with the poor, they still have that minute ability to work out of there situation, it just takes time, a change we have had to progress through.

This is another oversimplification, a patronizing platitude tossed like cake crumbs at the starving, thirsty, enslaved masses. To belabor my point, to me this is like patting child suffering from malnutrition on the back and saying, "Hey, I know it looks bad right now, but maybe in thirty years, if you are still alive and have worked hard at it, your child could have an apartment of her very own--perhaps even running water and money for canned goods!" And then, all across the civilized world, the teary-eyed television inebriated masses, tuned into this spectacle on the latest reality TV show, Who Wants to Be a Captialist? continue to eat chips and stroke themselves for the progress they are making. Ah, the symphony of the media-medicated heartstrings.

Is socialism the alternative? I don't know, I don't think so. The gut reaction of feeling like socialism is a system of hand-outs is valid. Where capitalism's ideal strength of empowering the individual to take charge of her own success and progress has failed miserably, socialism's ideal strength of providing sustenance and resources for all ends up degenerating into a system of welfare that does not stimulate/motivate an individual to achieve for herself.

I advocate for small, decentralized communities, local autonomy, and economies of real goods versus paper money signifying privelege (end result of capitalism?) or patronizing care-taking by benevolent authorities (end result of socialism?).

Peace,
Pathless

Postmaster · 03-14-2007, 08:02 PM

I've just started taking an interest in these 2 political systems, so thanks for your posts I'm trying to get a better understanding of both. I'am jumping to conclusion, thanks for your posts.

Pathless · 03-14-2007, 10:25 PM

No problem, PM. Glad you are looking into it. One thing to kinda be aware of is that capitalsim and socialism are not political systems as much as economic systems.

Capitalism is definitely not a political system, although the economics of capitalism have corrupted the democtratic process in America and other places.

Perhaps there is a stronger argument for socialsim as a political system. I'm not sure, maybe somebody else can offer some insight. I think that the basis of distributing resources equally, which more or less underlies socialism, seems more economic than political.

Communism is a political system that attempts to implement an authoritarian style government in order to create equal social/economic conditions for all. Cuba may be the best example of this system working smoothly. The USSR is an example of the excesses and abuses that the system can produce.

I think.

Like you, I am learning.

Good luck, peace out.

--P

cyberpi · 03-14-2007, 10:27 PM

A couple of other thoughts:

It seems that socialism ends up stifling people's incentive to form certain relationships between each other. Socialism in some parts of the world arrives due to the concentration of oil... the oil curse. How best to disperse nature's value? Does everyone breathe an equal amount of air? In an attempt for everyone to breathe the same amount of government given air, I find that it stifles the relationships where the true magic would occur. While maybe hidden, the Government in part ends up making major decisions for people by deciding how best to use resources and how best to distribute them. The decisions need to be made, but are made in government instead of between people in their own relationships.

Viewed another way, any inequality between people provides the opportunity for individuals to potentially learn valuable lessons in giving to less fortunate and for each to learn lessons of faith in earning from each other. With socialism the goal can be seen as helping confound that opportunity by enforcing an equal distribution from the government. Maybe the government has a chance to learn those valuable lessons, but at the expense of the people. Since wealth is produced by the people, it falters.

I have debated with myself what the rightful way is for a group of people to share and disperse a natural resource like oil. I find that it is true that a good deal of concentrated oil profit provides an unrightful inequality. I tend to think a reverse taxation is proper, whereby proceeds are collected and distributed disproportionately... in proportion to taxes. The higher the taxes are, the more oil revenue is earned. The lesser the taxes, the less oil revenue earned. While that may seem ridiculous to some, the goal is not to make anyone unrightfully rich but to distribute the wealth as if it never existed, in proportion to productivity. Allegedly in a capitalist system the person who earns more pays more taxes... so just reverse it. The higher the taxes, the higher the state oil refund.

That tends to reveal the problem as government in the most capitalist country is the biggest advocate of socialism there is. Money is collected but then dispersed either evenly for the good of the people (allegedly as in national defense), or in a manner that is controlled by or discriminated by the government. One third of most every person is given to their government to decide what best to do with. So if a people are to collectively pool their funds, I submit that it is rightful they collectively decide how to use those funds. Whereas in a representative country like the USA... it is still government making most of the decisions with the people's money. A tiny fraction of the population spending 1/3 of every person... and then some off the record.

