Capitalism and Socialism

[fragglerocks]

This debate topic is about Capitalism and Socialism and how they are implemented in today's societies. I would like to encourage debate on definition, changes, relevance to modern events, and personal viewpoints. I would especially like to debate socialism and capitalism in the workplace, with a major question being "Do you feel it would better for a company to be owned by the workers, or not, and why?"

Socialism as defined by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)

Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions, the method of resource allocation and post-monetary calculation based on some physical magnitude; often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution.

Capitalism as defined by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned; supply, demand and price are mostly set by market forces rather than economic planning; and profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses. Capitalism also refers to the process of capital accumulation.

[Nekowolf]

Well first you need to define the various political ideologies. Since Socialism and Capitalism are broad terms that cover a variety of different thoughts.

Anyhow, as for myself, I'm a democratic Socialist. I see this Laissez-faire philosophy employed generally by the Right in American politics as a complete failure. The collapse of the financial industry, and the housing market, should be proof enough of that. And the practices of the energy companies.

Corporations cannot be trusted. Their aim is to make profit. And when you have a deregulated system, like ours, they will try to fully exploit what they can to maximize those profits. I'm not saying making money is bad, but there must be strict rules that they must adhere to. If they want to play the game, there needs to be rules for them to play by, ones that have a stronger focus at protecting the consumer and economy rather than the corporate interests.

While private ownership is fine, nothing against it, workers should have more control within the companies they work for, not shareholders.

But really, both socialism and capitalism must be employed; there needs to be balance.

[Mistermook]

Corporations cannot be trusted. Their aim is to make profit. And when you have a deregulated system, like ours, they will try to fully exploit what they can to maximize those profits. I'm not saying making money is bad, but there must be strict rules that they must adhere to. If they want to play the game, there needs to be rules for them to play by, ones that have a stronger focus at protecting the consumer and economy rather than the corporate interests.
People can't be trusted either. The great thing about democracy is that it aims to introduce accountability in politics through elections in the same way people wish capitalism had accountability through market forces and shareholders. People wish that individuals had more accountability too, through personal responsibility, laws, morality, etc. By the same token though, people and organizations rail against anything that seems to or is put forth as decreasing their ability to act as they wish, that is without accountability. Being above the critique and influence of others has a sort of mythical power and dread within our genetics I think, transcending culture.

I know this doesn't address anything proposed in the OP directly, but I think it's important if I'm going join this discussion later on to put it out there. Society is about people working together for the benefit of other people. It's inherently social, meaning inherently socialist. We don't have the bones inside to take that to the logical conclusion - we're not that sort of animal, but it's built in to our communities from a book club all the way up to a nation. I also think it's a good idea. So my druthers is always to push for as much social-sharing behavior within any organization as it can withstand, while pushing for the accountability that all other systems are really looking for, however we manage to get it.

[fragglerocks]

Well first you need to define the various political ideologies. Since Socialism and Capitalism are broad terms that cover a variety of different thoughts.

Anyhow, as for myself, I'm a democratic Socialist. I see this Laissez-faire philosophy employed generally by the Right in American politics as a complete failure. The collapse of the financial industry, and the housing market, should be proof enough of that. And the practices of the energy companies.

Corporations cannot be trusted. Their aim is to make profit. And when you have a deregulated system, like ours, they will try to fully exploit what they can to maximize those profits. I'm not saying making money is bad, but there must be strict rules that they must adhere to. If they want to play the game, there needs to be rules for them to play by, ones that have a stronger focus at protecting the consumer and economy rather than the corporate interests.

While private ownership is fine, nothing against it, workers should have more control within the companies they work for, not shareholders.

But really, both socialism and capitalism must be employed; there needs to be balance.

Many corporations that have massive layoffs, don't do it because they are losing profit. They do it so they can see a temporary spike in profits. It happens all the time. The American worker (and I am using the American example because its what I know) can get laid off at anytime. It can happen to someone who has put their whole heart and soul into a company for 10 plus years. And what happens when that person was to sue for it? They get told its not against the law for your boss to be a jerk. A person can be fired for any reason outside of the boundaries of age, race, sex, and religion (did I forget one?). You could get fired because your boss doesn't like the color shoes you have on, and it would be perfectly valid. Something just isn't fair here.

I tend to take a more socialist view in the workplace. Not to say that I am against capitalism, because you do need both. But the big corporations are taking too much power. Capitalism has no room for people who do not have the ability to take advantage of it. And throughout history, what happens when the people are backed into a corner? Revolution, baby! Is it in our best interest as a country to encourage this? That's really all I want to know.

