"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
There's a lot of intellectuals on RedCafe.
There's a lot of intellectuals on RedCafe.
“Socialism” vs. “Capitalism” debate
- Thread starter Kinsella
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
There's a lot of intellectuals on RedCafe.
Yeah, because one quote sums up and discredits an entire ideogy and social systems.
Capitalism isn't working. It's becoming so top heavy it doesn't take a PHD to see it's going to topple soon. The rich keep getting richer, the poor getting poorer and the middle getting squeezed. It's unsustainable.
Socialism is so misrepresented and misunderstood. It's disgusting how a concept of wanting everyone to be equal and working for everyone is ridiculed over a system so corrupt and flawed even foreign leaders have backed away from recent deals.
Feel free to start another thread if you want to debate socialism vs whatever it is you want to compare it to."Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
There's a lot of intellectuals on RedCafe.
What’s wrong with capitalism? Capitalism “provides better products and innovation through competition, disperses wealth to all productive people, promotes pluralism and decentralization of power, creates strong economic growth and yields productivity and prosperity that greatly benefit society.”
It’s ironic seeing those supporting millionaire players and billionaire owners on a Manchester United football forum decrying the faults of capitalism.
It’s ironic seeing those supporting millionaire players and billionaire owners on a Manchester United football forum decrying the faults of capitalism.
You too can start another thread. This isn’t to debate socialism vs capitalism if you read the OP.
You're all fools!
Social democracy is obviously the way to go.
Social democracy is obviously the way to go.
My view on socialism and to a greater extent communism is that it's essentially the exchange of per capita growth and productivity as well as civil liberties and freedoms for economic equalisation.
In year one this is a very attractive proposition. The poor get richer and the rich get poorer which is something every socially conscious person would agree with.
The problem tends to be that the reduction in per capita growth and productivity will eventually (speed depends on the level of socialism/communism) catch up meaning everyone will be poorer (except usually those implementing the policies).
Personally I'd prefer a small and unfortunate % of the population being poor but the vast majority of the population being far wealthier (some to an incomprehensive degree), rather than the vast majority being poor and usually the politicians being exceptionally wealthy.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day... As they say.
In year one this is a very attractive proposition. The poor get richer and the rich get poorer which is something every socially conscious person would agree with.
The problem tends to be that the reduction in per capita growth and productivity will eventually (speed depends on the level of socialism/communism) catch up meaning everyone will be poorer (except usually those implementing the policies).
Personally I'd prefer a small and unfortunate % of the population being poor but the vast majority of the population being far wealthier (some to an incomprehensive degree), rather than the vast majority being poor and usually the politicians being exceptionally wealthy.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day... As they say.
Agree. A classic Utilitarian rather than a Rawlsian approach you may say.
Why would any "socially conscious person" be in favour of making anyone poorer?
It always seems to me that left wing ideologies are based on simple jealousy (of the rich), and an obsession with the idea that inequality is evil and avoidable (it's neither).
The issue with hard definitions of socialism that are largely theoretical is it allows those on the centre right like the posters above to make extreme arguments. I've seem them make the same arguments many times discussing socialism as some bogeyman out to steal wealth.
Most people no longer see socialism in any form that would make everyone poorer perpetually. It's a term used absent any other to represent working towards a fairer capitalism, one with checks and balances so that most get a fair deal in life. Its better to talk about individual socialist policies than drawing comparisons to communism or capitalism as models because that only demonises it.
Most people no longer see socialism in any form that would make everyone poorer perpetually. It's a term used absent any other to represent working towards a fairer capitalism, one with checks and balances so that most get a fair deal in life. Its better to talk about individual socialist policies than drawing comparisons to communism or capitalism as models because that only demonises it.
Why would I start another thread? It's in response to what langster literally wrote a couple posts above. Strange as plenty of others in this thread have already mentioned capitalism.
You're asking for a debate between communism and capitalism on this same page.Good post there
Because I don’t want it to blow up out of control into this socialism vs capitalism debate. Also doesn’t help when another poster comes in for the wum post.
What is socialism?
Bernie don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
Bernie don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
And finally guns shots could be heard all around as central park fell into silence.
No, every attempt at implementing it has done that. Hence the quote.
I regard the popularisation of the term 'capitalism' as Karl Marx's real lasting legacy. The idea that what we live under is an 'ism', contains the belief that there is another 'ism' which we could live under...if only we could/would choose to do so. Marxist theory suggests that we would indeed choose to do so, but that some wealthy, moneyed elite continually prevents the masses from realising it.
Whereas in actual fact 'capitalism' is just a term which describes the economic system as it would invariably function in one form or another. It's natural in other words.
