“Socialism” vs. “Capitalism” debate

[Sky1981]

There is no bad system.

On paper every theory works based on each individual system's constraint. Free market has perfect information, perfectly zero entry and exit barrier, perfectly elastic supply and demand as their prerequisites.

In practise no country in the world, even north korea can practice full socialism, nor any country in the west can practise full capitalism. There will be some sort of market mechanism, or government intervention at one point.

Basically every country in the world lies between social and capitalism, or we could call them market vs controlled.

Even both imperfect system could theoretically work with the right human implementation, ie no corruption no nepotism no collusion. But let's face it, it's impossible not to have those.

Right system, wrong human, wrong environment.

 

[Florida Man]

why reinvent the wheel.
Just adopt the Denmark/Sweden model.
It works.

I'd argue it works best in this time in history because the world's current paradigm is capitalistic. Similarly to how socialism is the logical next step to communism, social democracy is the logical next step towards socialism. And we're not even close to social democracy being the dominant paradigm just yet, but we need to hurry the feck up because we're destroying the only living planet we all share together.

 

[berbatrick]

Capitalist countries like Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, etc are doing really well in that aspect. Of course, this has some limitations, and might not be preferable for many (more people move from Germany to the US than the other way around), but a system that rewards the smart and hardworking people, but at the same time doesn't shit on those who don't have those attributes should be the target for every country.

the marxist argument is that nazism was one way a capitalist society responded to a particular set of circumstances (wounded national pride, badly faltering economy, mobilised workers, big leftist parties, latent prejudice).

imo, the way for capitalism to deal with the effects of climate change is to build effectively a fortress around the parts of the world, mostly europe/NA, which will still be liveable.

 

[Florida Man]

There is no bad system.

On paper every theory works based on each individual system's constraint. Free market has perfect information, perfectly zero entry and exit barrier, perfectly elastic supply and demand as their prerequisites.

In practise no country in the world, even north korea can practice full socialism, nor any country in the west can practise full capitalism. There will be some sort of market mechanism, or government intervention at one point.

Basically every country in the world lies between social and capitalism, or we could call them market vs controlled.

Even both imperfect system could theoretically work with the right human implementation, ie no corruption no nepotism no collusion. But let's face it, it's impossible not to have those.

Right system, wrong human, wrong environment.

Free market and capitalism aren't the same thing but they share a lot of similarities. Free markets can still exist in socialism with the big exception that it's not driven by private ownership of property, but rather collective ownership. But as long as resources being limited is true, then capitalism is not one that works long term unless you're okay with the wealthy classes having the green light to exterminate masses to keep resources available for all.

 

[Florida Man]

the marxist argument is that nazism was one way a capitalist society responded to a particular set of circumstances (wounded national pride, badly faltering economy, mobilised workers, big leftist parties, latent prejudice).

imo, the way for capitalism to deal with the effects of climate change is to build effectively a fortress around the parts of the world, mostly europe/NA, which will still be liveable.

Except ecosystems just don't work like that.

 

[Florida Man]

Also, it's kind of hard for socialist nations to succeed when capitalist nations like the US keep assassinating democratically elected reps, brainwashing groups of people to generate artificial movements, and using its wealth to war spend the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. In a capitalist system, something like socialism is still competition and crushing your competition is part of the essence of capitalism. That being said, places like the USSR still had their fair share of faults, let's not confuse that.

 

[Sky1981]

Free market and capitalism aren't the same thing but they share a lot of similarities. Free markets can still exist in socialism with the big exception that it's not driven by private ownership of property, but rather collective ownership. But as long as resources being limited is true, then capitalism is not one that works long term unless you're okay with the wealthy classes having the green light to exterminate masses to keep resources available for all.

Which is my point. Socialism and capitalism are just extremes to educate college student.

Truth is we're all planned economy, it's just a matter of how controlled or how loose we are governed.

Can you say Americans are capitalist when they protect their farm, their workers, unions, embargo?

 

[Denis79]

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.

Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism.

 

[Florida Man]

Which is my point. Socialism and capitalism are just extremes to educate college student.

Truth is we're all planned economy, it's just a matter of how controlled or how loose we are governed.

Can you say Americans are capitalist when they protect their farm, their workers, unions, embargo?