That, and what happened to our second Bill of Rights? Oh that's right, it scared corporate America too much. Don't want to upset the CEOs' pockets by treating people fairly.

[Oaktree]

Well first you need to define the various political ideologies. Since Socialism and Capitalism are broad terms that cover a variety of different thoughts.

Anyhow, as for myself, I'm a democratic Socialist. I see this Laissez-faire philosophy employed generally by the Right in American politics as a complete failure. The collapse of the financial industry, and the housing market, should be proof enough of that. And the practices of the energy companies.

The housing market collapsed because the government strong-armed banks into giving loans to people who couldn't pay them back. This is a form of socialism, as it is the government stepping into a business and telling them how they must operate.

But really, both socialism and capitalism must be employed; there needs to be balance.

Any government spending is a form of socialism, so any form of government will have some degree of socialism. In the same manner, it is impossible to entirely excise capitalism from a system, because there is no innovation or motivation to work when there is no profit motive. In short, I agree that there has to be some of each, though I lean toward there being a greater degree of capitalism.

[Synthesis]

Francis Fukuyama, an American political philosopher and an important figure in the rise of neoconservatism in the 1980s, basically made the following argument: the game was over, and western liberal (read: capitalist) democracies had won the game. They were the ultimate form of government, not just now, but forever, until humanity's extinction. There could be no superior form of government for human beings, regardless of circumstances.

I'm not exaggerating. This is his argument. If humanity were to exist for another 50 years or another 50 million years, western liberal democracies would be the best form of government forever without exception. Humanity's last political competition, between liberal and council democracy had ended, and liberal democracies had won forever.

A lot of people, deep down, agree with Fukuyama, even though most people, neoconservatives included, will publicly acknowledge how stupid this argument sounds unless someone is able to predict the future for the next few thousands or millions of years. In essence, there's no point to have political sciences or political philosophers, because there's nothing else to discover. The ultimate form of government has been found, all that it needs is to be applied to the rest of the world, and then everything will be sweet. And, since Fukuyama was an American and a known neoconservative, what he was proposing was basically turning the whole world into USA 2.0.

It's not just Fukuyama, and it's not just capitalist democracies. It's very tempting for people to say they know that their system of politics and political economy not only works, it's the best, and from there, it's a short leap to say that it's the best for everyone else as well. And what happens when reality catches up and when the implementation of a foreign political economy screws up, as it frequently does, the lives of its unhappy recipients? Usually, you get an excuse of "You're not doing it right," or the diplomatic equivalent of "Don't worry, just stay with it, it'll be totally sweet brah!". The sad thing is, I'm not joking. This is precisely what happened in the early 1990s in many of the CIS states as their economic systems were imploding thanks to Boris Yeltsin's love of American style capitalism. What worked very effectively in America though, surprise, did not work in the Russian Federation. Yeltsin's successors were smart enough to learn from his mistake.

And it's hardly limited to capitalism either. This has happened time and time again in the past. In the end, reality has already made pretty apparent that those shaky hybrid systems that were so popular during the Cold War, while hardly perfect, were still a much better swing than the extremes. And while capitalism (and socialism too, though not in North America) has quite-recently evolved into this sort of beautiful damsel in distress who must be protected at any cost from the diseased touch of alternative choices, it's already happened. We just call it "Oh, capitalism with a few entirely temporary modifications", as though we're all free-market versions of Lenin before he died. "We're on our way to the perfect capitalist state, the dictatorship of the free market, we just have a few socialist cravats here and there to help smooth the process."

As you might have figured out, I'm for case-by-case review. Some cultures are comfortable with private ownership of airlines. Some countries are comfortable with public ownership of water and power distribution. Some are not. And while people are hardly right all the time, they're not wrong all the time either. It's as good a place to start as any in determining the extent to which the free market or the electorate will determine the political economy.

[fakepeeps7]

I, too, think there needs to be a balance.

Although, it would be interesting to see true socialism in action (since examples from history have tended to end up in totalitarianism).

Synthesis, have you ever studied Spiral Dynamics? Your ideas seem very reminiscent of that.

[fragglerocks]

Fukuyama also seems to think the only way it would ever end was if we were able to evolve using biotechnology and change human nature entirely. Drama King, much? That's the only way? Really? He has many viewpoints that I believe are right on target, but this one missed the mark entirely.

[Nekowolf]

The housing market collapsed because the government strong-armed banks into giving loans to people who couldn't pay them back. This is a form of socialism, as it is the government stepping into a business and telling them how they must operate.
It was both. The market and the government.

Anyhow, then of course there are the social aspects. We should have universal health care, universal college/university education (hell, in Denmark, they PAY students to go to school, applicable only to citizens), even utilities (like water and electricity) subsidization based on income. I must hear a story about someone freezing to death in their own home at least once every winter. And the fact there needs to be charities for these people to heat their homes, it's just ridiculous. Things like health, education, and heat should be provided to all without having them cost an arm and a leg, or even driving families into poverty.

EDIT: Oh, shit. I'll get back to you, fragglerocks.

EDIT2: @fragglerocks: Exactly! Although I hope for a democratic revolution, with the way this country is, that's probably more of a pipe-dream. What we should do is put very strict rules on lobbying. Will that happen? Of fucking course not!

[Synthesis]

I, too, think there needs to be a balance.

Although, it would be interesting to see true socialism in action (since examples from history have tended to end up in totalitarianism).

We have, Marx called it "tribal communism" or "proto-communism". Whether or not you agree with Marx, it pretty much stands that human society began this way. Whatever might qualify as property being held collectively by a family clan or homestead or whatever. Some rural, isolated societies still do this.

Of course, there wasn't very much to own back then either (or for that matter, a way to keep track of who owned what). More recent examples like the Paris Commune tended to be short lived, destroyed from within or without.

And we've never seen such a thing as long-standing "true capitalism" transpire either. Part of the reason was already pointed out by Smith who said, to paraphrase, "Two men in business will hardly ever meet, even just to have a drink, without discussing how they might defraud a third man." "Perfect" capitalism isn't just about a lack of government intervention, it's the assumption that everyone--literally everyone--will not attempt to defraud anyone else. And it's not just because people (particularly capitalist people) are in it for the money--part of it is the tragedy of the commons (the notion that, hey, someone is going to defraud the common resources, so it might as well be you, right?).

I am not an expert in political sciences, but sofar, everything I've heard from Fukuyama either falls into two categories--either it makes a little bit of sense, or some sense, from a certain perspective, but isn't original, or second, it's totally shockingly stupid but at least original (see my rant about "the game is won").

Also, I'm a student of history (or rather, I was, heh), so I'm not familiar with Spiral Dynamics beyond the general description.

[fragglerocks]

EDIT2: @fragglerocks: Exactly! Although I hope for a democratic revolution, with the way this country is, that's probably more of a pipe-dream. What we should do is put very strict rules on lobbying. Will that happen? Of fucking course not!

Of course it won't happen. The lobbyists have been given the voice of the people, and bags and bags of money. What gives the government more power than that?

[ivan17]

I am for Capitalism.
Socialism as an ideology sounds fantastic in theory, but I think that socialism will be never sucess in practice. People will never live in harmony and there will always be leader/manager of the "sheeps" who will steal.
And if we are talking about corporations, Laissez-faire is just one way how to manage with corporation. There are many other ways how to manage, according to Rensis Likert.
Capitalism offers many opportunities. You can open your own corporation and chose how to manage, unlike in the socialism where you are limited/restricted.

[Nekowolf]

Wait. If you mean a "true" socialism, then yes. I actually agree; it's inevitable that it'll break down. But socialism, in moderation, has been tried and is successful - as far as governments go, anyway.

Also, you can still have privatization and self-enterprise under some degrees of socialism.

And laissez-faire isn't a management of corporation. It's an economic philosophy. Sort of.

[Doddibot]

I think pure socialism could probably work. I don't see any reason why it couldn't work. I don't know for sure, because it's not been tested.

Pure capitalism couldn't work. You'll need some government intervention and not just to enforce contracts, but to ensure basic human rights. Capitalism inevitably leads to somebody getting richer and many people getting poorer, and with that lack of money, losing their ability to educate their children, afford healthcare, etc in order to get richer (the 'poverty cycle' or trap). This is why we need social security, public education and socialised healthcare.

[Mistermook]

The housing market collapsed because the government strong-armed banks into giving loans to people who couldn't pay them back. This is a form of socialism, as it is the government stepping into a business and telling them how they must operate.
The housing market collapsed because the government was lobbied to allow credit default swaps which allowed certain normally localized risky credit behaviors to expand their reach through securities trading leveraging those risky loans. It wasn't a bad idea at the time - we were headed into a recession after 9/11 following years of unprecedented growth in the dot.com bubble. Leveraging the hell out of the market might have saved us from realizing how little clothes the emperor was wearing during most of the 00s. I think that's probably a good thing, since a collapse following 9/11 and during our ill-advised war in Iraq might have been nearly impossible to correct.

