Capitalism and Socialism:

[jupta]

Capitalism is a system where any random person can control almost all capital. Socialism is a system where the government controls all capital. Is there really a difference?

Though capitalism may, on the surface, seem to be a perfect ideology, it is no different from socialism, which also seems a perfect ideology on the surface. Ultimately, the human element - our greed, our envy, our vanity and narrow-mindedness - leads to both these systems being rendered inefficient.

However, I think that modern capitalism(a pathetic blunder) can be fixed, if some of its root problems are corrected. Corporation, the stock market and the credit system would all have to be discarded, if any global capitalistic framework is to function.

Furthermore, the predatory aspect of modern firms - the 'dog-eat-dog' mentality of bigger companies gobbling up smaller ones, would have to go. Dying firms should be allowed to die and then rot, not be consumed. Added to that, focus should always be on equality of opportunity, as opposed to equal outcome.

What do you think?

[Carl G]

Modern government is a confidence game foisted on the people, designed to perpetually shear the public and empower the players. This renders capitalism and socialism meaningless terms, as relevant as democrat and republican. And as long as the mass of the people are willing to be sheep, it renders the word "should", when uttered about government by a citizen, meaningless, also.

[Robert]

It seems more and more evident over the last decade or so (maybe largely due to the internet) that people are basically managed by their governments in a business-like or corporate manner, and that this has become pretty much a truism. It just appears so naked now and devoid of any real substance.

[volta]

Though capitalism may, on the surface, seem to be a perfect ideology, it is no different from socialism, which also seems a perfect ideology on the surface. Ultimately, the human element - our greed, our envy, our vanity and narrow-mindedness - leads to both these systems being rendered inefficient.

I agree. A few decades ago "maximum profits" wasn't the only single criteria for business. Sure, businesses sought out profit, but they often did so in a manner that would create corporate longevity and community support. If you screw your customers until they're broke (and they hate you), you maximized profits, but only for a brief period of time. The old community business model seems to have been abandoned in favor of mega corps that gain complete market dominance and can profit unfettered by public discretion. We are witnessing right now is what happens when capitalism runs its course. Add to that that obviously the mega-companies have bought off the politicians and so the line between government and business becomes blurred beyond distinction and is, as Carl said, meaningless.

This ties back to your other post about rebellion and if, when and how the revolution will begin.

[jupta]

This ties back to your other post about rebellion and if, when and how the revolution will begin.

Actually, even revolution leads to the same things over again, until another revolution. The system should be repaired within the current framework.

[volta]

This ties back to your other post about rebellion and if, when and how the revolution will begin.

Actually, even revolution leads to the same things over again, until another revolution. The system should be repaired within the current framework.

Given the laws of nature (human and otherwise), aren't repair or revolution both temporary? There's no absolute permanent solution except extinction.

[jupta]

This ties back to your other post about rebellion and if, when and how the revolution will begin.

Actually, even revolution leads to the same things over again, until another revolution. The system should be repaired within the current framework.

Given the laws of nature (human and otherwise), aren't repair or revolution both temporary? There's no absolute permanent solution except extinction.

In an absolute sense that is of course true, but this forum is titled 'Worldly matters' for a reason.

Anyway, I think that the ultimate goal of any species is to recognise that nothing exists but the absolute. If the whole of any species recognises that, would they desire to exist any longer?

[Unidian]

Capitalism and socialism both share a basis in the idea that economic growth and production are inherently desirable.

For that reason, both have a tendency to f-ck everything up.

[vicdan]

Capitalism is a system where any random person can control almost all capital. Socialism is a system where the government controls all capital. Is there really a difference?

yes. one is economically efficient, and thus efficacious at producing growth; the other one isn't. Of course you can side with Unidian and deny the need for economic growth. From the heights of our standing in the developed world, it's an easy thing to do.

Though capitalism may, on the surface, seem to be a perfect ideology, it is no different from socialism, which also seems a perfect ideology on the surface. Ultimately, the human element - our greed, our envy, our vanity and narrow-mindedness - leads to both these systems being rendered inefficient.

No, silly. Capitalism works because it utilizes those things, while socialism requires man to be something other than what he is. This was understood way back, by Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

However, I think that modern capitalism(a pathetic blunder) can be fixed, if some of its root problems are corrected. Corporation, the stock market and the credit system would all have to be discarded, if any global capitalistic framework is to function.

Are you always this bright, or do you bang your head on the wall each morning to improve the effect?