This makes no sense.

 

[RedBanker]

Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism.

Is this when we build the Death Star?

 

[Denis79]

Is this when we build the Death Star?

 

[Wibble]

Almost all countries are social democracy with a capitalist economy and a social safety net and government tasked with limiting capitalism when it acts against social justice, even the US. So all this "socialism is always a failure" only really has much meaning in the mind of right wingers.

Capitalism does have quite a few problems that we haven't solved yet. Two that spring to mind are a) it depends on constant growth and we are now consuming the world's resources at a rate far above replacement and b) profit is the sole motive and that results in various negative outcomes e.g. fossil fuels/global warming.

 

[Red Dreams]

Almost all countries are social democracy with a capitalist economy and a social safety net and government tasked with limiting capitalism when it acts against social justice, even the US. So all this "socialism is always a failure" only really has much meaning in the mind of right wingers.

Capitalism does have quite a few problems that we haven't solved yet. Two that spring to mind are a) it depends on constant growth and we are now consuming the world's resources at a rate far above replacement and b) profit is the sole motive and that results in various negative outcomes e.g. fossil fuels/global warming.

It makes you think about what those pushing fossil fuels are thinking.
Do they hope to find some safe place on this earth when it is all going to hell with Climate Change.

I always think of that film 2012..the aftermath.

 

[Revan]

What existential crisis?

Climate change and an ever-increasing inequality.

 

[entropy]

Almost all countries are social democracy with a capitalist economy and a social safety net and government tasked with limiting capitalism when it acts against social justice, even the US. So all this "socialism is always a failure" only really has much meaning in the mind of right wingers.

Capitalism does have quite a few problems that we haven't solved yet. Two that spring to mind are a) it depends on constant growth and we are now consuming the world's resources at a rate far above replacement and b) profit is the sole motive and that results in various negative outcomes e.g. fossil fuels/global warming.

Capitalism and democracy are incompatible. The notion that we somehow live in a system that makes space for both ideologies is just delusional. Climate change is the best example there is. It is a direct result of capitalism. Forget taking measures to fix it, we are still yet to come to terms with the irrevocable damage it has already done for future generations to come.

 

[Revan]

the marxist argument is that nazism was one way a capitalist society responded to a particular set of circumstances (wounded national pride, badly faltering economy, mobilised workers, big leftist parties, latent prejudice).

imo, the way for capitalism to deal with the effects of climate change is to build effectively a fortress around the parts of the world, mostly europe/NA, which will still be liveable.

It is an option. A better one would be to invest in non-fossil energy and make it profitable to the point that using fossil energy has no economical sense. I hope that states are going to invest more in nuclear energy, despite the potential to feck up things. Unfortunately, in some cases (like Germany) this is not happening (and the fools are going back to fossils) cause of doom-mongering after the Fukushima incident.

In any case, I think that we will survive the climate change threat, and probably it will be because of innovation, rather than spending less energy.

Nazis were a very unconventional system. Far-right in most things, but also with a very high dose of socialism (they also had 'socialist' in the name of the party).

 

[Sky1981]

Capitalism is exactly why we're still dealing with fossil fuels.

If somehow tomorrow a scientist find a way to make sea water acts as fuel, you can be sure he will be assassinated by oil CEO's of oil company.

How many wars and climate destruction has been done in the name of capitalism?

 

[RedBanker]

Capitalism is exactly why we're still dealing with fossil fuels.

If somehow tomorrow a scientist find a way to make sea water acts as fuel, you can be sure he will be assassinated by oil CEO's of oil company.

How many wars and climate destruction has been done in the name of capitalism?

Answer only US governments of the last 70 years can provide.

 

[Florida Man]

Climate change and an ever-increasing inequality.

Climate change is becoming worse at an exponential rate and income inequality is also increasing at a similar rate. So no it's not adapting to it quite yet. On the contrary, capitalism contributed 100% to climate change and wealth inequality.

 

[Florida Man]

It is an option. A better one would be to invest in non-fossil energy and make it profitable to the point that using fossil energy has no economical sense. I hope that states are going to invest more in nuclear energy, despite the potential to feck up things. Unfortunately, in some cases (like Germany) this is not happening (and the fools are going back to fossils) cause of doom-mongering after the Fukushima incident.

