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

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Possibly. I'm not sure I can think of a state which matches to the description of socialist mentioned in the OP.
Certainly Australia is largely capitalist with socialist sprinkles, but in the case of somewhere like Finland, the 'sprinkles' are large enough that it's more a balanced system, or even tilted slightly towards socialism.

 

[Enoch07]

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

That why it's just an example. Let's go down the list shall we. Since your indoctrination won't allow you to think critically.

Afghanistan Democratic Republic of Afghanistan 27 April 1978 30 November 1987 9 years, 217 days.

Republic of Afghanistan 30 November 1987 28 April 1992 4 years, 150 days
Total 27 April 1978 28 April 1992 14 years, 1 day.

Albania Democratic Government of Albania 29 November 1944 11 January 1946 1 year, 43 days.

People's Republic of Albania 11 January 1946 28 December 1976 30 years, 352 days
People's Socialist Republic of Albania 28 December 1976 22 March 1992 15 years, 85 days
Total 29 November 1944 22 March 1992 47 years, 114 days.

Angola People's Republic of Angola 11 November 1975 27 August 1992 16 years, 290 days.

Belarus Byelorussian SSR Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic 31 July 1920 25 August 1991 70 years, 344 days.

Benin People's Republic of Benin 30 November 1975 1 March 1990 14 years, 91 days.

Bulgaria People's Republic of Bulgaria 15 September 1946 7 December 1990 44 years, 83 days. Legally a socialist state from 1979 to 1989, ruled by a communist party from 1975 to 1989.

People's Republic of Kampuchea 10 January 1979 1 May 1989 10 years, 111 days.Total 17 April 1975 1 May 1989 14 years, 14 days.

Congo-Brazzaville People's Republic of the Congo 3 January 1970 15 March 1992 22 years, 72 days.

Czechoslovakia Czechoslovak Republic 9 June 1948 11 July 1960 12 years, 32 days.

Czechoslovak Socialist Republic 11 July 1960 29 March 1990 29 years, 261 days
Total 9 June 1948 29 March 1990 41 years, 293 days

Ethiopia Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia 28 June 1974 22 February 1987 12 years, 239 days.

People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 22 February 1987 27 May 1991 4 years, 94 days
Total 28 June 1974 27 May 1991 16 years, 333 days.

East Germany German Democratic Republic 7 October 1949 3 October 1990 40 years, 361 days.

Hungary People's Republic 20 August 1949 23 October 1989 40 years, 64 days.

North Korea Democratic People's Republic of Korea 9 September 1948 19 February 1992[14] 43 years, 163 days.

Mongolia Mongolian People's Republic 24 November 1924 12 February 1992 67 years, 80 days.

Mozambique People's Republic of Mozambique 25 June 1975 1 December 1990 15 years, 159 days.

Poland Polish People's Republic 28 June 1945 30 December 1989 44 years, 185 days.

Romania Romanian People's Republic 30 December 1947 21 August 1965 17 years, 234 days.
Socialist Republic of Romania 21 August 1965 30 December 1989 24 years, 131 days.
Total 30 December 1947 30 December 1989 42 years, 0 days.

Somalia Somali Democratic Republic 21 October 1969 26 January 1991 21 years, 97 days.

Russian SFSR/ Soviet Union Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic 9 November 1917 30 December 1922 5 years, 51 days.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 30 December 1922 26 December 1991 68 years, 361 days
Total 9 November 1917 26 December 1991 74 years, 47 days.

Ukraine SSR Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic 10 March 1919 24 August 1991 72 years, 167 days.

North Vietnam Democratic Republic of Vietnam 2 September 1945 2 July 1976 30 years, 304 days.

South Yemen People's Republic of South Yemen 30 November 1967 1 December 1970 3 years, 1 day.

People's Democratic Republic of Yemen 1 December 1970 22 May 1990 19 years, 172 days
Total 30 November 1967 22 May 1990 22 years, 173 days.

Yugoslavia Democratic Federal Yugoslavia 29 November 1943 29 November 1945 2 years, 0 days.

Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia 29 November 1945 7 April 1963 17 years, 129 days.

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 7 April 1963 27 April 1992 29 years, 20 days. November 1943 27 April 1992 48 years, 150 days

So where is the list of successful socialist majority countries that can show some evidence of a successful socialist country?

 

[Enoch07]

Possibly. I'm not sure I can think of a state which matches to the description of socialist mentioned in the OP.
Certainly Australia is largely capitalist with socialist sprinkles, but in the case of somewhere like Finland, the 'sprinkles' are large enough that it's more a balanced system, or even tilted slightly towards socialism.

Mayhap, but Finland is still a capitalist state officially. Some of these do have a lot of social programs, but capitalism drives those programs.

 

[bobhikes]

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

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"​

I can only Justify Socialism and Communism. Everything done is communal, no individual creates alone as such everyone deserves a piece of the wealth. Communism we all get equal shares, in socialism we give the creator a bigger share.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Mayhap, but Finland is still a capitalist state officially. Some of these do have a lot of social programs, but capitalism drives those programs.

