Socialism vs Capitalism

[atanu]

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.

Cpitalism is often overturned when pursuit of self-interest overwhelms the system. And socialism often is made to fail due to self-interest of a few leaders.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

really just social programs on top of a set of core capitalistic policies

Imo that can be a pretty arbitrary means of categorization. What exactly makes a core capitalistic policy and at what point does enough social programs = Socialism? And why are we demonizing the word socialism so much if we can all agree that only extreme examples have shown to be problematic?

 

[Yerda]

The governmental control over the means of production.

I don't think Venezuela fits under that criteria does it?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Health care is not the "means of production".

And Canada's government run pharmacology and international healthcare services are.... what, not a means of production?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think Venezuela fits under that criteria does it?

I don't live there....or even visit there.
But it appears to be a case of government control (not entirely) over the means of production.
How Socialism ruined Venezuela

 

[Revoltingest]

And Canada's government run pharmacology and international healthcare services are.... what, not a means of production?

Not like the Ford plants there, or Reuters, or the many other large businesses.
It's arguably more capitalistic than we are, as they rise & we fall in the Heritage
Foundations ranking of economic liberty.

 

[bobhikes]

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.

Living all my life in a capitalist society and understanding its history I find it more creates more hardships and unhappiness.

Dealing and knowing people in socialist societies, I find them happier and less worried about hardships.

 

[Revoltingest]

Living all my life in a capitalist society and understanding its history I find it more creates more hardships and unhappiness.

Dealing and knowing people in socialist societies, I find them happier and less worried about hardships.

Having family in China, communism sure sounded worse than any capitalist
country I've been in. But remember, that what's commonly found in either
socialist or capitalist economies isn't necessarily what defines it as such.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

If everyone was honest and true then the system wouldn't matter much. It's the few bad apples that spoils the apple sauce.

So how best to handle the bad apples?

Rely on the individual, which allows more freedom or rely on the government, which allows more control?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Not like the Ford plants there, or Reuters, or the many other large businesses.
It's arguably more capitalistic than we are, as they rise & we fall in the Heritage
Foundations ranking of economic liberty.

Personally I'm not talking about Canada as whole. I'm talking specifically about Healthcare being an industry. A pretty huge one, even in socialized medicine.

 

[Wu Wei]

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.

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

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.

I know the definition, thanks...I studied political systems in college...I have more credits than any sane person should have and only have 1 bachelors degree and a minor... I should have at least 2 masters (some of them are even graduate credits) or possible 2 bachelors.... tried a lot of paths before I gave up and took what was closets

Now I am more than willing to say Canada, and it is Canada by the way, is not Socialist, although it does have a lot of Social programs, more than we do. And the I was mistaken there. Norway however is socialist, just ask anyone who live there, as for China... more later

But for now....You seem irritated..... lets look at it like this.... say the US president...be it the last one Obama or the current Trump...walked into the Washington Marriott Marquis and told them that next week you will be closed and we will take the building down.... we will give you a another building in Maryland to move to but this is our..the one in Maryland is too,,, but you can move there. Then they went around to every other hotel and business and DC and did the same thing because as far as the President is concerned they may kind of own the building but the land is his...and as far as the building is concerned you only own it because he lets you....they only have that business there because he allowed it...what do you think would happen here?

They are currently doing that in Beijing, not hotels but businesses, and there is not thing one anyone there can do about it. Businesses exist because as far as the government is concerned they allow it to exist and they do own it and they most certainly control it..just like the media and virtually everything else. They do have zones they allow to operate in a more capitalist way, Hong Kong and Shanghai being 2 of them, but they own that too as far as they are concerned and if they decided tomorrow to shut them down, or move it somewhere else, they would and again, there is not thing one anyone could do. No court to go to, no place to complain because the government controls that too. But they are not stupid either, they make a lot of money there and they do like the money... and the Chinese people are also making a lot of money...and the government knows that too. That is why they are starting to put more limit on the banks that they also own and control.