Furthermore, the predatory aspect of modern firms - the 'dog-eat-dog' mentality of bigger companies gobbling up smaller ones, would have to go. Dying firms should be allowed to die and then rot, not be consumed.

Rot is consumption -- by bacteria. Get your wrong-headed metaphors straight.

[vicdan]

Capitalism and socialism both share a basis in the idea that economic growth and production are inherently desirable.

For that reason, both have a tendency to f-ck everything up.

Fuck what up? Which system do you think produces enough growth to permit you your leisure? Your lifestyle is made possible by capitalism. Under socialism, you would have been locked up in a mental institution, homeless, or in labor camps. Under other socio-economic systems, you'd most likely simply be dead.

[volta]

Capitalism and socialism both share a basis in the idea that economic growth and production are inherently desirable.

For that reason, both have a tendency to f-ck everything up.

Fuck what up? Which system do you think produces enough growth to permit you your leisure? Your lifestyle is made possible by capitalism. Under socialism, you would have been locked up in a mental institution, homeless, or in labor camps. Under other socio-economic systems, you'd most likely simply be dead.

I don't think it is necessary to defend socialism or any other system in order to criticize the current form of capitalism. For starters, it took a few hundred years (thousand if you go back to the intro of currency) to get to our current stage of capitalism. It's asking a lot to expect a resolution on an internet forum. It's obviously a fallacy to think that just because people can't provide the solutions, they have no right or entitlement to point out that a thing isn't functioning well or has failed (which is how I took this thread). I don't know how a Boeing 747 engine works exactly, but if I ever see smoke coming out the engine while I'm in one, you can be sure I'll be pointing out the fault.

It is clear to most rational people that capitalism - as we have it - is starting to come apart at the seams. It may well be that it is the best system we have (so far), but more likely it is just one of many systems which have a life span and and are now in the inevitable death cycle. To be replaced with what? Who the hell knows? But the fact that the engines of modern day capitalism are bellowing a black ugly smoke of debt, bankruptcy, corruption, and uncontrolled greed is enough to motivate people to protest, and rightly so. But let me guess, you don't see the smoke? You must have a seat up front in first class.

[Dan Rowden]

Capitalism and socialism both share a basis in the idea that economic growth and production are inherently desirable.

For that reason, both have a tendency to f-ck everything up.

Under socialism, you would have been locked up in a mental institution, homeless, or in labor camps.

That strikes me as baseless BS. I could easily and I dare say more reasonably claim the opposite to be true.

[Tomas]

Capitalism and socialism both share a basis in the idea that economic growth and production are inherently desirable.

For that reason, both have a tendency to f-ck everything up.

Under socialism, you would have been locked up in a mental institution, homeless, or in labor camps.

That strikes me as baseless BS. I could easily and I dare say more reasonably claim the opposite to be true.

Barack Obama is bringing the best of "Marxist thought" front and center.
Add a sprinkle of "Hitler jackboot" and it'll be the best of both worlds.

[Unidian]

Victor,

Which system do you think produces enough growth to permit you your leisure? Your lifestyle is made possible by capitalism. Under socialism, you would have been locked up in a mental institution, homeless, or in labor camps.

Whose version of socialism? Stalin's? Yeah, maybe. But then again, under Stalinesque socialism, quite a few people would be locked up in institutions - including the sexually deviant. Oh, and Jews? They don't tend to do well under that sort of regime, either.

And no, before you start, I don't view you as sexually deviant. But Stalin would.

Your assertion presumes a monolithic socialism, which is absolute nonsense. Furthermore, you would be just as likely to be locked up under any version of socialism that would lock me up.

Fuck what up?

The environment, most notably. Capitalism and Marxism both have horrible records in this regard - although I will concede that first-world capitalism has been making some progress recently.

[vicdan]

I don't think it is necessary to defend socialism or any other system in order to criticize the current form of capitalism.

However, "it has a tendency to fuck everything up because of focus on growth" is not a criticism. It's a whine. There are real criticisms of capitalism to be made. This isn't one of them.

I don't know how a Boeing 747 engine works exactly, but if I ever see smoke coming out the engine while I'm in one, you can be sure I'll be pointing out the fault.

Unidian has done nothing of the sort though. he has just proclaimed his blanket belief in fundamental failure of capitalism, unsupported by historical evidence, economic or political analysis, etc.

It is clear to most rational people that capitalism - as we have it - is starting to come apart at the seams.

