What is the Justification for Capitalism? For Socialism? For Communism?

[Sunstone]

I'm curious what you think might be the justification, if any such justification exists, for capitalism? For socialism? For communism?

By "justification" I mean some reason or reasons why you believe the economic state of affairs defined as "capitalism" (or "socialism". or "communism") should or ought to exist?

There are many varieties of capitalism, socialism, and communism. In my opinion, no single definition of any of those three systems completely captures all the varieties there are of each system. That is, no single definition of "capitalism" captures all the varieties of capitalism. No single definition of "socialism" captures all the varieties of socialism. Etc.

Yet, in the hope of facilitating an interesting discussion, I propose that you refer to the following all-too-simplistic and inadequate definitions of the terms -- or if you depart from them, please be so kind as to explain how you yourself are defining the terms

Capitalism is an economic, social, and political system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned by one or more individuals, rather than owned by the community or state. In capitalism, any wealth generated by economic activities belongs to the private owners (the capitalists) first and foremost, and if distributed to others, is distributed from them to others.

Socialism is an economic, social, and political system in which the means of production and distribution are communally owned by the public, a cooperative, the state, or some other communal entity, rather than privately owned by one or more individuals. In socialism, any wealth generated by economic activities belongs first and foremost to each of the communal owners according to their contribution to the activity. For instance, if person X makes a major contribution to generating the wealth, person X receives a major portion of it. "From each according to his ability to each according to his contribution."

Communism is an economic, social, and political system in which the means of production and distribution are communally owned in the absence of social classes and the state. In communism, any wealth generated by economic activities belongs first and foremost to each of the communal owners according to their needs. "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs"​

By the way, "means of production" here refers to the physical, non-human, and non-financial inputs used to produce goods and services. Things such as raw materials, tools, factories, etc.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I could justify all three, although as stated in the OP, Socialism sits best with my views. In RL, socialism doesn't quite work that way (to each according to their contribution), so some mix of socialism and capitalism makes the most sense. Anyway, cliff notes style, the lewisnotmiller one sentence primer...

Capitalism
Justification : by rewarding hard work and promoting the ability of people to make their own success without limit, we encourage achievement.
Counterpoint : taken to extremes, is this really 'society'? And is encouraging monetary success as a prime goal actually good?

Socialism
Justification : We all receive what we need, but working hard and getting ahead financially is possible. The best of both worlds.
Counterpoint : since when have governments been efficient? And how does a monopoly situation help drive innovation? Simply, it doesn't.

Communism
Justification : go to almost any village, and this is how life works. Pooled resources, shared responsibilities, and no-one left behind.
Counterpoint : that's not quite true, and there is a long tradition of villages casting out those that are different. But more to the point, where is the incentive to work? It's one thing to provide for your neighbours in a small commune, but for some faceless youth on the other side of the city? There is every chance you're sweating so they can kick back and light up a blunt...

 

[Sunstone]

In RL, socialism doesn't quite work that way (to each according to their contribution), so some mix of socialism and capitalism makes the most sense.

The notion that socialism involves "from each according to their ability to each according to their contribution" takes a bit of explaining today. Pre-Marx, the principle was considered THE definition of socialism. Post-Marx, it is still considered one of the defining attributes of socialism. In either case, it should be understood in its proper context, which is as a contrast with capitalism for -- under capitalism -- wealth is NOT distributed according to one's contribution, but rather according to one's portion of ownership. So, while the phrase arguably reflects an ideal, it is an ideal distinct from the other two systems mentioned in the OP.

 

[Enoch07]

Too bad socialism always evolves into communism, then fails gloriously on it's face.

Socialism and Communism fail at an extremely high rate. As proven by history. With long list of famines, abuse of power, and human rights issues these 2 political systems are about as useful as an extra hole in the head. Which is what you get when your dissent is made public. See North Korea, U.S.S.R, Cuba, etc.

Capitalism while not perfect, and does have some issues. Is by far the best political system of the 3. As proven by the U.S. using capitalism to become the great nation it is today.

I do find it odd though. Most of the people who support socialism/communism live in a capitalist state. If socialism/communism are such excellent systems as so many claim. Why we can't find many citizens of those countries, speaking on socialism's/communism's merits?

 

[LionLooking]

Capitalism while not perfect, and does have some issues. Is by far the best political system of the 3. As proven by the U.S. using capitalism to become the great nation it is today.