In any case, I think that we will survive the climate change threat, and probably it will be because of innovation, rather than spending less energy.

Nazis were a very unconventional system. Far-right in most things, but also with a very high dose of socialism (they also had 'socialist' in the name of the party).

Absolutely not.

 

[Revan]

Absolutely not.

“We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitationand we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

Who said this:
a) Bernie Sanders
b) Carl Marx
c) Adolf Hitler

Climate change is becoming worse at an exponential rate and income inequality is also increasing at a similar rate. So no it's not adapting to it quite yet. On the contrary, capitalism contributed 100% to climate change and wealth inequality.

Well, the entire world uses a capitalist system, so yeah, no surprise that the capitalism is to be blamed about it. The socialist countries in the last decade were equal polluters.

 

[Maagge]

In any case, I think that we will survive the climate change threat, and probably it will be because of innovation, rather than spending less energy.

We'll survive in some form, that's what we do. But as always it'll be the emerging economies getting the short end of the stick.
But don't kid yourself that innovation will solve our problems. It's too late for that in my opinion. Plus we already have all the technology to do something about it but it'll come at a cost most governments are happy to pass on to their successors to our collective detriment.
Finally, it's literally impossible to keep on having economic growth in a society that's not based 100 % on services so we really have to figure out a way to not have ~3 % annual growth as an assumption in economic models.

 

[Revan]

We'll survive in some form, that's what we do. But as always it'll be the emerging economies getting the short end of the stick.
But don't kid yourself that innovation will solve our problems. It's too late for that in my opinion. Plus we already have all the technology to do something about it but it'll come at a cost most governments are happy to pass on to their successors to our collective detriment.
Finally, it's literally impossible to keep on having economic growth in a society that's not based 100 % on services so we really have to figure out a way to not have ~3 % annual growth as an assumption in economic models.

Spread outside of Earth in order to maintain the growth?

 

[Florida Man]

Who said this:
a) Bernie Sanders
b) Carl Marx
c) Adolf Hitler

So you’re going to use a one liner from an psychopathic megalomaniac genocidal dictator to support your argument?

I’ve seen some terrible arguments on here but this probably tops it. Thankfully I judge by actions. Do me a favor — go look up the simple definition of socialism. Then compare it to the governing style and culture of Nazi Germany, and then get back to me.

 

[Maagge]

Spread outside of Earth in order to maintain the growth?

That's a way to do it, I suppose. I'm guessing it'll be Mars for the rich though, then us plebs can stay here while money is siphoned off the planet.

 

[Florida Man]

That's a way to do it, I suppose. I'm guessing it'll be Mars for the rich though, then us plebs can stay here while money is siphoned off the planet.

They would have to learn how to artificially create an atmosphere or be millions of times more efficient with resources to survive out there. And if they could do that, why not just apply that on Earth where we already have an atmosphere.

 

[Revan]

So you’re going to use a one liner from an psychopathic megalomaniac genocidal dictator to support your argument?

I’ve seen some terrible arguments on here but this probably tops it. Thankfully I judge by actions. Do me a favor — go look up the simple definition of socialism. Then compare it to the governing style and culture of Nazi Germany, and then get back to me.

I never said that they were socialists, just that their system had a high dose of socialism. And yes, his quote, as well as the 'socialist' name in the name of the party should not be ignored.

For what is worth, I know that they had a capitalist economy, but it was highly regulated, and very linked with the government. It wasn't a free market like in normal capitalist countries. That is why I started my post with "Nazis were a very unconventional system".

 

[Abizzz]

I never said that they were socialists, just that their system had a high dose of socialism. And yes, his quote, as well as the 'socialist' name in the name of the party should not be ignored.

For what is worth, I know that they had a capitalist economy, but it was highly regulated, and very linked with the government. It wasn't a free market like in normal capitalist countries. That is why I started my post with "Nazis were a very unconventional system".

Their "high dose of socialism" included:
Supporting mothers: To have more soldiers to send to their deaths.
Building roads for everybody: So everyone could be at the front real fast.
Social security: They just killed anyone who didn't confirm or work


I get that people don't necessarily like "socialism", "social democracies" or "socialist states", but some arguments are truly bizarre.