Have to admit, I'm not quite sure what that means. The fundamental approach to health, education, welfare, taxation, the national airline, postal service, the mint, alchohol retailing...all wholely or largely state owned. I mean...alchohol retailing. That's not exactly a capitalist free market at work, right?

They allow free markets to operate within state regulation (as do all capitalist societies), but capitalism is more than merely free markets, else...again...I'd suggest Socialism is a meaningless term, and the world is divided between Communism and Capitalism.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Since your indoctrination won't allow you to think critically.

Another premise of yours that's full of crap.

Have a good day.

 

[Augustus]

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.

The main justification as I see it is that it is a system that functions well despite one of biggest failings which is that we thin we are far smarter as a species than we actually are.

By decentralising decision making and risk taking we can fail countless times, which we will do, without destroying the system as a whole.

It also means we are throwing more darts at the board at any one time which allows for innovations, which are often as much due to luck as skill.

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."

The main justification for this is that it counteracts another of our biggest failings which is a tendency towards exploitation and leveraging power towards our own selfish ends.

Ultimately society is a collective effort to some extent, and when too many people reach the point of feeling the society functions against their interests then violence tends to be the result.



The problems of both systems are exacerbated by factors of scale. In centralised systems, the greater the size the greater the impact of each mistaken boosting inefficiency and the fewer darts to throw at the board limiting innovation.

With capitalism, the larger the system the easier it becomes for companies to coop it to their ends (1 deal with the EU is easier than 30 deals with each member state).

Ultimately I think the scale might be more impactful than the system, which is why I am in favour of radical decentralisation of political power.

 

[Enoch07]

Another premise of yours that's full of crap.

Have a good day.

LoLz and thanks for proving my point!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

LoLz and thanks for proving my point!

Glad to help. We were talking about the Olympics, right?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Ultimately I think the scale might be more impactful than the system, which is why I am in favour of radical decentralisation of political power.

Globalism seems inevitable from looking at the progress of civilization. In a nuclear age, where we can end civilization by misusing it or prolong civilization by using it wisely, I fail to see how decentralizing will lead to progress.

Perhaps there needs to be a better solution. I surely don't mean corporate rule which is where we seem to be heading now.

 

[Enoch07]

Glad to help. We were talking about the Olympics, right?

Nope we was talking about how socialist deny the facts of history, and chose to change the topic rather than face those facts. Then again, perhaps it is about the Olympics after all. Because that is some Olympic level mental gymnastics going on after all. Would you care to learn why the term Useful idiot - Wikipedia came to be?

 

[Augustus]

Globalism seems inevitable from looking at the progress of civilization. In a nuclear age, where we can end civilization by misusing it or prolong civilization by using it wisely, I fail to see how decentralizing will lead to progress.

I'd say a globalising world makes it even more important.

Problems are often too complex to solve at the macro level, breaking them into multiple smaller problems makes them easier to deal with.

Also brings governance closer to the people, which can help counteract the problems of unrepresentative, out of touch governments hated by people the world over.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Nope we was talking about how socialist deny the facts of history, and chose to change the topic rather than face those facts. Then again, perhaps it is about the Olympics after all. Because that is some Olympic level mental gymnastics going on after all. Would you care to learn why the term Useful idiot - Wikipedia came to be?

I was wondering because your responses seemed to have nothing to do with my original post.

So, how bout those Eagles.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'd say a globalising world makes it even more important.

Problems are often too complex to solve at the macro level, breaking them into multiple smaller problems makes them easier to deal with.

Also brings governance closer to the people, which can help counteract the problems of unrepresentative, out of touch governments hated by people the world over.

It'll be fun when they switch to one world currency. Brace yourself Ethel.

 

[Augustus]

It'll be fun when they switch to one world currency. Brace yourself Ethel.

No doubt. The Euro has worked like a dream after all. Trying something on an exponentially bigger scale across enormously diverse economies would be a runaway success story

Technological globalisation is inevitable, political globalisation which you are talking about certainly isn't, as can be witnessed with Trump, Putin, Brexit, etc.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No doubt. The Euro has worked like a dream after all. Trying something on an exponentially bigger scale across enormously diverse economies would be a runaway success story

Technological globalisation is inevitable, political globalisation which you are talking about certainly isn't, as can be witnessed with Trump, Putin, Brexit, etc.

When everyone can buy oil with a global currency instead of the greenback all the dynamics change on a global scale. Politics will be dragged into it on a Global scale. No more wanton deficit spending.

 

[Enoch07]

I was wondering because your responses seemed to have nothing to do with my original post.

So, how bout those Eagles.

It's ok if you aren't intelligent enough to counter the argument. You play your weak change the subject game though. It really drives the point home.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It's ok if you aren't intelligent enough to counter the argument. You play your weak change the subject game though. It really drives the point home.

Maybe I can try an ad hominem attack or two. Will that help?

 

[Enoch07]

Maybe I can try an ad hominem attack or two. Will that help?

Nah that wouldn't help. Perhaps try tackling the argument instead of changing the subject? That usually how debates work. Just in case you didn't know.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You have topic?