Great nation? It has poverty, violence and not even the highest life expectancy. Why do Americans believe that they are so good when the reality is that they are average? Their country may be rich and powerful, but it's citizens aren't - at least, only a few of them are.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Too bad socialism always evolves into communism, then fails gloriously on it's face.

Socialism and Communism fail at an extremely high rate. As proven by history. With long list of famines, abuse of power, and human rights issues these 2 political systems are about as useful as an extra hole in the head. Which is what you get when your dissent is made public. See North Korea, U.S.S.R, Cuba, etc.

Capitalism while not perfect, and does have some issues. Is by far the best political system of the 3. As proven by the U.S. using capitalism to become the great nation it is today.

I do find it odd though. Most of the people who support socialism/communism live in a capitalist state. If socialism/communism are such excellent systems as so many claim. Why we can't find many citizens of those countries, speaking on socialism's/communism's merits?

Totally depends what you think when you think 'Socialism'. Scandanavia has plenty of socialist aspects, as well as capitalistic ones.
Canada, New Zealand and Australia are all more socialist than the US.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Great nation? It has poverty, violence and not even the highest life expectancy. Why do Americans believe that they are so good when the reality is that they are average? Their country may be rich and powerful, but it's citizens aren't - at least, only a few of them are.

Some mistake military power for success, or they are simply drinking the kool-aid. Also (much like Australia) there is less local travel or direct comparison of other countries.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Too bad socialism always evolves into communism, then fails gloriously on it's face.

Socialism and Communism fail at an extremely high rate. As proven by history. With long list of famines, abuse of power, and human rights issues these 2 political systems are about as useful as an extra hole in the head. Which is what you get when your dissent is made public. See North Korea, U.S.S.R, Cuba, etc.

Capitalism while not perfect, and does have some issues. Is by far the best political system of the 3. As proven by the U.S. using capitalism to become the great nation it is today.

I do find it odd though. Most of the people who support socialism/communism live in a capitalist state. If socialism/communism are such excellent systems as so many claim. Why we can't find many citizens of those countries, speaking on socialism's/communism's merits?

Probably because what fails spectacularly is non-mixed government styles. Including pure capitalism (a pure barter system doesn't tend to survive communal need for things like roads, firestations etc). There isn't any pure capitalist nations at the moment as far as I'm aware, there is only mixed capitalist-socislist to degrees.
But having heavier on the capitalism doesn't necessarily mean more successful, as the world leaders in GDP, education, life expectency, have many and more socialized programs. Being an advocate of socialism doesn't mean being an advocate for pure socialism any more than being an advocate for capitalism does.
You can even have capitalist and communist mixes in the form of state capitalism. Though how that's defined (especially as relating to Chinese government) is not always agreed upon.


Anyway if I wasn't determined to make changes here, as well as my friends and family being mostly here, I would have absolutely no problem leaving the US behind for Norway (where my family comes from.)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm curious what you think might be the justification, if any such justification exists, for capitalism? For socialism? For communism?

By "justification" I mean some reason or reasons why you believe the economic state of affairs defined as "capitalism" (or "socialism". or "communism") should or ought to exist?

There are many varieties of capitalism, socialism, and communism. In my opinion, no single definition of any of those three systems completely captures all the varieties there are of each system. That is, no single definition of "capitalism" captures all the varieties of capitalism. No single definition of "socialism" captures all the varieties of socialism. Etc.

Yet, in the hope of facilitating an interesting discussion, I propose that you refer to the following all-too-simplistic and inadequate definitions of the terms -- or if you depart from them, please be so kind as to explain how you yourself are defining the terms

Capitalism is an economic, social, and political system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned by one or more individuals, rather than owned by the community or state. In capitalism, any wealth generated by economic activities belongs to the private owners (the capitalists) first and foremost, and if distributed to others, is distributed from them to others.

Socialism is an economic, social, and political system in which the means of production and distribution are communally owned by the public, a cooperative, the state, or some other communal entity, rather than privately owned by one or more individuals. In socialism, any wealth generated by economic activities belongs first and foremost to each of the communal owners according to their contribution to the activity. For instance, if person X makes a major contribution to generating the wealth, person X receives a major portion of it. "From each according to his ability to each according to his contribution."

