No, mercantilism and in particular the state(crown) organized exploitation of colonies built what you are lucky to have in the UK(France too). After that a mix of capitalist and socialist policies allowed the country and it's population to evolve in the 19th and 20th centuries into what we have today. For some reason people give way too much credit to capitalism when surely everyone has an idea about how countries like France or the UK became super powers, both were colonial empires that thrived on the trade of manufactured and raw goods, Mercantilism.
“Socialism” vs. “Capitalism” debate
- Thread starter Kinsella
- Start date
Had to look it up, so it isn't emphasis on the individual but state has a whole?
Exactly this. There will come a time, at some point in the future where 90% of jobs are done by machines. Jobs that currently we could not even conceive being done by a robot / machine will be.
What happens then in a purely capitalist system? Where 90% of people don't have jobs....
Kind of. The economy was state organized and in the case of colonial empires, the metropole was virtually the only thing that concerned governments. And the emphasis on the individual is relatively recent, keep in mind that not so long ago social classes and primacy of the state(crown) were the rules.
Last edited:
In a purely Darwinian sense though, if socialist systems can’t compete along these lines then that’s a major weakness and problem, yeah?
Isn't that mostly because with socialism, the strong make concessions in order for the weak to be able to exist in a humane way, whereas with capitalism, the goal is to obtain as much for yourself as possible let the weak starve to death?
I mean, in a purely Darwinian sense the USA can just nuke everyone and be done with it, but you have to take in to account more things than just strengths and weaknesses.
I know the nukes analogy is rubbish, but there you go.
This is the primary driver of why some are advocating for UBI in the present.
Darwin is a terminology confined to the origin of species. Not economics.
Which is what I personally think is the inevitable outcome in the long run.
Steps also need to be taken to ensure the power is spread across many separate smaller companies, not just a few mega companies.
Imagine a future where only 10% of the people work, and only say 5 companies control 90% of the business. They would literally have the lives of everyone in their hands.
Also, who is going to buy all the shit you have robots and computers produce if only 10 % of the population earns money?
The entire system would collapse due to a lack of customers and I imagine that a human based underground economy would be created. From a taxation standpoint it would also be interesting, do you tax the value of each machines/robots labour or do you tax companies a lot more? If you don't how do you finance transport and energy infrastructures that these industries would still need?
I dunno, perhaps in theory. I don’t really associate many, if any, of the explicitly socialist regimes I’m aware of with an emphasis on compassion and compromise over a ruthless drive for action and power. They’ve been happy to engage in coups, assassinations and military intervention themselves.
[/QUOTE]
I think these 'socialist' dictators are mostly socialist in name. I mean socialism as an idealogy and political system. Not socialism as the monniker some cnuts use to murder and extort others.
It's like religion really. Millions upon millions upon millions have been murdered in the name of some or other God who, in their teachings preache peace and compassion. You can take a noble idea and use it to commit atrocious acts with it.
This is not to say I'm in favor of full on socialism. I think social security, and rigorously done at that, is very good, but I do think a free market is good as well. Modern society (Twitter really) turned all these discussions into taking turns of screaming j'accuse! As if socialism or capitalism or some sort of diseases you can contract. Both have good and bad sides, the world isn't a binary place.
OR is it? I'm shit at maths.
you are a genius
Hitler put socialist in the name of his party to appeal to the downtrodden workers of the time. He wanted power and he was rather good at the whole propaganda thing. You know, a bit like Trump saying he's a Christian. It's not true, simply because he says so. Hitler was as much a socialist as Kim Jong Un is a republican, because you know, it IS the people's republic of North Korea after all.
That's the point isn't it, there comes a tipping point where it is in the interests of the companies to pay enough tax for the government to provide sufficient UBI. Thus keeping the circle going.
Money even now, only goes around in circles, the employers pay the workers, so that the workers can afford what is being produced.
In this future, machines replace the workers, increasing efficiency and output, tax pays the now unemployed, so they can afford what is produced.
See my above reply, but there would be a need to tax companies much more. You couldn't tax individual machines, unless they had been granted sentient life status really.
Should make it clear, I’m not advocating either way, just interested in the idea that, in practice, socialist systems (or systems that have defined themselves along those lines) have been unable to withstand the economic, military and other forms of pressure applied to them by their capitalist rivals, and that this is somehow an indictment of capitalism rather than a product of the nature of their mutual conflict.
