Socialism vs Capitalism

[Nakosis]

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.

There exists enough who abuse the freedom of capitalism, nowhere near a majority, maybe 1 out of 5 .

Maybe just the 1% folks talk about to screw it up for the rest of us.

I agree, I'm not above sharing fairly the benefits of capitalism. However I think most people can think of someone they know who will take and take giveing nothing in return.

Most of us can accept the responsibility to stop giving to folks willing to abuse your good nature.

There are some who can't see their way to stop themselves from being a victim of such abuse. Then there are those who are simply self destructive.

For perhaps political reasons, most seem unwilling to differentiate the two.

 

[Wu Wei]

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".

And yet Canuckistan has socialist medicine....

Speaking of reality... you do not understand socialism or the labels that go with it you are stuck with what you were trained to believe growing up in the same country I did, just you were hit harder with it based on your age (McCarthyism anyone). There is socialism, socialist political parties and socialist states. There is also Communism, Communist parties but no communist states and many folks and I think you may be one of them get Communism and Socialism mixed up and as far as China is concerned you are way off the target there, sorry that is the reality of it, you won't believe it, you won't except it and you are convinced I'm wrong... and 25 more pages of this back and forth will not change that.... And if we are going by the text book definition of things that we are not capitalist either....cause we do have state controlled offices and organizations...that's not Capitalist (the shock... the horror)...... I'm done.... to quote Monty Python...stop it....its silly....I'm now going to go get on my dog sled now and make the 30 mile trek north to my home... in the blizzard that we are currently experiencing...later

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The problem with socialism vs capitalism is that it assumes there is a vs. Capitalism doesn't work without socialism and there are no purely capitalist societies in the world. Socialism can, but often does not, work without capitalism as even the most socialist nations will have state businesses which operate under capital paradigms.

In the economic world there is no such thing as one or the other, all nations are mixed economies. Even N Korea and Cuba (crony capitalism.)

Talking about levels of one or the other within mixed economies is fine, but only doing so minding that neither terms exist in their own vacuum.

That said, holy crap does the US need more social programs and less tolerance for corporate oligarchy. Crony capitalism is destroying this country, making Americans unhealthy, uneducated and poor, with a wealth distribution which keeps most people locked in poverty with little and less chance at upward mobility no matter how ambitious or hard they work.
And the rich villify the poor, call them lazy and unmotivated to keep the dwindling middle class from challenging the status quo.

 

[joe1776]

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

Correct. And this is the best we can do for now because socialism, likely to be the future, requires a system of efficient, uncorrupted governing which hasn't been invented yet.

 

[bobhikes]

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.

Capitalism has no aid built in for the people that can't work but want to. It also has no cap for greed, you can demand as much as you want causing problems for those without. Run away greed typically collapses the system.

Socialism has no recourse for those who can work but won't and tends to give more than is necessary causing financial issues and eventual collapse.

 

[suncowiam]

There exists enough who abuse the freedom of capitalism, nowhere near a majority, maybe 1 out of .

Maybe just the 1% folks talk about to screw it up for the rest of us.

I agree, I'm not above sharing fairly the benefits of capitalism. However I think most people can think of someone they know who will take and take giveing nothing in return.

Most of us can accept the responsibility to stop giving to folks willing to abuse your good nature.

There are some who can't see their way to stop themselves from being a victim of such abuse. Then there are those who are simply self destructive.

For perhaps political reasons, most seem unwilling to differentiate the two.

For political reasons, I value any system that promotes freedom over the rest.

Socialism places a ceiling across the board not that some form of equality is inherently bad. It's just how it forces this equality on society which is usually by force, subjugation, and some form of brain washing.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

For political reasons, I value any system that promotes freedom over the rest.

Socialism places a ceiling across the board not that some form of equality is inherently bad. It's just how it forces this equality on society which is usually by force, subjugation, and some form of brain washing.

Unless you come from the right family or invent the next in-every-home product, your success is going to be forcefully limited by corrupt corporate oligarchy in a 'maximized freedom' economic system. The ceiling is just less visible because said corrupt corporate oligarchs feel no need to be transparent about it

Imo the 'freedom' in the US is far more illusionary than it likes to admit.

