Socialism vs Capitalism

[Nakosis]

This is a very light take. So don't get upset if I'm not taking the complexities of both systems into account.

Socialism assumes most folks are honest, decent folks who are willing to sacrifice a little if it's going to help the overall group.

Capitalism assumes most folks are self interested - greedy, lazy and will take the easiest road they themselves can benefit from.

Personally I tend to side with the idea that most folks are self interested. Now I'm not against a socialist system that works, however I suspect this system will always fail do to "most folks are inherently self-interested". I feel this puts me more on the capitalist/conservative side of the political spectrum.

Otherwise I often find myself shocked at the pervasiveness of religious morality among conservatives. I've no issue with folks living life as they see fit as long as they are not adversely affect the lives of anyone else.

 

[sun rise]

Socialism assumes most folks are honest, decent folks who are willing to sacrifice a little if it's going to help the overall group.

Capitalism assumes most folks are self interested - greedy, lazy and will take the easiest road they themselves can benefit from.

Individual vs group I agree with.

But capitalism really assumes people act in their own self-interest which has been proven false too many times to recount.

Both systems can be abused by those in positions of power.

Both systems have deep routed structural flaws albeit different ones.

 

[suncowiam]

Individual vs group I agree with.

But capitalism really assumes people act in their own self-interest which has been proven false too many times to recount.

Both systems can be abused by those in positions of power.

Both systems have deep routed structural flaws albeit different ones.

I like to suggest that Capitalism allows people to act in their own self-interest. No one is required to.

There's a level of freedom associated with Capitalism not attainable with Socialism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I pick capitalism....

over socialism....

 

[idav]

This is a very light take. So don't get upset if I'm not taking the complexities of both systems into account.

Socialism assumes most folks are honest, decent folks who are willing to sacrifice a little if it's going to help the overall group.

Capitalism assumes most folks are self interested - greedy, lazy and will take the easiest road they themselves can benefit from.

Personally I tend to side with the idea that most folks are self interested. Now I'm not against a socialist system that works, however I suspect this system will always fail do to "most folks are inherently self-interested". I feel this puts me more on the capitalist/conservative side of the political spectrum.

Otherwise I often find myself shocked at the pervasiveness of religious morality among conservatives. I've no issue with folks living life as they see fit as long as they are not adversely affect the lives of anyone else.

I think socialism assumes people need each other and that a system that allows a person to exploit at the expense of others will ultimately fail. Socialism doesn’t need group think that’s not what it is about. Ideally people can all have their businesses just nobody can become king of the hill cause people would share the success. Capitalism leads to an elite few with most of the wealth while the majority live poor.

 

[Augustus]

Socialism assumes most folks are honest, decent folks who are willing to sacrifice a little if it's going to help the overall group.

Capitalism assumes most folks are self interested - greedy, lazy and will take the easiest road they themselves can benefit from.

I'm not sure either of these are true, although capitalism does assume people are self-interested.

Socialism assumes capital is exploitative if left unchecked, and capitalism, at least as Adam Smith expressed it, has a significant moral dimension (and also relied on Divine Providence). Outside of Adam Smith, there are all sorts of views and justifications, the assumption of laziness is not central to them (perhaps even antithetical).

 

[Nakosis]

I'm not sure either of these are true, although capitalism does assume people are self-interested.

Socialism assumes capital is exploitative if left unchecked, and capitalism, at least as Adam Smith expressed it, has a significant moral dimension (and also relied on Divine Providence). Outside of Adam Smith, there are all sorts of views and justifications, the assumption of laziness is not central to them (perhaps even antithetical).

Capitalism would be inherently exploitative if the idea is everyone is looking out for their own self interest wouldn't it. No shock there right?

The idea being everyone looking out for their own self interest, means it's up to each individual to not allow themselves to be exploited.

This would work if it's a equal playfield. However, for whatever reasons, some people, or groups of people seem more prone to exploitation than others.

 

[Vinayaka]

It's a pipe dream but I prefer capitalism with conscience. Maybe more accurately capitalists with conscience. Even little kids are taught to share.

 

[Nakosis]

Individual vs group I agree with.

But capitalism really assumes people act in their own self-interest which has been proven false too many times to recount.

Both systems can be abused by those in positions of power.

Both systems have deep routed structural flaws albeit different ones.

I think what you mean by false is that some folks are not savvy enough, educated enough or perhaps lack the temperment to ensure their own self interest?

 

[Nakosis]

It's a pipe dream but I prefer capitalism with conscience. Maybe more accurately capitalists with conscience. Even little kids are taught to share.

There's enough folks out there willing to burn you that I think folks soon get jaded to the idea of share and share alike.

So there's government to step in to ensure fairness.

Unfortunately, the government is as likely to turn out to be as self interested as any individual.

 

[Wu Wei]

I pick capitalism....

over socialism....

Norway is Socialist.....look...no horse drawn half cars in Norway

although they do have a rising number of electric cars...including, but not limited to, the Tesla

But they also might have hippies...although I did not see any....there seemed to be a market for renting old VW Bus Campers when I was here

 

[Revoltingest]

Norway is Socialist.....look...no horse drawn half cars in Norway

although they do have a rising number of electric cars...including, but not limited to, the Tesla

Norway isn't socialist.
Sure, they have some state owned companies, but if you moved there,
you could start your own company selling cupcakes & IT services.
At best, you could call them mixed.

 

[Wu Wei]

Norway isn't socialist.
Sure, they have some state owned companies, but if you moved there,
you could start your own company selling cupcakes & IT services.
At best, you could call them mixed.

Here we go again....Bingo Bango Bongo you are Wrongo.... Socialism is a type

socialist nations in the world today:

• China
• Denmark
• Finland
• Netherlands
• Canada
• Sweden
• Norway
• Ireland
• New Zealand
• Belgium

Socialism is not a totalitarian state nor is it Communism as defined by Marx. Folks tend to get the two mixed up because Russia and China are called Communist but are socialist Governments. Hint there are no true communist states, there are Communist political parties running Socialist states as they see fit.

Socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

However, it does not mean you cannot have private companies or start your own companies. There are a whole lot of privately owned companies in China that were started by an individual and those people are rather wealthy as well. You could even start your own company there selling cupcakes & IT services and the government would not care one little bit....

 

[Revoltingest]

Here we go again....Bingo Bango Bongo you are Wrongo.... Socialism is a type

socialist nations in the world today:

• China
• Denmark
• Finland
• Netherlands
• Canada
• Sweden
• Norway
• Ireland
• New Zealand
• Belgium

Socialism is not a totalitarian state nor is it Communism as defined by Marx. Folks tend to get the two mixed up because Russia and China are called Communist but are socialist Governments. Hint there are no true communist states, there are Communist political parties running Socialist states as they see fit.

Socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

However, it does not mean you cannot have private companies or start your own companies. There are a whole lot of privately owned companies in China that were started by an individual and those people are rather wealthy as well. You could even start your own company there selling cupcakes & IT services and the government would not care one little bit....

Bingo bango bongo....you're so wrongo pongo.
Your list is laughable, eg, Canuckistan ranks as even more capitalist
than Americastan (Wall St Journal index of economic liberty).
China has moved to capitalism (as you well know).
And you left off real socialist countries (the ones which embarrass socialists)....
Venezuela
N Korea
Cuba (except for a few small businesses)

 

[metis]

No country today can be legitimately labeled as being "socialistic" or "capitalistic" as basically all countries now have what economists call a "mixed economy".

 

[Revoltingest]

No country today can be legitimately labeled as being "socialistic" or "capitalistic" as basically all countries now have what economists call a "mixed economy".

There are degrees of mixture....a vast continuum between the extremes.
It's reasonable to label some economies as one or the other.

 

[Wu Wei]

Bingo bango bongo....you're so wrongo pongo.
China has moved to capitalism (as you well know).
And you left off real socialist countries (the ones which embarrass socialists)....
Venezuela
N Korea
Cuba (except for a few small businesses)

Nope, China has not moved to capitalism as far as the government is concerned it is still socialist with a controlling communist party. At any time China could and has threatened to rain it all in because, they are not capitalist. They control the banks, media, health care and multiple other organizations. They are currently allowing folks to act like capitalists, but they are now threatening to limit how much money they allow folks to take out of the country. China knows how to make money, that is why they allow the business that are currently running to run with little or no interference...but they have to follow the rules...or they could be shut down just because Xi wants to close them, or their CEO and VPS could be taken out and replaced just cause Xi wanted to..... Also, unlike capitalist nations, they have no taxes...nope, not one, you buy it or sell it...no tax...no matter what it is. Don't let appearances, media and propaganda (from both the US and China) fool you, China is still socialist. The biggest fear about China right now is Xi wanting to be leader for life....oh look...now we're no longer socialist....we just became an monarchy or a dictatorship or a 21st century Emperor.....but still not capitalist...as for leaving out Venezuela, N. Korea and Cuba.....Venezuela and Cuba don't matter much globally and a rather strong argument can be made that North Korea is a monarchy/dictatorship.....that just wants you to think its socialist

I have not yet figured out, after living over half a century in a Capitalist nation why so many do not know what socialism is and why so many fear it so much

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope, China has not moved to capitalism as far as the government is concerned it is still socialist with a controlling communist party.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Four, because a tail isn't a leg.
The Commie Party can call itself what it wants,
but it has a massive & thriving capitalist sector.

...as for leaving out Venezuela, N. Korea and Cuba.....Venezuela and Cuba don't matter much globally and a rather strong argument can be made that North Korea is a monarchy/dictatorship.....

Or do they not matter because as being perhaps the only real
socialist countries, admitting their failure would be uncomfortable?

 

[Wu Wei]

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Four, because a tail isn't a leg.
The Commie Party can call itself what it wants, but it has a massive & thriving capitalist sector.

Does not apply, just shows you do not understand China, its government a Socialist state, or Chinese Socialism

Or do they not matter because as being perhaps the only real
socialist countries, admitting their failure would be uncomfortable?

Nope, no argument there, not a bit uncomfortable, they are failures..... which is why they are of no consequence...but they are a nice bunch of countries to throw out when one cannot present any argument against the socialist countries that are successful...you forgot to throw in Laos and Vietnam by the way......why...was it because admitting they exist would be uncomfortable....I don't think that is the case...I just think your whole approach there is either silly or desperate

I'm not advocating socialism, I am just not afraid of it and understand the reality of it and I think what is the hang up here is you are confusing a socialist state and a controlling socialist political party and controlling Communist party

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not advocating socialism, I am just not afraid of it and understand the reality of it and I think what is the hang up here is you are confusing a socialist state and a controlling socialist political party and controlling Communist party

Your reality just isn't based upon any common definition of "socialism".
Canuckistan is socialist....really?
There sure is an awful lot of private industry up there.
Take Reuters.....not owned or run by "the people".