In a country where oil revenue far outstrips the government and the oil presently overwhelms the economy, if the people could keep it collectively controlled and reverse-distribute it like a profit incentive instead of a profit tax, then nobody would have to pay taxes in those countries and I think it would stimulate a capitalist economy instead of a flat social welfare economy. Alternatively, other collective decisions could be made... such as re-investing the profits into R+D for alternative fuels. The point is I guess, it matters who makes decisions.

Francis king · 03-15-2007, 12:49 AM

socialism, in its most basic form, focuses on improving society for the benefit of all its ppl, whereas capitalism in its crudest form focuses soley on the acquisition of capital... to suggest that everyone can be rich and successful is naive- without poor ppl to clean toilets and offices, the country would fall apart... a country needs poor ppl, so it can palm them off with inferior goods that the rich ppl don't want and so there are ppl to do the ****ty jobs that nobody else wants... I read in the paper last week that some footballer gets 150K per week wages for kicking a ball on a bit of grass once a week.. does he deserve the money? I don't think so... elton john spends around a million pound a year on fresh flowers for his homes, and meanwhile, old ppl in this country, who worked all their lives and paid taxes cannot afford heating in the winter... oh, the joys of capitalism... yes, u can be rich too, if u are born in the right family, or go to the right school, or are very very hard working and have some modicum of talent, but not everyone is that lucky... what about the ppl with low IQ's..? what about ppl who couldn't go to school because their parents are addicts? what about the ppl with mental health problems who cannot cope with a nine to five job? should we say- hey- its a fair world, and u could have more if u tried harder..? it doesn't work like that...

yes, both systems are flawed, but if I'm poor, I'd rather live in a socialist state than a capitalist one...

Postmaster · 03-15-2007, 01:56 AM

Quote:

oh, the joys of capitalism... yes, u can be rich too, if u are born in the right family, or go to the right school, or are very very hard working and have some modicum of talent, but not everyone is that lucky... what about the ppl with low IQ's..? what about ppl who couldn't go to school because their parents are addicts? what about the ppl with mental health problems who cannot cope with a nine to five job? should we say- hey- its a fair world, and u could have more if u tried harder..? it doesn't work like that...

yes, both systems are flawed, but if I'm poor, I'd rather live in a socialist state than a capitalist one...

You can find rich people from all sorts of backgrounds, low IQ, children of addicts, and even mental problems and anyother handicap. Talent can manifest in all forms. Is it right for the government to take responsibility of people who have a handicap? Personally I think this duty is to direct family but saying that there usually is a welfare system in place for people unable to work and rightly so. Capitalisms strong point is the innovation it creates which in turn boosts the economy. Also the consumer decides what they want. If you give government control to all major industries and everyone gets the same wage, would we have the technology we have today even the medical advances? People patent amazing ideas everyday with a drive from financial gain, that benifits everyone and has a taxation, do you have that drive in a socialist country?

Francis king · 03-15-2007, 01:26 PM

see, that's where I think ur wrong... yes, "People patent amazing ideas everyday with a drive from financial gain", but patent ideas for what? I have a friend, an inventor, and he has invented some kind of new fangled gyroscope type thingie to make engines go faster than they currently do, and yet- the only way he's gonna make money from this is if the military buy it, and use it in their aircraft... he won't do this, because he doesn't want them to have it... he could potentially make millions, and currently he's on welfare...

people would still write books, they would still paint, they would still want to help others, be doctors, scientists, social workers, nurses, regardless of the wages... people in the main, will help each other out for no reward, purely becuase they are human...

and yes, it is right that the government takes responsibility for the handicapped and the sick, as these ppl are just as valid as the rest of us- why should they suffer just because they are unfortunate to have been born poor?

socialism isn't neccessarily about forcing the rich to give to the poor and can take many forms- for instance- state ownership of key industries, where profits go, not to shareholders, but back to the government, is just one idea-and again, this does not stifle competitiveness in industry- far from it- with global markets whether u are a socialist or a capitalist state, u still need money... its just better if the money is more evenly distributed, and we look after those who cannot adequately look after themselves...

today in Britain, around 150 companies dominate the lives of 60 million ppl... worldwide, the richest 356 ppl enjoy a combined wealth that is greater than the combined incomes of 40% of the human race... bit by bit workers rights are being eroded, the poor get poorer and democratic socialism is perhaps the only answer...

Pathless · 03-15-2007, 05:14 PM

This to me is the most important point:

Quote:

Originally Posted by francis

people would still write books, they would still paint, they would still want to help others, be doctors, scientists, social workers, nurses, regardless of the wages... people in the main, will help each other out for no reward, purely becuase they are human...