Communism is an economic, social, and political system in which the means of production and distribution are communally owned in the absence of social classes and the state. In communism, any wealth generated by economic activities belongs first and foremost to each of the communal owners according to their needs. "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs"​

By the way, "means of production" here refers to the physical, non-human, and non-financial inputs used to produce goods and services. Things such as raw materials, tools, factories, etc.

Observing those systems most of my life it seems that might justifies each.

As an independent businessman I prefer capitalism. I don't have to put a gun to any ones head. If they aren't satisfied with my product or my price they can search elsewhere without coercion. That makes both of us free to make our own choices.

As a humanitarian, I would choose communism. Yet this fails if there is no goodness in your heart Just as capitalism fails without morality.

 

[Enoch07]

Totally depends what you think when you think 'Socialism'. Scandanavia has plenty of socialist aspects, as well as capitalistic ones.
Canada, New Zealand and Australia are all more socialist than the US.

More socialist than the U.S. does not make them socialist states. These countries are capitalist with socialist sprinkles. Which is why they haven't collapsed. The second they become more socialist than capitalist it's game over.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Great nation? It has poverty, violence and not even the highest life expectancy. Why do Americans believe that they are so good when the reality is that they are average? Their country may be rich and powerful, but it's citizens aren't - at least, only a few of them are.

I think it's because a person with aspirations can succeed here. America was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. This is what made America great. People keep mucking up that concept.

 

[Enoch07]

Probably because what fails spectacularly is non-mixed government styles. Including pure capitalism (a pure barter system doesn't tend to survive communal need for things like roads, firestations etc). There isn't any pure capitalist nations at the moment as far as I'm aware, there is only mixed capitalist-socislist to degrees.
But having heavier on the capitalism doesn't necessarily mean more successful, as the world leaders in GDP, education, life expectency, have many and more socialized programs. Being an advocate of socialism doesn't mean being an advocate for pure socialism any more than being an advocate for capitalism does.
You can even have capitalist and communist mixes in the form of state capitalism. Though how that's defined (especially as relating to Chinese government) is not always agreed upon.


Anyway if I wasn't determined to make changes here, as well as my friends and family being mostly here, I would have absolutely no problem leaving the US behind for Norway (where my family comes from.)

It's a slippery slope. As proven by history. Socialism usually leads communism which then fails at millions of people starve in the streets. But indoctrinated, I mean educated folks are willfully ignorant of history and the lessons it teaches us.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It's a slippery slope. As proven by history. Socialism usually leads communism which then fails at millions of people starve in the streets. But indoctrinated, I mean educated folks are willfully ignorant of history and the lessons it teaches us.

Since the vast majority of countries employ socialism, including our own, for the vast majority of social services, I find the slippery slope to be dubious at best.
How would you go about even demonstrating that 'socialism usually leads to communism'?
Please, enlighten me.

 

[Enoch07]

Since the vast majority of countries employ socialism, including our own, for the vast majority of social services, I find the slippery slope to be dubious at best.
How would you go about even demonstrating that 'socialism usually leads to communism'?
Please, enlighten me.

Karl Marx - Wikipedia is the best example.

Marx predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism.

Which lead to Marxist communism, which the Stalin took over and made things even worse. Eventually leading to the end of communism in Russia on December 26th 1991. It only took 100 million to die of starvation due to famines, tens of thousands of scientist and other dissenters imprisoned/sentenced to execution.

Did you even take world history in elementary school? This is basic stuff.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Karl Marx - Wikipedia is the best example.

Marx predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism.

Which lead to Marxist communism, which the Stalin took over and made things even worse. Eventually leading to the end of communism in Russia on December 26th 1991. It only took 100 million to die of starvation due to famines, tens of thousands of scientist and other dissenters imprisoned/sentenced to execution.

Did you even take world history in elementary school? This is basic stuff.

Kay so you didn't answer my question, just preformed reductionism on socialism into Marxism, which isn't any more accurate than saying all libertarianism leads to objectivism or all capitalism leads to anarcho-capitalism.
Is elementary world history all you took?

Once again, please provide actual evidence that mixed economic socialist societies (the vast majority of socialist countries) slippery slope to communism. Like statistics, not overgeneralized philosophic predictions.

 

[Enoch07]

Kay so you didn't answer my question, just preformed reductionism on socialism into Marxism, which isn't any more accurate than saying all libertarianism leads to objectivism or all capitalism leads to anarcho-capitalism.
Is elementary world history all you took?