In other words, it seems a bit pointless to me for advocates of socialist movements and regimes to complain when capitalist rivals attempt to sabotage them, since, well, what else do they expect?
I Disagree. Socialism fails because it's human nature that a government (or anyone for that matter) is far less efficient with someone else's money than that individual would be with their own. This is why we have competition laws in the private sector. The reason the Sainsbury-Asda merger was blocked is because in some areas you'd create a monopoly that would reduce competition which over time would increase prices and worsen service (firstly because consumers would not have choice and secondly because the store could run poorly without fear of closure).
A key facet of socialism is public sector ownership which by its own definition is a monopoly. Governments are no different than any other business in that if they have no reason to be efficient and no circumstance in which they can go under, over time they will become inefficient, costly and offer awful value for money. Any industry where there are no incentives to progress efficiencies (ie profit) and no disincentives to allow waste (ie losing your job, losing your business) and it's logical that you'll need more money for a worsening service.
This is exacerbated in the public sector because government actively incentivises departmental inefficiency since efficient departments are seen as operating well, becoming perfect targets to have their budget frozen or reduced. On the other hand departments that are showing progressively poor outcomes are seen as requiring a larger budget. Any senior manager in the public sector would be insane to put in 60+ hours a week to reshape his business/team to achieve better efficiencies as he'd know that all that effort would merely mean a reduced budget further down the line. Why go through the effort of training staff and having your budget cut when you can pick up the phone, pay a 25% premium for agency staff and then complain that a lack of funding is the reason for your departments failure.
Combine that with the fact that governmental salaries are banded, rather than based on actual achievements/ability and you have a perfect cocktail of rewarding failure and punishing effort/success. Especially in an environment where you're competing with private sector companies that will pay you based on your ability. If you're a nurse with 5 years tenure who is 30% more efficient than a colleague who has 10 years tenure, you'll be paid less than them irrespective. In that environment why would you stay on a lower salary than people you're better than, when you could get a job in the private sector, showcase your abilities and earning what the free market would pay? You wouldn't. For someone in this situation you have two choices: work less hard or leave.
Finally a lack of competition in the public sector means that competitors can't drive innovation. Look at the motor industry at the moment... You have a company like Tesla pushing the barriers of battery technology and you have a dozen other manufacturers investing billions to catch up. It's now a rat race whereby the first company who can supply hundreds of thousands of battery power cars into the marketplace at a competitive price will grow hugely. This innovation is good for the environment and good for consumers. Compare this to public bodies and there is no incentive to innovate.
Multiply the rewarding of failure, lack of incentives for success/hard work/innovation, along with inability to fall behind the competition and you have an inevitable cocktail of poor service, poor value for money and a lack of technological innovation.
It fails because it is not really compatible with human nature, I think what we say sort of comes down to the same. As I also said, I'm not in favor of full on socialism. I'd say, meet in the middle.
I think the key issue is the balance of taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor (something society overwhelming wants) with governmental inefficient interference. Personally I like the idea of leaving the public order and defence budgets as they are since I've read nothing that convinces me these can be effectively managed via private industry (c. £90b), but splitting the remaining £750b between all UK families in the form of a £45,000 basic income. The socialist element being the redistribution of wealth but combined with the efficiencies that you'll see via the free market.
I love the way that it’s ‘Capitalism Vs Socialism’.
The two reconcile.
Make. Less. Money.
Make. Less. People.
Flatten economies. Promote social good.
If we’re going to get off this rock before it dies, having 8billion minds working towards it seems a lot more sensible than the top 1% of those minds.
Anyone that promotes rampant and unchecked free market Capitalism is retarded. It clearly makes no sense beyond GDP figures.
Short-termist self-serving views win out as they have the financial ability to silence common sense.
Yay humanity.
The two reconcile.
Make. Less. Money.
Make. Less. People.
Flatten economies. Promote social good.
If we’re going to get off this rock before it dies, having 8billion minds working towards it seems a lot more sensible than the top 1% of those minds.
Anyone that promotes rampant and unchecked free market Capitalism is retarded. It clearly makes no sense beyond GDP figures.
Short-termist self-serving views win out as they have the financial ability to silence common sense.
Yay humanity.
Sadly this is true, it only takes a small portion of people to bring about the fall of socialism, and, as you say, human nature is to protect oneself, so full socialism doesn't work. At least not in the current world.