 

[Maagge]

They would have to learn how to artificially create an atmosphere or be millions of times more efficient with resources to survive out there. And if they could do that, why not just apply that on Earth where we already have an atmosphere.

If we're looking at eternal economic growth it's simply not possible to do on Earth alone. And since no one's gonna leave till it's absolutely necessary I'm guessing Earth will be a shit hole, by and large. So it might be more attractive to get out of here if you're part of the ruling class.
I'm just hypothesising on what would happen if we insist on having a growth of 3 % per year, to be honest. It isn't sustainable, so we should think about doing things differently.

 

[Revan]

Their "high dose of socialism" included:
Supporting mothers: To have more soldiers to send to their deaths.
Building roads for everybody: So everyone could be at the front real fast.
Social security: They just killed anyone who didn't confirm or work


I get that people don't necessarily like "socialism", "social democracies" or "socialist states", but some arguments are truly bizarre.

What about having a totally controlled and highly regulated economy? Or you know being called National Socialist German Workers' Party?

I don't hate at all social democracies. Actually, I think that for the majority of people, a system like 'the Nordic model' is the best system.

 

[NWRed]

As with most arguments of this type the best solution lies in compromise between the two. Unrestrained capitalism, as has been shown repeatedly, leads to exploitation, corruption and injustice, whereas genuine socialism where the means of production are controlled centrally makes progress next to impossible and leads to inefficiency and stagnation. Compromise between the two, i.e. capitalism that is centrally regulated, has shown itself to have the best outcomes (cue people with no knowledge or experience of any other system telling me I'm wrong).

I grew up on a council estate and until recently had only ever voted Labour. One of the major reasons they have lost my vote is the obsession with equality, as though subjectively judging your situation by comparing yourself to others is more important than objectively judging your quality of life. It just smacks of jealousy. The fact is if nobody has anything then everyone is equal and it seems the leadership of the party and their supporters would prefer this outcome over raising everyone's quality of life.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

The countries that have done relatively well out of capitalism on paper didn't make their wealth through capitalism. Britain used it's empire to create captive markets for UK-made products, in the process destroying local industry in those countries (e.g - cotton in India). The economic might of the north during the Industrial Revolution was built on this practice. At the same time they exerted military pressure to ensure the empire continued to supply the goods they needed (e.g - continuing to import huge amounts of grain from Ireland during the Great Hunger). The Americans spent most of the latter half of the 20th century overthrowing democratically-elected leftist leaders who wanted more equal trading relationships with the United States (the US invaded Grenada basically because they didn't want them to step selling them nutmeg for a pittance). Before that they spent the previous hundred years annexing other peoples' land and exploiting the natural resources they found there.

The wealth of these countries which gives them a strong grounding to compete in the modern world, wasn't built by capitalism, but by imperialism. And whilst countries, barring the US, aren't throwing bullets around as much anymore for the purposes of economic self-interest, their wealth remains dependent on the suffering of others. For example, during the famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s the country was exporting enough grain to solve the issue. It was being sold to farmers in Europe to feed livestock.

 

[Abizzz]

What about having a totally controlled and highly regulated economy?

But they didn't. They had a despot and a whole lot of mini despots called "Gauleiter" that took anything they fancied to the benefit of themselves and their party (who they considered the same entity as the state). Their policy was to literally work people to death.

Or you know being called National Socialist German Workers' Party?

That's the name they gave themselves. It isn't any more honest than any of their other propaganda.

I don't hate at all social democracies. Actually, I think that for the majority of people, a system like 'the Nordic model' is the best system.

Agree with that.

 

[Florida Man]

I never said that they were socialists, just that their system had a high dose of socialism. And yes, his quote, as well as the 'socialist' name in the name of the party should not be ignored.

For what is worth, I know that they had a capitalist economy, but it was highly regulated, and very linked with the government. It wasn't a free market like in normal capitalist countries. That is why I started my post with "Nazis were a very unconventional system".