A society that aims for equality over liberty will achieve neither equality, nor liberty. The society that aims for liberty over equality will achieve liberty and a greater approximation of equality than the former,...as history has proven.
Aside from that, just because socialism (or any other concept/ideology for that matter) may sound good on paper, that doesn't mean it would be a good reality.
Last edited:
I'd add students to the quotation.
"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual (or students) could ignore or evade it."
What does he say about guns?
I'd say people more accustomed with Marxist ideas would recognize this as a form of vulgar Marxism at best.
Historically developed social formations have always presented themselves as natural. It once was natural to live under a Pharaoh god-king, it was once natural to be a bondservant or a nobleman, it was once natural for women to be unable to match the capabilities of men (and still is natural a lot), it was once natural to either be a slave or to own slaves. Today it's natural for humans to socialize under the principles of private property, the production of goods as commodities, and modern statehood.
The historical perspective shows that none of this was ever true of course, but in each historical society people were deeply convinced otherwise.
Last edited:
Hey it's the free market, I'll need a fee first before I tell you.
This is a joke, I'm in fact too lazy to find out the guys views on guns.
Capitalism built on empire works. But so does any economic policy built on empire (assuming there isn't rampant corruption, but that's more of a judicial matter).
Capitalism has failed in numerous countries in Africa and Asia.
Capitalism has failed in numerous countries in Africa and Asia.
Every attempt implemented by a dictator?
Socialism has its faults, no doubt, but the current system is out of control and anyone with a brain can see it's doomed to failure. Hard work, ingenuity and creativity should be rewarded 100% And yes, people should be able to advance and better themselves BUT a massive human fault is greed. Greed, resentment, selfishness and arrogance promotes and fuels the system we have today and that system rewards the few at the detriment to the many.
People having billions while others have nothing is not right. It's not acceptable. The USA being wealthy while Africa is poor yet having huge natural resources is not right. Healthcare should be a right for everyone, everywhere. I work an average of 70 hours a week, well over 100 in the Summer, and I'm doing well, yet I still can't afford a house where I was born. Homelessness is on the rise, as is poverty. Food banks are stretched even in places like where I live. The disparity continues to widen and all we see is cuts to public services and the NHS and Police force. People around me are buying up homes and using them as 2nd homes leaving them empty 10 months of the year. That pushes prices up and creates ghost towns.
Capitalism is flawed and it's only going to end in disaster. Resentment towards the haves will grow and the have nots will have to fight, and there's a lot more have nots. Socialism might not be perfect but a balance is required. All flourishing societies work with many socialist ideals and policies imemented. Refuse collection, Police forces, the many branches of military, fire service, health service (in most countries) postalservicices and public transport, energy suppliers, social security, state pensions, care homes.
That's solicialism being implemented where everyone contributes towards taxes to pay for services everyone needs and uses, yet socialism is bad and doesn't work?
It's really simple. You earn more, you pay more. Lots more. A society is judged on the way it treats it's poor, sick and needy and there is no need in this day and age for people to be homeless while some lottery winner is sat in his house In Barbados while he has cottages in Devon and Cornwall sat empty.
In truth what you say resonates. I'm of the view that wealth is infinite and that consequently any ideology that seeks to "redistribute" is the wrong focus.
What we should focus on is creating an economy that actually grows (based on productivity, not growth solely due to population expansion) as a rising tide lifts all boats. If a governmental decision meant the poorest third of society were 1% wealthier (say £100), whilst every billionaire was also 1% wealthier (say £50m) to me that'd be a phenomenal result.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the economies across the globe that have adopted a laissez-faire, low tax, capitalist approach tend to achieve much better growth.
Singapore over the last couple of decades, Hong Kong for the few decades before Chinese involvement, Ireland and to a lesser extent Switzerland/US more recently. Look at the top 5-6 GDP per capita nations excluding those manipulated by oil wealth and it's quite clear.
I think it's also easy to forget just how incredible capitalism is. 95% of people in the UK between 16 - 54 have a computer in their pockets 100,000 times more powerful than the Apollo guidance system that put man on the moon.
Some might, I'd say others might not.
It was also natural to rebel against such abuses and conditions, and people and nations have done so repeatedly throughout history.
It's all just a continuum then?
Economics is subject to morality, customs, politics, tradition, and of course to self-control (or lack of it). It's quite another thing however to suggest that 'capitalism', i.e reality, represents some sort of dogmatic choice. That's akin to calling the weather 'sunism and rainism'.
Last edited:
So are you saying that the computer we have in our pockets was and is only created die to capitalism and greed? Are you saying it wouldn't have been created under a different system?
It was created due to evolution, technological advancement, the human will, need and desire to improve and advance. Heck, just doing it for the feck of it. I'm not saying profit or greed wasn't a part of it, but to say capitalism is solely responsible for technological advancement and other breakthroughs and discoveries is really quite sad.