 

[Yerda]

Hi, Nakosis.

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

This isn't a socialist idea but it is generally true. I thought almost everyone believed this.

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

This is also generally true but not specifically capitalist. Further, it doesn't necessarily run counter to the statement above.

Given that we are social animals whose material comfort and wellbeing depend almost exclusively upon our willingness and ability to cooperate with large numbers of people (often strangers) in all sorts of ways every day from infancy til death it seems being honest, decent, and willing to sacrafice for others is probably the strongest expression of self-interest a typical person can enact.

Also, don't you find it slightly odd that if capitalism assumes most folks are self-interested and greedy why is that capitalist systems generally do little to nothing to combat self-interest and greed at the expense of the public? Surely a system that assumes humans are like this would plan for it.

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.

If we take socialism to mean a system involving central economic planning, state ownership of all industry, and little to no economic freedom for the average person then I'm with you. I don't hold to that understanding however and in my experience almost no self-described socialist does.

If you take look at some older socialist literature you might come away with the impression that the central issues are things like worker control of the means of production, the ability to form effective defence against economic exploitation, whether or not it is right for common resources to be privately owned.

 

[suncowiam]

Unless you come from the right family or invent the next in-every-home product, your success is going to be forcefully limited by corrupt corporate oligarchy in a 'maximized freedom' economic system. The ceiling is just less visible because said corrupt corporate oligarchs feel no need to be transparent about it

Imo the 'freedom' in the US is far more illusionary than it likes to admit.

I've mentioned this various times and probably folks get tired of it...

My family and I were boat refugee from the Vietnam war era.

Basically we had nothing because communism confiscated our family's property and were forced to leave because we supported the South. Long story short, we're doing much better in a Capitalistic society when directly compared to our family and friends that stayed behind. Health, education, and even wealth. Pretty much across the board, really.

So, no I wasn't born from a rich family or invented the next best product. No, we immigrated in the 1979 with literally nothing. Granted, there were many social welfare programs in California to help us but its been decades since we left welfare.

All of this wouldn't have been possible if Capitalism wasn't offered to us. I'm not saying that's typical but that's definitely our perspective.

 

[M83]

Capitalism all the way. My father and my aunts spent months planning and fleeing to the west. I grew up hearing horror stories about their time in Soviet controlled Georgia and would never wish anyone to live under those conditions.

 

[suncowiam]

Capitalism all the way. My father and my aunts spent months planning and fleeing to the west. I grew up hearing horror stories about their time in Soviet controlled Georgia and would never wish anyone to live under those conditions.

Sounds familiar to me.

 

[Yerda]

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)

What is it about these countries that is socialist in your view?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I've mentioned this various times and probably folks get tired of it...

My family and I were boat refugee from the Vietnam war era.

Basically we had nothing because communism confiscated our family's property and were forced to leave because we supported the South. Long story short, we're doing much better in a Capitalistic society when directly compared to our family and friends that stayed behind. Health, education, and even wealth. Pretty much across the board, really.

So, no I wasn't born from a rich family or invented the next best product. No, we immigrated in the 1979 with literally nothing. Granted, there were many social welfare programs in California to help us but its been decades since we left welfare.

All of this wouldn't have been possible if Capitalism wasn't offered to us. I'm not saying that's typical but that's definitely our perspective.

I understand your experience (and I am truly happy you made your way to a better situation) but imo as applied to socialism v capitalism It's an argument of extremes. Like talking about problems with LGBT issues in the US by saying 'you'll do better here than in Iraq.' Well yeah, if course you'll do better here than a totalitarian communist regime. But that doesn't change that a lot of far more socialist countries, i.e. Scandanavia, are doing comparatively far better than we are.
Despite the 'less freedom' I actually think they have more.

 

[Ponder This]

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.

The difference between socialism and capitalism is ownership of means of production:

Socialism says the community should own the means of production.
Capitalism says the individual should own the means of production.

The reason capitalism leads to a higher standard of living is that individuals own the surplus.
The reason socialism leads to a lower standard of living is that individuals don't own the surplus.

That said, the landscape of today is not socialism vs capitalism (capitalism already won that battle and it's enemies were forced to adopt more capitalist structures, saying capitalist societies have some socialism is missing the mark on what it means to be a capitalist society).