But full capitalism doesn't work either, at least it doesn't work for everyone, and it never will.
People have stated in this thread that capitalism raises everyone up, and although the gap is getting bigger, we are all better off. But wealth is relative. If prices are increasing in line or above what capitalism allows the lower part of the spectrum to increase by, then they aren't better off at all.
Pure capitalism doesn't work, again due to human nature, there are always people that will see it as wrong to let people rot at the bottom, just so the top can gain even quicker.
True capitalism brings about Genocide, as too many people are a drain on the system, especially the old and infirm.
As you conclude, something in between the two is the only solution, markets to allow growth and competition. But a social system to protect workers and anyone in need.
The Democratic Republic of Congo. Gee, they must be really super democratic over there!
I’ve read some fatuous arguments in my time, this is among the more superficial ones I’ve seen.
Not really, you could tax the simple usage of machines and their individual productions. It's essential a tax on capital. It's the company that pays the tax.
True, you could. But I don't really see the point? The machines are owned by the company, so either way the company foots the bill.
I wasn’t being clever at all, as I see people have made the same point previously, including North Korea
Oh well, at least I’m not stupid enough to take Nazi’s at their word.
I mean this is pretty pointless. Just because some people lie about names does not mean everyone lies about names. Were the Nazis socialist? No, but they implemented a lot of policies socialists call for (Government ownership/control of means of production, price controls, wage controls etc.) and at least some of their number probably thought of themselves as socialists. There is also good evidence that Hitler thought of himself as a socialist.
So you’re still happy to think the Nazis used that label accurately? The US has socialist policies, would you call it a socialist country? If anything its socialist policies are crucial, and are being eroded by "evil" capitalism. For the record, I am now being facetious.
Your mode of arguing is over-simplified, sorry to say.
Hitler outright forbade his partymembers to introduce socialist policies, he was convinced a small group of superior humans should rule over the masses since the masses are too dumb / ineffective to rule themselves. Hitler just used the socialist party as a means to and end; taking power. Hitler was a fascist. Not a socialist, he equated socialism with Marxism and communism, which is the eternal enemy. Hell, he outright had the left wing of his party killed to prevent a socialist revolution. He simply saw the downtrodden and knew that pretending to be on their side would gain him power. The similarities with modern politics are eerily similar, but far be it from me to invoke Godwin's law.
And the "Hitler was a socialist so socialism is bad thing" the alt-right has taken a liking to is silly as a whole, since it's not exactly Hitler's economic policy that cemented his legacy.
Of course the company foots the bill, the point being that replacing humans by machines has at least two massive consequences. First it reduces the collection of income tax from the state and it also reduces the amount of humans that have incomes and can afford the goods and services produced by the machines. By "taxing" machines, you can to some extent afford a UBI and it means that companies have customers.
but some with over 110 IQ apparently have.
I think the people in this thread who are arguing that anything that falls outside of a narrow academic definition of socialism cannot be classed as socialism are doing the simplifying. Surely the use of the word in the actual world throughout history has more relevance than what some academic has decided?
Did the Nazis use the word accurately? No, I doubt Hitler had any kind of understanding of economics and doubt he read Marx. Were aspects of what the Nazis early economic policies achieved similar to what a socialist party would have looked to achieve? Most definitely.
exactly.
I still don't see the point in a separate tax on the machines?
It's clear the tax has to be raised, but why introduce a new tax? Just increase the corporation tax on the companies.
The companies should have bigger margins, and bigger profits with little to no workforce. So just tax the profit.
If you look at the 25 point program (released the same day the Nazis adopted Socialist into their name) there are lots of classically socialist demands (in amongst the racism). For example:
- Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
- In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice of life and property that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment due to a war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. Therefore, we demand ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
- We demand nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts).
- We demand that the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
- We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
- We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
- We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
- We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
- We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
- The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the state must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the state of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
- The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
- We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
He railed against Marx a fair bit.
Another tidbit:
Whatever you think of people’s narrow definitions of socialism, Hitler’s fecking definition does not match. Or do you find his hot takes to be relevant to what socialism is about?
Edit: the policies you mentioned, his end goal was rebuilding the nation. He was a nationalist more than a socialist. Maybe I’m ignorant of something, but I don’t recall hearing much about the commies to the east giving incentives to boost birth rates and the like. It was all in the service of German and Aryan peoples. Selective as feck, as far as socialism goes.
Last edited: