Capitalism or socialism??

[cablescavenger]

We all know a capitalist system gives rise to greed, oppression, and inhumane actions; and so cooperating with God to bring about his Kingdom on earth is a matter of instituting a more socialist economy. A socialist economic system is more in line with the Gospel message. Do you agree or disagree with this?

I don't see religious organisations as socialist.

They have the ultimate business model.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I can't see why some of you seem to think that Communism/Socialism is a system in which you don't need to work. This is clearly not true.

In the Soviet Union, for example, you were obligated to work.

Sure, there can be laws to avoid the "lazy people making free money" flaw in Socialism and Communism, but really, that would just be a strict law forcing you to work, and you wouldn't pick your job on your own, totally not fun.

If you could choose your own job and were forced to work, why not just choose an easy job? Why not just be a plumber instead of a fireman? It's much easier, you get paid equally, in fact the fireman's money gets cut to get into your money.

actually, in many capitalist countries, you can virtually choose to not work and live on Welfare instead.

so what do you all say to that?

If that is so, it's not Capitalism.

 

[Gomeza]

and what is this history exactly?

Do you mean the disbanding of the SU due to the Cold War or something else?

Do you mean the fact that China is now looking like the next big player in the Word?

Do you mean the fact that Communist Vietnam is way more successful than it's neighbour, Capitalist Cambodia?

The list could go on.

You are using the adoption of capitalist policies by select communist regimes to define the success of communism. The former USSR did not disband simply due to the Cold War, it was bankrupt and could no longer survive through deficit spending. To include it in a list of communist successes is laughable.

South Vietnam as a success story? I've never been there but with an average income of around $1,200 per capita and an almost non existent judicial system I would like to hear what exactly defines this communist country as successful in absolute terms? A comparison to even more impoverished Cambodia hardly cuts it.

China already is the next biggest player in the world but again this change came about by adopting capitalist policies.

I've actually visited a communist country (Cuba), they have 2 classes of people there, poor and poorer . . . . so maybe we should define how we are using the word "success" in this context.

 

[nnmartin]

Sure, there can be laws to avoid the "lazy people making free money" flaw in Socialism and Communism, but really, that would just be a strict law forcing you to work, and you wouldn't pick your job on your own, totally not fun.

but can you really pick your own job in a capitalist country?

not really, you can try but usually most people have to take whatever they can get.

do you think all the cleaners, bus drivers, sales assistants, garbage collectors, factory workers etc.. actually chose these jobs - it's unlikely.

If that is so, it's not Capitalism.

This kind of system works in many countries with a large welfare state - the UK for example is like this.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

but can you really pick your own job in a capitalist country?

Yes, I see no logical reason why you shouldn't.

not really, you can try but usually most people have to take whatever they can get.

do you think all the cleaners, bus drivers, sales assistants, garbage collectors, factory workers etc.. actually chose these jobs - it's unlikely.

Of course. They choose within the range of education they have. You're not going to let a person who flunked Health Science become a Doctor, are you?

It's as free as logical, sure it isn't completely free where you can be a lobbyist and get D's and F's in mathematics, but it's free where you can be a lobbyist if you choose to as long as you have good scores in what is required to actually be a lobbyist.

This kind of system works in many countries with a large welfare state - the UK for example is like this.

I think it would work anywhere, in fact it would help countries who have small welfare. The purpose of Capitalism is to improve or enlarge welfare.

 

[Revoltingest]

but can you really pick your own job in a capitalist country?
not really, you can try but usually most people have to take whatever they can get.
do you think all the cleaners, bus drivers, sales assistants, garbage collectors, factory workers etc.. actually chose these jobs - it's unlikely.

It sounds like you're erecting imaginary prison walls to justify a feeling that you're trapped.
Simply believe that you control your own destiny, & you'll be surprised at your options.

 

[nnmartin]

The purpose of Capitalism is to improve or enlarge welfare.

that is an interesting take on the purpose of capitalism.

I would have thought the opposite to be true.

ie: in a truly free trade capitalist system, then welfare would be abolished entirely and people would be virtual slaves, as they were not so long ago.

but I would say that Welfare is most certainly a tool of capitalism, one that perpetuates the system by keeping the unemployed workers passive with subsistence levels of income.

 

[nnmartin]

It sounds like you're erecting imaginary prison walls to justify a feeling that you're trapped.
Simply believe that you control your own destiny, & you'll be surprised at your options.

I am not really talking about my own personal situation here , but more from a general point of view.

One could say that communism/socialism only appeals to the poor but that is patently not true - I have always believed in this ideology as have many other people who were/are fabulously wealthy.

...in the same way that a lot of poor people cherish capitalism and right wing politics.

 

[YmirGF]

I am not really talking about my own personal situation here , but more from a general point of view.

One could say that communism/socialism only appeals to the poor but that is patently not true - I have always believed in this ideology as have many other people who were/are fabulously wealthy.

...in the same way that a lot of poor people cherish capitalism and right wing politics.

It is my observation that many who dream for a Socialist utopia have never lived under a socialist regime. Trust me, it ain't pretty.

Seriously, before you can arrive at the optimal social system, you first must take into account the many foibles of human nature. Once you have done that, and best of luck, in advance, you can then begin to figure out how to reflect the multitudinous array of viewpoints in an organic system that grows and shrivels with the times and the heat of human passions.

 

[nnmartin]

which one have you lived under?

that might be interesting to discuss

 

[YmirGF]

which one have you lived under?

that might be interesting to discuss

I live in British Columbia, Canada and have lived through 2 separate Socialist governments. In all fairness, both were such unmitigated disasters that we couldn't get rid of them fast enough. The last time they held power, with a comfortable majority, after the elections there were reduced to 2 seats, which didn't allow them to retain official party status. Now, 12 years or so later, we have become disenchanted with the ruling Liberal party (that isn't all that Liberal, but they do seem to know how to party), and will likely elect a Socialist government in their place. I can hardly wait....

The amusing thing is, the leader of the NDP party was run out of office before because he thought it might be a good idea to forge some documents. Apparently his former indiscretions no longer matter. So far, the main talking points out of their mouths is whatever the current government does, they wouldn't do. They never get around to telling you what they will do though. Oddly, no one seems to really care. Heck, they're not the Liberals! If it wasn't so serious, I would laugh till I cried.

So far, the NDP (New Democrat Party - provincial flavor), has been courting business trying to convince them they are not the devil incarnate. So far, business isn't buying it because, again, they don't really spell out what they will do, other than say, "Every thing will be wonderful because we're not the evil Liberals!"

Oh well, you asked.

 

[nnmartin]

I take it you lived through 2 Socialist state governments of the NDP?

not that I'm an expert on Canadian political parties but the NDP seem to me to be a kind of centre left social democratic party with roots of a left-wing past? (seems very similar to the UK Labour Party)

When I refer to Socialism I tend to advocate a more radical form such as that of Lenin or Castro, Marx etc..

This is the kind of system we need , with a few modern day alterations to fit in with the new reality of course.

I don't feel that Socialism can work as a half-way system, ie: socialism within a capitalist concept, aka: Bourgoisie Socialism , because this will always get swamped by human avarice and slowly morph into Liberalism and then Conservatism.

 

[YmirGF]

I take it you lived through 2 Socialist state governments of the NDP?

Indeed. Socialism Lite, if you prefer.

When I refer to Socialism I tend to advocate a more radical form such as that of Lenin or Castro, Marx etc..

I figured you were thinking this, though I do not understand how anyone would willingly go for a Castro. Seriously?

This is the kind of system we need , with a few modern day alterations to fit in with the new reality of course.

Even though, virtually every form of Socialist/Communist societies have been dismal failures? Heck, even China was on its knees prior to opening up their economy.

I don't feel that Socialism can work as a half-way system, ie: socialism within a capitalist concept, aka: Bourgoisie Socialism , because this will always get swamped by human avarice and slowly morph into Liberalism and then Conservatism.

Heaven forbid, eh. The saddest part of Socialism/Communism is that neither flavor appreciates human nature and attempts to force human nature to conform to its imaginary ideals... for the greater good... which, for the most part, ain't so great, once these things get rolling.

Humorously, it sounds like you would love my elderly Bridge partner, Muriel. I describe her as being slightly left of Joseph Stalin. We have some pretty interesting conversations - to say the least.

 

[nnmartin]

I figured you were thinking this, though I do not understand how anyone would willingly go for a Castro. Seriously?

admittedly, I don't know a great deal about Castro so could perhaps not include him on the list at present.

But I certainly like many of the ideas of Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot (before he turned bad)

Maybe Che Guevara was a better character.

but at the end of the day, it's the ideology that counts and the leader could be chosen in a more democratic fashion in this day and age.

 

[YmirGF]

but at the end of the day, it's the ideology that counts and the leader could be chosen in a more democratic fashion in this day and age.

If only it wasn't for the penchant that Socialist/Communist systems have for becoming military dictatorships and glorified personality cults. I am simply not impressed by the thinking of people who (vainly) hope to "get it right this time". It's almost the working definition of insanity.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

that is an interesting take on the purpose of capitalism.

I would have thought the opposite to be true.

ie: in a truly free trade capitalist system, then welfare would be abolished entirely and people would be virtual slaves, as they were not so long ago.

but I would say that Welfare is most certainly a tool of capitalism, one that perpetuates the system by keeping the unemployed workers passive with subsistence levels of income.

Not true. We're more slaves in the Socialist system because in a Capitalist system they are not letting the government interfere with their money. Most Capitalists don't want the government interfering socially either. It's all about individual freedom.

 

[Sunstone]

Not true. We're more slaves in the Socialist system because in a Capitalist system they are not letting the government interfere with their money. Most Capitalists don't want the government interfering socially either. It's all about individual freedom.

You sure do like your myths deep fried and rich in fat, sir.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You sure do like your myths deep fried and rich in fat, sir.

Here you go Phil, chew on this opinion.

Socialism reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator and works against natural evolution. We will never evolve into a superior being as long as we keep enabling ugly, stupid, lazy folks to reproduce.

 

[Sunstone]

Here you go Phil, chew on this opinion.

Socialism reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator and works against natural evolution.

Not true. There's nothing about the people owning the roads, rather than the roads being privately owned, that reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator.

We will never evolve into a superior being as long as we keep enabling ugly, stupid, lazy folks to reproduce.

Actually, Rick, it's my understanding that most evolutionary scientists nowadays would tell you our success as a species crucially relied on our being socially cooperative. I know that goes against the idealistic philosophy of "Social Darwinism" that was espoused by the likes of Herbert Spencer, etc., but facts are facts --- and there are plenty of facts that living cooperatively in larger and larger groups is what drove our brains to evolve into their present impressive size and power.

I mean, isn't the most obvious thing about us that we live in groups? Kind of hard to miss.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

What we really need is a good mix of both. Since we are extremely social creatures, we do need to work together and support each other. But, competition and a certain amount of freedom in the market allows for good innovation and natural cooperation.

Capitalism needs some regulation, though, lest it becomes a government unto itself. I don't personally trust a system that upholds profit as the ultimate gain; our current economy supports that without government regulation, the environment and public health suffers. And I don't believe that infinite economic growth is possible no matter what Rush Limbaugh says.