"it's clear to most rational people" is not an argument. I am a rational person. i am pretty familiar with logic, philosophy, economics, political theory, and history. Demonstrate to me that our system is coming apart at the seams, i/e/ that the crisis is fundamental to the very foundational framework of our socioeconomic system.

But let me guess, you don't see the smoke? You must have a seat up front in first class.

I simply make a point of understanding what i am talking about. Relevantly to this case, i have made a point of studying economics. Thus, i can argue informedly about what's going on in the world economy today. I invite you to do the same.

[vicdan]

That strikes me as baseless BS. I could easily and I dare say more reasonably claim the opposite to be true.

See, Dan, this is the funny thing. I actually grew up under socialism; I have first-hand knowledge of what I am speaking about. Oh, i might have ended up in a psych ward there -- for political dissent. They loved that shit. Punitive psychiatry.

I saw people get locked up, or become bums. The core socialist value is "from each by his ability, to each by his work". Socialism doesn't entertain voluntary indigence. If you won't work, you don't eat. That's the reality of socialism, dude. in USSR, you didn't have welfare as you know it. What you had was a guaranteed right to work.

[vicdan]

Whose version of socialism? Stalin's?

Pretty much any that's been actually implemented. No, Sweden is not socialist, despite what conreps will tell you.

Your assertion presumes a monolithic socialism, which is absolute nonsense.

my assertion relies on socialism as it has existed in the real world. it's not monolithic, but there is one important, consistent trend -- if you don't work, you don't eat, unless someone actually feeds you, or you are a mental patient or something.

Furthermore, you would be just as likely to be locked up under any version of socialism that would lock me up.

For political dissent, yes. Which is kinda the point, dude: to claim that both socialism and capitalism are equally fucked up is deranged.

The environment, most notably.

just FYI, environmental damage under socialism was immeasurably worse than anything you have seen under capitalism. You truly have no idea how bad it was.

Capitalism and Marxism both have horrible records in this regard

No, the capitalism's record is merely bad, the socialism's record is the horrible one.

although I will concede that first-world capitalism has been making some progress recently.

if you understand this, then stop making stupid, baseless claims.

[Unidian]

I saw people get locked up, or become bums. The core socialist value is "from each by his ability, to each by his work". Socialism doesn't entertain voluntary indigence. If you won't work, you don't eat. That's the reality of socialism, dude. in USSR, you didn't have welfare as you know it. What you had was a guaranteed right to work.

Yeah, we know this. Who disputed it? Why are you even bringing this up?

I criticized both socialism and capitalism for valuing growth indiscriminately. What does the "voluntary indigence" issue even have to do with this?

my assertion relies on socialism as it has existed in the real world. it's not monolithic, but there is one important, consistent trend -- if you don't work, you don't eat, unless someone actually feeds you, or you are a mental patient or something.

Again, what does this have to do with my comment, which criticized both capitalism and socialism for the emphasis on unrestrained growth? Are you trying to troll me?

For political dissent, yes. Which is kinda the point, dude: to claim that both socialism and capitalism are equally fucked up is deranged.

They aren't "equally fucked up," they are equally obsessed with economic growth - and therefore equally detrimental to things like the environment, non-materialistic values, etc.

On an absolute scale of "fucked-upness," it goes without saying that most implementations of actual socialism are way ahead of capitalism. But that doesn't make capitalism blameless - nor does it rebut the criticism that both systems are dangerously obsessed with reckless growth.

just FYI, environmental damage under socialism was immeasurably worse than anything you have seen under capitalism. You truly have no idea how bad it was.

Actually, I do. I've looked into this and I'm aware of the widespread devastation in Russia and China. I agree that it makes the much-maligned American environmental abuses look tame by comparison.

Even so, are you arguing that US environmental degradation is acceptable?

No, the capitalism's record is merely bad, the socialism's record is the horrible one.

Fine, then it's "bad" vs "horrible." That's not exactly my idea of an ideal situation. Couldn't we consider re-examining the idea of unrestrained economic growth and achieve something better than "bad?" Seriously - couldn't we do without a great deal of this consumer crap and make-work we invent to fuel growth at all costs?

if you understand this, then stop making stupid, baseless claims.

Meh... the claim that modern growth-based society (whether capitalist or socialist) is unsustainable is neither stupid nor baseless. It's pretty much common knowledge.

[vicdan]

Even so, are you arguing that US environmental degradation is acceptable?

No, i am arguing that to pronounce an equal "pox on both their houses", capitalism and socailism, is idiocy.

Fine, then it's "bad" vs "horrible." That's not exactly my idea of an ideal situation.

But now we have a clear "least-bad' choice. if you have a better alternative, offer it. Informedly. Otherwise, like democracy, capitalism is the worst option, except for all others.

Couldn't we consider re-examining the idea of unrestrained economic growth and achieve something better than "bad?" Seriously - couldn't we do without a great deal of this consumer crap and make-work we invent to fuel growth at all costs?

Why don't you try? And then i will show you why people actually study economics before making such proposals -- and once they understand it, they usually don't make such proposals any longer. These ideas are typically advanced by people who have no idea about how economy functions.

Meh... the claim that modern growth-based society (whether capitalist or socialist) is unsustainable is neither stupid nor baseless. It's pretty much common knowledge.

No, it's false. I had already shown it to you. Remember my attacks on the malthusian eschatology? it's only "common knowledge" to clueless gits who have no idea about economics or history.

[Unidian]

But now we have a clear "least-bad' choice. if you have a better alternative, offer it. Informedly. Otherwise, like democracy, capitalism is the worst option, except for all others.

You are still behaving as if capitalism and socialism are monolithic systems with only one possible implementation.

You already know that I favor Scandinavian-style welfare capitalism. It combines the wealth-generating properties of traditional capitalism with the progressive values and vision of socialism.

In fact, I'm still not sure why you're arguing with me, except perhaps simply for the sake of argument. Maybe I should have specified that I view lassiez-faire libertarian capitalism and Maxist-fundie socialism as equally stupid. Would that have clarified matters?

Clearly, Marxism is untenable. But so is Ayn Rand style capitalism - as you know. US capitalism is still too close to Rand for my tastes.

A pox on Randian capitalism and Marxism alike. May both be relegated to the dustbin of history, where they belong. What we need now is next-level thinking, which recognizes that humanistic values as well as sustainability must be taken into account.

I reject Malthusian doomsday scenarios as well. But you know as well as I do that no one is seriously pushing Malthus anymore. Try Al Gore.

[vicdan]

You already know that I favor Scandinavian-style welfare capitalism.

if both socialism and capitalism are wrong in being growth-driven, then how can their hybrid, such as scandinavian flexicurity model, be any better? i would love to hear your explanation of that, and the reconciliation thereof with your dismissal of capitalist growth.

If shit and potassium cyanide are both bad for your health, then their combination is... good?

If you cannot stand behind the theoretical assertions you make (such as about both capitalism and socialism being bad due to being growth-driven), then you shouldn't make those assertions.

[Unidian]

What I object to is reckless growth - growth for its own sake. Economic growth should be prioritized below the general well-being of the people - which includes their environmental and social standards. Scandinavian welfare capitalism is a step in this direction. Growth is moderated by significant tax rates and redistributive measures, which tend to not only promote social and environmental consciousness, but also restrain runaway economic expansion and environmental degradation.

In other words, while a certain degree of economic growth is necessary to maintain a desirable society, growth should not be an overriding goal in and of itself. The goal should be to have just enough growth to achieve humanistic aims, and no more.

If shit and potassium cyanide are both bad for your health, then their combination is... good?

Yeah. Sodium and chlorine will both kill you - but put them together, add an electron, and you've got table salt.

[Shahrazad]

Nat,

In other words, while a certain degree of economic growth is necessary to maintain a desirable society, growth should not be an overriding goal in and of itself. The goal should be to have just enough growth to achieve humanistic aims, and no more.

Ok, this sounds good on paper, or on our computer screen, but when you think about its implementation, you encounter serious problems. The reason is because of the way economics works, as Vic has mentioned.

Here's an example. Let's say that in my country, a GNP of one billion dollars is enough to feed the whole population ($3 million). If we take that one billion dollars and redistribute it to the whole pop. more evenly, such that everyone has enough to live a comfortable, dignified life, you'd be destroying the whole foundation that created such a high GNP in the first place. This is because those people who are on the top 5% of income, who are making almost all the money, would stop working if they aren't going to get to keep or consume any of it.

Or you may have a different implementation in mind. If so, let's hear it.

[Nick]

If only 5% of the population stopped working, how is that a big deal, especially if they are the largest consumers? Seems it would be beneficial if they stopped working because their consumption outpaces their production.

[Shahrazad]

It's a huge deal because that 5% is making 90% of the GNP. Do the math and you'll see what happens. If you can't do math, ask me and I'll do it for you.