somethingNiftyhere
Squadoosh 1@ATime
Isn't America seemingly going in the direction of Social-Capitalism now?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are You Both a Capitalist and a Socialist?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
dust1n
Zindīq
What does 'supporting capitalism' all entail? If I may ask at this late point.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Socialism, to me, holds the best of spiritual teachings. But, this isn't to say that capitalism is all bad. I think the idea of personal responsibility is a great idea, and something that should be further explored. But, ultimately, I favor an economic system that is more socialist than capitalist. Capitalism, by itself, tends to favor class distinctions, and let's greed of the rich go unimpeded. Socialism is looking out for the little guy, the one who wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth (because, let's be honest, most rich people today are those who didn't work for their money, but inherited it from those who did).
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
To me it seems both are necessary reguardless of which type of society you label it. A full on socialistic country would most likely do better with a capitalistic stly economy. Germany (I may be wrong) does this. And then the US is a capitalistic society with plenty of socialism sprinkled in the form of free public education, public water, public roads, ect ect ect . You NEED some kind of socialism or inequality will run rampant. And you need capitalism to drive a sucessful economy as no other form of economic drive has ever been as sucessful or done as much.
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
As a person living in Sweden, I must say that I don't think the Nordic model should be the goal. Sure, it's better than any other model that have been established in practice, but that doesn't make it the best possible. Our "social democratic" party has long ago abandoned striving for socialism and have accepted the Nordic model as the goal, when they should be striving for a better society.
I find capitalism horrible and unsustainable.
I find capitalism horrible and unsustainable.
Last edited:
The more I read, the more I'm convinced that they can be compatible. The problem, at least to me, is when we assume that the laissez faire capitalism often talked about is inherently fair or equal, because it is anything but. There are many forms of socialism that can work well with capitalism (social democracy and several left-libertarian ideologies advocate for it), provided it is made an equal playing field, ie: the worker is equal to the owner, the renter to the landlord, the customer to the merchant.
No. I'm an anti-capitalist.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
Me too, and I don't want to heap scorn on the concept of being both capitalist and socialist...which I sort of did the last time I was on this thread; but if there is one single reason why capitalism can no longer be acceptable today, regardless of how overpowering it is in economic theory, it's simply because capitalism only works under conditions where the increases in exploitation of nature and increasing consumption of energy can be accommodated by nature. And, in many nations like America, it was possible for a time for capitalism to work and please the majority of people...under strict regulation of course. But capitalism only succeeded because...after ethnically cleansing the Continent through wars and plagues, there was so much open land with abundant resources for white settlers from Europe to generate wealth, that it looked like America was the land of opportunity....at least for awhile.
Now that we are clearly heading into an era predicted as far back as 40 years ago - a time when real growth is not possible, the only way capitalism works is by plundering the wealth and resources of poorer, less powerful segments of society or poorer nations. So, the complaints about socialism spreading poverty rather than wealth, look pretty empty now that we will all have to provide food, shelter and clothing without drawing more from nature's storehouse!
There are a number of different models for steady state or no growth economics to deal with a future of environmental and resource constraints, but from what I read about our collective environmental crises, the original source is capitalism, because of its constant demands to convert more and more of nature into more products to pay for rising debts/money supplies. So, the only way for the human race to have a future beyond the next few decades is going to be a socialist future, without resource wars, and declines in present levels of industrial production. There is simply no other viable way to meet carbon reduction targets to stop the increase in GHG levels. Just building more windmills and solar panels is not going to make capitalism eco-friendly!
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
With the advent of advanced automation, and if we manage to recycle at least 75% of our materials and if we start to solely rely on renewable energy sources, then I feel that both capital and labor will be doomed. And there will be no debate has to which way we should go.
Because if all of the above happens (and I believe it can) then there is only one option; communism.
Because if all of the above happens (and I believe it can) then there is only one option; communism.
rocala
Well-Known Member
I do believe that some free enterprise has a beneficial role to play. I am thinking of small businesses, co-operatives etc.
I strongly feel that any left government must start at the top, that is the big multinationals. Then through a step by step process it could be worked out at what level free enterprise is beneficial and if this is transitional or likely to be permanent.
I strongly feel that any left government must start at the top, that is the big multinationals. Then through a step by step process it could be worked out at what level free enterprise is beneficial and if this is transitional or likely to be permanent.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I know this is an oldie, but yes.
A typical market system where the basic economic unit is the cooperative would work for me.