Yes! YES and yes!

I also see similarities with this style of socialism to tribal socieities. In the type of economy I would like to participate in, individuals are encouraged to be individuals and truly develop their strengths, and this is "reward" in itself. When people are free to express themselves fully, educate themselves fully, and engage daily in meeting/expanding their potential, I believe that "capital" becomes irrelevant--especially if the society/culture is one of mutual benefit, trust, and goodwill. The example is of painting a comissioned piece of artwork in exchange for a bicycle, perhaps--a direct exchange of real goods and services.

Francis makes an important distinction as well when she uses the term "democratic socialism." Too often I think people have a tendency to polarize the issue (look for example at the name of this thread--capitalism versus socialism). Uncritically approaching the issue, operating on indocrinated assumptions, they associate capitalism with democracy and socialism with communism. Yet in reality, capitalism can be practiced both democratically and authoritarianly, as can socialism.

Francis also hints at the fact that socialism, with its interest in distributing resources fairly and taking care of its many citizens equally through things like universal healthcare, is much less prone to the corrupting influence of greed than capitalism. I agree with this.

Positions of power over others corrupt. They corrupt the individual in power and the societies which are held captive in this power. Capitalism, by its nature of channeling more and more funds towards those who are already rich, deprives in this process the rest of humanity (and animals, plants, and minerals) of their basic needs--and before that their right to flourish through self-determination. It deprives most beings on the planet of their rights and welfare. And I am not talking about some government program called "welfare," but the actual core definition of welfare as a concept:

welfare: –noun

the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being

Capitalism does not equal democracy. Indeed, there is a strong argument for the fact that capitalism, when seen plainly as the injust economic system that it is, is a form of authoritarianism and tyranny. While it remains cloaked in the vocabulary of "democracy" and "freedom," those in power will not hesitate to use such terms as propaganda, effectively rallying an unthinking, disenfranchised mass of society behind them. This unquestioning, unthinking mass, even duped as they may be, are complicit in inflicting misery upon the Earth and her people, animals, and plants. They, like their leaders, are guilty of visiting misery not only on masses and masses of other individual human beings, animals, and plants, but on themselves as well, though they may remain ignorant to it in their consumption of propaganda and processed goods, and through their embrace of economies of speculative capital.

Postmaster · 03-15-2007, 08:37 PM

Interesting. Thanks to both of you.

cyberpi · 03-16-2007, 02:12 AM

Greed does not go arrive or go away because of the free market trade between employer and employee. Greed comes from the inside of a person and can be on either side of that deal. In socialism the greed is still there. It manifests itself in social loafing and other ways. If you removed all dollar signs from trades and revert to undocumented and untaxed trade, the imbalances between people still arrives not sheerly due to greed, but due to other reasons too, many of which are positive. By removing the fair trade and placing shackles on it to equalize the deal from one employer to the next, one employee to the next, the job of picking one's nose and for doing brain surgery are then equated as equal with all profit from the one taken to balance the two. In any degree, that is the nature of Socialism... and often it is using a government entity to make the decisions of whether nose picking or brain surgery are more important to society. Nether greed, nor many other attributes will be equalized by an outside force... many come from within. Greed is one of them. It is a human trait.

Postmaster · 03-16-2007, 02:38 AM

Exactly.

Did God distribute food equally in the animal kingdom when man was evolving? I think there is something artificial about socialism, for our own good. Sometimes our own morality can get the better of us.

I’m a 3rd generation British Cypriot living in England my grand father came over in the 50s due to colonial Britain. He was subjected to racial discrimination but was a hard working man and managed to own 3 shops. This was in a free and democratic market and I think he proved that the political and economy system was free, but what’s amazing my grandfather was illiterate couldn't even talk English properly. He like many other ethnic minorities in England helped boost the economy and contributed to what it is today. I think it’s an extraordinary achievement and also amongst natives who missed opportunities.

Postmaster · 03-16-2007, 03:11 AM

Capitalism is ok as long as you have a democratic system in place, combined they are free market and free political system. So this means we can choose to keep people fed, housed and clean if they can not afford to do so. Would it be fair to distribute driving licences indiscriminately? No the consequence would not be good. People would not make an effort to learn driving effectively and we would have a poor standard of drivers on the road, think how slow traffic would be with car crashes.

Things are so good for us here in the west that we go out of our way to help people in other continents. we should give ourselves a pat on the back, instead of grilling the system.