It’s not even a high dose of socialism. Socialism isn’t necessarily the government doing stuff either. You might as well be saying Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar have high doses of socialism because they do a lot of stuff for their citizens. Of course to suggest that would he absurd. And just because they label themselves socialist doesn’t mean they’re socialist. China has a communist party but they’re not remotely communist. Fox News claims they’re fair and balanced but they’re really a GOP propaganda machine. Gotta judge by the actions.

 

[Fiskey]

The countries that have done relatively well out of capitalism on paper didn't make their wealth through capitalism. Britain used it's empire to create captive markets for UK-made products, in the process destroying local industry in those countries (e.g - cotton in India). The economic might of the north during the Industrial Revolution was built on this practice. At the same time they exerted military pressure to ensure the empire continued to supply the goods they needed (e.g - continuing to import huge amounts of grain from Ireland during the Great Hunger). The Americans spent most of the latter half of the 20th century overthrowing democratically-elected leftist leaders who wanted more equal trading relationships with the United States (the US invaded Grenada basically because they didn't want them to step selling them nutmeg for a pittance). Before that they spent the previous hundred years annexing other peoples' land and exploiting the natural resources they found there.

The wealth of these countries which gives them a strong grounding to compete in the modern world, wasn't built by capitalism, but by imperialism. And whilst countries, barring the US, aren't throwing bullets around as much anymore for the purposes of economic self-interest, their wealth remains dependent on the suffering of others. For example, during the famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s the country was exporting enough grain to solve the issue. It was being sold to farmers in Europe to feed livestock.

What about South Korea and Hong Kong?

 

[Fiskey]

It’s not even a high dose of socialism. Socialism isn’t necessarily the government doing stuff either. You might as well be saying Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar have high doses of socialism because they do a lot of stuff for their citizens. Of course to suggest that would he absurd. And just because they label themselves socialist doesn’t mean they’re socialist. China has a communist party but they’re not remotely communist. Fox News claims they’re fair and balanced but they’re really a GOP propaganda machine. Gotta judge by the actions.

Why wouldn't you say that for Saudi Arabia and Qatar? Government owns the main means of economic production? Tick. Government distributes wealth to its own citizens? Tick.

What I imagine your saying is you don't like the politics that goes along with it, but they are/have been very socialist economies.

 

[Florida Man]

The countries that have done relatively well out of capitalism on paper didn't make their wealth through capitalism. Britain used it's empire to create captive markets for UK-made products, in the process destroying local industry in those countries (e.g - cotton in India). The economic might of the north during the Industrial Revolution was built on this practice. At the same time they exerted military pressure to ensure the empire continued to supply the goods they needed (e.g - continuing to import huge amounts of grain from Ireland during the Great Hunger). The Americans spent most of the latter half of the 20th century overthrowing democratically-elected leftist leaders who wanted more equal trading relationships with the United States (the US invaded Grenada basically because they didn't want them to step selling them nutmeg for a pittance). Before that they spent the previous hundred years annexing other peoples' land and exploiting the natural resources they found there.

The wealth of these countries which gives them a strong grounding to compete in the modern world, wasn't built by capitalism, but by imperialism. And whilst countries, barring the US, aren't throwing bullets around as much anymore for the purposes of economic self-interest, their wealth remains dependent on the suffering of others. For example, during the famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s the country was exporting enough grain to solve the issue. It was being sold to farmers in Europe to feed livestock.

I find it rather coincidental that the countries who do well under capitalism has also benefited under imperialism. It’s almost as if they were connected...

 

[Fiskey]

I find it rather coincidental that the countries who do well under capitalism has also benefited under imperialism. It’s almost as if they were connected...

As I said above, what about South Korea and Hong Kong? Perhaps we are confusing correlation and causation.

 

[Florida Man]

Why wouldn't you say that for Saudi Arabia and Qatar? Government owns the main means of economic production? Tick. Government distributes wealth to its own citizens? Tick.

What I imagine your saying is you don't like the politics that goes along with it, but they are/have been very socialist economies.

Kingdoms aren’t governments.

Socialism requires democracy, which you don’t get in a monarchy.

 

[Fiskey]

Kingdoms aren’t governments.

Socialism requires democracy, which you don’t get in a monarchy.

But socialism has never persisted under democracy as someone gets elected who doesn't believe in it and sells off state assets. If that's a necessary condition I don't think you'll ever get socialism.