I skimmed this thread and sorry I'm not going back to it, but the only thing I think was wrong was that work in progress said the human population is still accelerating. I'm pretty sure it stopped.
I am certain you can be capitalist and socialist at the same time, and I recommend this system from Judaism!:
Leviticus 25:8, Leviticus 25:14-16, and Leviticus25:23
8 ¶And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.
14 And if thou sell ought unto thy neighbour, or buyest ought of thy neighbour’s hand, ye shall not oppress one another:
15 According to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee:
16 According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it: for according to the number of the years of the fruits doth he sell unto thee.
23 ¶The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.
The idea is you are free to get education, religion, and work where and what you want. If you work hard you get more. If you get a house, you keep that house and can pass it on to people like your children and they can pass it on forever.
However, to help ease the gap between poor and rich from this quite capitalist idea, everything but houses go down in value over 49 years. Then their value is returned to society, helping the poor survive. We already do this with patent expiration.
I am certain you can be capitalist and socialist at the same time, and I recommend this system from Judaism!:
Leviticus 25:8, Leviticus 25:14-16, and Leviticus25:23
8 ¶And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.
14 And if thou sell ought unto thy neighbour, or buyest ought of thy neighbour’s hand, ye shall not oppress one another:
15 According to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee:
16 According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it: for according to the number of the years of the fruits doth he sell unto thee.
23 ¶The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.
The idea is you are free to get education, religion, and work where and what you want. If you work hard you get more. If you get a house, you keep that house and can pass it on to people like your children and they can pass it on forever.
However, to help ease the gap between poor and rich from this quite capitalist idea, everything but houses go down in value over 49 years. Then their value is returned to society, helping the poor survive. We already do this with patent expiration.
vaguelyhumanoid
Active Member
I am fully socialist (i.e. supporting workers' self-management). I do not support capitalism (the existence of a social class who hold land and capital privately). I'm OK with markets tho.
ENTP Logician
Advocate for Reason
I do believe in a mixture of capitalism and socialism. I think that needs that people need to have met in order to live should be covered by the state while the things that are not necessary should usually not be covered by the state and needs to be worked for.
I support socialism to a large extent, although I can see where regulated, restrained capitalism can enhance quality of life to some degree. I think a mixed system which takes the best of both worlds could probably work best. Socialism for the necessities of life (housing, healthcare, education, transportation, communication, utilities, law enforcement, military, etc.), and capitalism for the luxuries (restaurants, hotels, jewelry, yachts, etc.).
Above all else, I would strongly oppose adhering to an ideology just for the sake of adhering to an ideology. That's where both socialists and capitalists have failed, since there are occasions where they ignore common sense just because of ideological intransigence. So many issues plaguing this country could be solved overnight if only certain ideologues could let go of their intransigence and give up their adherence to orthodoxy in their ideology.
For example, the homeless problem could be resolved with a stroke of a pen, simply by imposing nationwide rent controls, so that housing costs can be lowered to affordable levels. Impose higher taxes on luxury housing, as well as an unused property tax, so that owners of vacant lots, boarded-up stores, etc. have their taxes doubled each month until they either sell it, rent it, or use it. That way, it will be unprofitable to hold on to a vacant property indefinitely while expecting it to appreciate in value. Property owners will be compelled to sell quickly, which will lower prices and make housing/property more affordable for everyone. This could be a win-win throughout society, as individuals and businesses will pay significantly less for rents or mortgages, freeing up tons of money to circulate throughout the economy. The only ones who might lose would be the lazy, greedy landowners who produce nothing for the economy anyway.
But too many people argue against such proposals purely out of mindless adherence to the capitalist ideology.
Another example might be healthcare. All during the debate and fight over Obamacare, I kept shaking my head in disbelief. The simplest solution to the high costs of healthcare was something that neither side ever considered: Impose price controls in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. But again, one will find vehement opposition to such proposals since would violate the holy tenets of capitalism. It's a purely ideological argument which has nothing to do with reality.
VioletVortex
Well-Known Member
I think that capitalism has grown to such extent where it needs to be regulated by socialism. Certain things should be part of the mostly free market, whereas others should be completely taken over by the government.
Araceli Cianna
Active Member
I think so yeah, I was discussing this with my boyfriend (who used to be a marxist, though I don't know really what that entails since I'm new to politics), I think that people with ambition need to be able to capitalize on their skills. There needs to be some room for individuality.