Once again, please provide actual evidence that mixed economic socialist societies (the vast majority of socialist countries) slippery slope to communism. Like statistics, not overgeneralized philosophic predictions.

History is good enough for my evidence. You can deny it all you want, but it does not refute it.

You show me some evidence of actual socialist countries that are successful. Not capitalist with socialist sprinkles. But countries that are officially socialist.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

History is good enough for my evidence. You can deny it all you want, but it does not refute it.

I could do something with it if you actually cited relevant history. Right now you're pretending all socialism is one thing and calling that history. And I've made it repeatedly clear that it isn't.

You show me some evidence of actual socialist countries that are successful. Not capitalist with socialist sprinkles. But countries that are officially socialist.

Show me some evidence of actual capitalist countries that are successful. Not mixed economies which have some capitalism.

This is a straw man. The vast majority of countries considered socialist are mixed economies.
And all capitalist countries are mixed economies.
How exactly are you doing dileniating which has the sprinkles of which? Even actual statist socialist countries can be capitalist, including the aforementioned China.
Sweden has had uninterrupted governance by social democrats with strong emphasis on social issues and redistribution since the 30's, and sports hundreds of social programs, and incredibly large spending on them. Is it still 'capitalism with sprinkles'? If so then you have an extremely limited view of what socialism and capitalism is.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Karl Marx - Wikipedia is the best example.

Marx predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism.

Which lead to Marxist communism, which the Stalin took over and made things even worse. Eventually leading to the end of communism in Russia on December 26th 1991. It only took 100 million to die of starvation due to famines, tens of thousands of scientist and other dissenters imprisoned/sentenced to execution.

Did you even take world history in elementary school? This is basic stuff.

One person or a group of people changing their form of government does not prove a cause and effect relationship.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm curious what you think might be the justification, if any such justification exists, for capitalism? For socialism? For communism?

By "justification" I mean some reason or reasons why you believe the economic state of affairs defined as "capitalism" (or "socialism". or "communism") should or ought to exist?

There are many varieties of capitalism, socialism, and communism. In my opinion, no single definition of any of those three systems completely captures all the varieties there are of each system. That is, no single definition of "capitalism" captures all the varieties of capitalism. No single definition of "socialism" captures all the varieties of socialism. Etc.

Yet, in the hope of facilitating an interesting discussion, I propose that you refer to the following all-too-simplistic and inadequate definitions of the terms -- or if you depart from them, please be so kind as to explain how you yourself are defining the terms

Capitalism is an economic, social, and political system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned by one or more individuals, rather than owned by the community or state. In capitalism, any wealth generated by economic activities belongs to the private owners (the capitalists) first and foremost, and if distributed to others, is distributed from them to others.

Socialism is an economic, social, and political system in which the means of production and distribution are communally owned by the public, a cooperative, the state, or some other communal entity, rather than privately owned by one or more individuals. In socialism, any wealth generated by economic activities belongs first and foremost to each of the communal owners according to their contribution to the activity. For instance, if person X makes a major contribution to generating the wealth, person X receives a major portion of it. "From each according to his ability to each according to his contribution."

Communism is an economic, social, and political system in which the means of production and distribution are communally owned in the absence of social classes and the state. In communism, any wealth generated by economic activities belongs first and foremost to each of the communal owners according to their needs. "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs"​

By the way, "means of production" here refers to the physical, non-human, and non-financial inputs used to produce goods and services. Things such as raw materials, tools, factories, etc.

What is your source for your definitions?

 

[Enoch07]

I could do something with it if you actually cited relevant history. Right now you're pretending all socialism is one thing and calling that history. And I've made it repeatedly clear that it isn't.

Show evidence otherwise. All you have done is deny so far.

Show me some evidence of actual capitalist countries that are successful. Not mixed economies which have some capitalism.

Easy the U.S.A which is mostly capitalist with a few social programs. It's a good mixture that has proven very successful.

This is a straw man

It is your strawman. So it's fitting you call it out.

They are not considered socialist. They are capitalist for the most part with socialist sprinkles. Some have more social programs than others. But none are considered socialist except for the communist countries, like China. Even they are moving away from communism and more towards capitalism everyday. Do you know why? Because it works, it works extremely well as history has shown, and China is showing in real time as we speak.