The first problem is that there's no such thing as a uniform "Marxist theory". You'd have to be more specific - who are you referring to?
That wasn't natural or inevitable either. Rebellion against these conditions might not have happened for centuries. I'd rather describe it as the product of specific social circumstances and individual decisions.
Tbh, I don't really understand this question in relation to what I've written. What do you mean with continuum here, and as opposed to what?
I don't think I suggested that it was a choice. Regarding the rest I could just repeat my criticism of the "social order as nature" fallacy, so we're at a dead end for now.
To those arguing about Capitalism is failing I’d argue the exact opposite, Capitalism was never an economic philosophy to spread wealth. It has always been touted as people having the option to choose, with the reality of it being that wealthy companies buy-out smaller companies to add to their pre-existing wealth, reducing the variety of options to a few monopolies.
That system was always destined to create a pyramid-like structure with the wealthy elite propped up by the masses, and it’s working a treat for them right now.
Ideologies such as Socialism will never come to pass for two reasons:
The second currency was created to replace a good or service (which had a finite shelf-life) to trade with, we as a society were fecked.
That system was always destined to create a pyramid-like structure with the wealthy elite propped up by the masses, and it’s working a treat for them right now.
Ideologies such as Socialism will never come to pass for two reasons:
- If it was going to happen from the bottom-up it would have happened in 2007/8. Instead all we got was the Occupy Movement for a few months which fizzled away and everyone went back to work for the system
- It’ll never happen from the top-down because those in control of media, news, advertising and politics have absolutely no reason to promote it as being even close to a viable option as they’d end up losing out with it
The second currency was created to replace a good or service (which had a finite shelf-life) to trade with, we as a society were fecked.
A separate discussion to this one for sure, but I think the penny is starting to drop that continuous consumption-based growth as the engine of prosperity is environmentally unsustainable. This poses a challenge to all of the mainstream political ideologies. In future, quality of life improvements will have to be based on making better use of limited resources, and reducing the amount we waste (e.g. through more and better recycling, technology advances - particularly in the energy sector).
These labels are no longer applicable for the World we live in...
Things are now too fluid and moveable and slippery for terms that were created decades, sometimes hundreds of years ago to encapsulate in a satisfactory manner - hence increasing dissatisfaction with what 'this' or 'that' means (like this very thread).
The one thing that I've noticed that appears to be increasingly relevant, year by year, is that we definitely seem to be ever closer to Chaos.
Things are now too fluid and moveable and slippery for terms that were created decades, sometimes hundreds of years ago to encapsulate in a satisfactory manner - hence increasing dissatisfaction with what 'this' or 'that' means (like this very thread).
The one thing that I've noticed that appears to be increasingly relevant, year by year, is that we definitely seem to be ever closer to Chaos.
Capitalism is working 100%
For the 1%
A few % are getting scraps, but it's always going to be a shit deal for the vast majority.
For the 1%
A few % are getting scraps, but it's always going to be a shit deal for the vast majority.
What?! Currency is one of the most valuable ideas that humans have ever conceived. Do you want to barter everything? We'd still be pretty much a pre-agricultural society.
Whenever I think about barter, I remember that hippy guy who attempted to travel from London to India with no cash, planning to exchange his skills and meagre possessions for his needs along the way.
I think he gave up about a half day out of Calais.
I think he gave up about a half day out of Calais.
Some marxists, whether they be theorists or mere subscribers.
The desire to be free from occupation or colonial rule is natural. It may not apply to every person with equal fervency, but I'd argue that it's almost innate and that it manifests at particular times.
Your inclusion of the organisation of human behaviour around private property, modern statehood and so on, almost implies that these elements aren't much different to the others you listed.
Ok.
Yes I'm saying that the vast majority of advancement is a result of capitalism. Even the advancement that isn't directly related to it, such as governmental technological advances, have been funded by capitalism.
Capitalism isn't something that was invented a few hundred years ago. It's the reason large swathes of humanity survived in the first place.
I think this is absolutely key and I believe that the green revolution will blow the industrial and tech revolutions out of the water.
We're already seeing major investors backing green technologies causing the value of companies who're putting green technology at the heart of their business models quickly growing and this is before they're even making any real money.
I can't see this slowing and can see a turning point arriving in the next 15 years whereby it'll become a simple choice for any business: sustainability or bankruptcy.
Once this tipping point hits I can see technological and country transforming advances that seem a century away in less than a generation.
Just wanna point out here that capitalism was the imperialist force and various forms of socialism was the anti-imperialist force in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Come again...?
I can see the posters now...
Capitalism look! It helps you when you're on top!
Capitalism look! It helps you when you're on top!