The landscape of today is democracy vs totalitarianism.
democracy: state serves the people (literally: 'the people rule')
totalitarianism: people serve the state

 

[Revoltingest]

And yet Canuckistan has socialist medicine....

Health care is not the "means of production".
You're making the social safety net define a system as socialism.
It's not.
In the case of Canuckistan, taxes on a capitalist economy fuel social services.
By your reasoning, even the USA is socialist (because we too have social services).
If just about every economy is thusly "socialist", then this makes the labels of "capitalist" & "socialist" meaningless.

Speaking of reality... you do not understand socialism or the labels that go with it you are stuck with what you were trained to believe growing up in the same country I did, just you were hit harder with it based on your age (McCarthyism anyone).

Actually, I'm going against your training, ie, the right fighting governmental expansion
by labelling it all as "socialist". That's just old fashioned red scare propaganda.
Had you not grown up in a cave, you'd be aware of....
Definition of SOCIALISM
Definition of socialism
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

There is socialism, socialist political parties and socialist states. There is also Communism, Communist parties but no communist states and many folks and I think you may be one of them get Communism and Socialism mixed up and as far as China is concerned you are way off the target there, sorry that is the reality of it, you won't believe it, you won't except it and you are convinced I'm wrong... and 25 more pages of this back and forth will not change that.... And if we are going by the text book definition of things that we are not capitalist either....cause we do have state controlled offices and organizations...that's not Capitalist (the shock... the horror)...... I'm done.... to quote Monty Python...stop it....its silly....I'm now going to go get on my dog sled now and make the 30 mile trek north to my home... in the blizzard that we are currently experiencing...later

It isn't a matter of what I "believe".
Go to a mainstream dictionary.
Get the definition.
Apply it objectively.
The list of socialist countries will be vastly different from yours....not a result of belief...just reasoning.
Note:
In no definition does it exclude countries for having what you consider insignificant economies.

Note:
Both the PRC & USSR had insignificant economies until they adopted capitalism.
(In the case of the USSR, they had to eliminate their government too.)
So it's an inherent tendency of socialist economies to be insignificant.

 

[suncowiam]

I understand your experience (and I am truly happy you made your way to a better situation) but imo as applied to socialism v capitalism It's an argument of extremes. Like talking about problems with LGBT issues in the US by saying 'you'll do better here than in Iraq.' Well yeah, if course you'll do better here than a totalitarian communist regime. But that doesn't change that a lot of far more socialist countries, i.e. Scandanavia, are doing comparatively far better than we are.
Despite the 'less freedom' I actually think they have more.

Right... We've been treating it as black and white or maybe just me. It's really not. That's why I mentioned how important it was that California sponsored us in various welfare programs. This included housing, food and education. Without that, it would have taken us longer or possibly never for us to get out of poverty.

I support some forms of socialism, but only to the point that it will show improvement to its intended goals. I think all of these socialistic countries that have been pointed out are really just social programs on top of a set of core capitalistic policies. It's capitalism that can drive and maintain the social programs. If any country went closer to socialism with disregard to capitalism, history has proven that it will fail.

 

[Revoltingest]

Capitalism has no aid built in for the people that can't work but want to.

Aid for non-workers isn't fundamental to the definition of socialism either.
And examples abound of the poor suffering horribly while the elite thrive.

What it all boils down to is that no matter what economic system a
country has, if a social safety net is desired, then just create one.
I prefer that capitalism fuel it, because it's more productive.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Both capitalism & socialism have tendencies to exploit. And it's the same for cooperation.
A common big mistake is to presume that capitalism is all competition & exploitation.
Running businesses, I find it very much about cooperation with others....greater efficiency
& less stress.

 

[Revoltingest]

What standards did you use to determine the list?
I don't really have an interest in arguing with you about definitions, it's just Venezuela has a large private sector, and Cuba and NK have small but growing ones.

I use the Merriam Webster & Dictionary.com definitions.
I'm going by the unusually large control over the means of production.
Of course, Venezuela isn't pure socialism.
(I know because I do business with El Rey Chocolates.)

 

[Revoltingest]

What is it about these countries that is socialist in your view?

The governmental control over the means of production.