Now you want them to be capitalist, thats ok, but they are not and to say they are is simply a gross misunderstanding of China and its politics and its government.

This is the last I will say on any of this since I abhor political discussions since they tend to be useless, neither side will ever agree no matter what is said, they tend to simply dig in their heals and stand their ground no matter what. But on occasion I stumble into one and it appears that is what I have done here as well.......

 

[YmirGF]

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

So, Capitalism with a heart or Socialism with a brain?

 

[Revoltingest]

If everyone was honest and true then the system wouldn't matter much. It's the few bad apples that spoils the apple sauce.

So how best to handle the bad apples?

Rely on the individual, which allows more freedom or rely on the government, which allows more control?

Even with an entirely honest & hard working people, system responses of each
economic system would differ. But it's moot....people will be what people are.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally I'm not talking about Canada as whole. I'm talking specifically about Healthcare being an industry. A pretty huge one, even in socialized medicine.

Aye, we could adopt that, & still be capitalistic.

 

[Vinayaka]

So, Capitalism with a heart or Socialism with a brain?

There would have been far fewer socialist uprising had the powers at the time had some heart. Emperors and Czars were out of touch, as are the very rich today. A peasant or working class uprising is inevitable when conditions get so bad they have nothing to lose. Have you read Fanshen?

 

[YmirGF]

There would have been far fewer socialist uprising had the powers at the time had some heart. Emperors and Czars were out of touch, as are the very rich today. A peasant or working class uprising is inevitable when conditions get so bad they have nothing to lose. Have you read Fanshen?

Я не читал Фэнхен.

 

[Vinayaka]

Я не читал Фэнхен.

No idea. You could be cursing at me.

 

[Revoltingest]

But for now....You seem irritated.....

Hah!
I'm just strident & darned clumsy at it.
Some here irritate me.
But you're a complete failure at it.

They are currently doing that in Beijing, not hotels but businesses, and there is not thing one anyone there can do about it. Businesses exist because as far as the government is concerned they allow it to exist and they do own it and they most certainly control it..just like the media and virtually everything else. They do have zones they allow to operate in a more capitalist way, Hong Kong and Shanghai being 2 of them, but they own that too as far as they are concerned and if they decided tomorrow to shut them down, or move it somewhere else, they would and again, there is not thing one anyone could do. No court to go to, no place to complain because the government controls that too. But they are not stupid either, they make a lot of money there and they do like the money... and the Chinese people are also making a lot of money...and the government knows that too. That is why they are starting to put more limit on the banks that they also own and control.

Now you want them to be capitalist, thats ok, but they are not and to say they are is simply a gross misunderstanding of China and its politics and its government.

This is the last I will say on any of this since I abhor political discussions since they tend to be useless, neither side will ever agree no matter what is said, they tend to simply dig in their heals and stand their ground no matter what. But on occasion I stumble into one and it appears that is what I have done here as well.......

I read the news, & see that the leadership of China does as it pleases.
It's a mixture of light & heavy handed control, the latter smacking of its socialist element.

 

[icehorse]

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

Do you think people act in the interest of their families? Their neighborhoods?

 

[Wu Wei]

Hah!
I'm just strident & darned clumsy at it.
Some here irritate me.
But you're a complete failure at it.

I need to try harder...how about this

I read the news, & see that the leadership of China does as it pleases.
It's a mixture of light & heavy handed control, the latter smacking of its socialist element.

If Xi gets his way it will go heavy handed quick, like I said, he is much closer to the way of Mao than his most recent predecessors. But he appears to be into something no other Chinese ruler has ever been interested in...global expansion and influence. Prior to him they only cared about those things that were traditionally looked at as China. But here is another thing about China. They control the media and they only let out what they want.... and sometimes they let out something to get your attention so you don't see what they are really doing. Basically they figured out awhile ago that most of the world is distracted by shinny objects