We didn't draw back in time and put back in place regulatory pressures to reign in our successful risky behaviors though, and like any gambler spinning the wheel over and over again we eventually had that moment of clarity. We realized that no matter how much money we seemed to be making, it was all up in the air and once the debt markers started getting called in we couldn't produce the successes from the spins before. Now we're paralyzed from the shock of our own risk assessment, like a chef who had a grease fire but now can't bring themselves to turn on the stove even though the fire is over.

For capitalism to work properly with any regard to anything but profit there needs to be the sort of accountability in it that we get from regulation, safety measures, hiring rules, etc. Unregulated capitalism is an awesome force, but it's not necessarily something anyone would wish on anyone unless you could ensure they were at the top of the heap. Socialism is a much less impressive idea, until you realize that it's the heart of any government - JFK might have wanted everyone to think about what they could do for their country, but a government that does nothing for its citizens isn't a government at all.

[Nekowolf]

And the lobbying power of corporations is incredible. But it pushes away the people's will in favor of the select few, the Presidents, CEOs, and execs. Just like Supreme Court's recent decision to allow organizations unlimited funds.

It's oppression not by masses, but by a monarchical corporate hierarchy who beds with the politicians and bends their will in favor of what they, the corporations, want. And at the cost of who? Everyone but themselves. So they get bad publicity, do these top brass care? Hell no! They're raking in millions, or even billions!

This concept of an unregulated free market is a total failure, learned at a very heavy cost, and still people haven't learned the damn lesson! It's like carrying your gun around with the safety off, only to end up shooting yourself in the leg on accident, then not learning, hey, keep the safety on!

How much more sacrifice will it take? How many more jobs lost, credits ruined, people thrown out of their homes, how many more will it take for the lesson to be learned?

[fakepeeps7]

How much more sacrifice will it take? How many more jobs lost, credits ruined, people thrown out of their homes, how many more will it take for the lesson to be learned?

A lot more. Because the people who need to learn from their actions the most are often the ones who are affected by those actions the least.

[ivan17]

How much more sacrifice will it take? How many more jobs lost, credits ruined, people thrown out of their homes, how many more will it take for the lesson to be learned?

The problem is not in the capitalism, problem is in people.
Capitalism (sort of) in 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th century is very different that this modern capitalism (I mean capitalism after WWII).
Problem is in so called "Consumer society" and in Consumerism.
People are buying things, even though, they don't need them.
They are taking credits just to buy something that they don't need to have. I really don't know how to learn them that every x years there is recession and that they will lose everything because they are not optimal.
New researches are telling us that after this recession consumers will change. I hope that they will go to the shops with shopping lists and that they will buy only what they really need...and problem is solved!

[Safyre420]

The problem is not in the capitalism, problem is in people.
Capitalism (sort of) in 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th century is very different that this modern capitalism (I mean capitalism after WWII).
Problem is in so called "Consumer society" and in Consumerism.
People are buying things, even though, they don't need them.
They are taking credits just to buy something that they don't need to have. I really don't know how to learn them that every x years there is recession and that they will lose everything because they are not optimal.
New researches are telling us that after this recession consumers will change. I hope that they will go to the shops with shopping lists and that they will buy only what they really need...and problem is solved!

What you speak of touches on Commercialism(though not in it's true form just it's current form). Commercialism encourages people to buy that which they don't need but think that they do, which further fuels Capitalism, thus it is part of Capitalism. It's all about marketing. The corporations want people to buy their products, so to get people to buy their products they "insist"(not really insist but they might as well be insisting) that the consumers NEED their product, regardless if they actually need it or not.

Capitalism has screwed America over, likely a few times, but not due to the fault of Capitalism but due to the fault of the American People. If they could only learn to buy that which they actually need and spend on that which they can afford out of their pocket, America's economy wouldn't be so shitty. Not to mention, People thinking that the American economy is somehow running the rest of the world's economy doesn't help matters at all. Each country has it's own economy, but apparently since the American economy went to shit, the rest of the world's economy went to shit...seems to me that people are placing their trust in the American economy without really thinking.

If the American Economy tanks, the rest of the world SHOULDN'T tank unless the rest of the world has been holding America to some special, ideal standard of economy.

[Elyasis]

If the American Economy tanks, the rest of the world SHOULDN'T tank unless the rest of the world has been holding America to some special, ideal standard of economy.

World economy, dude. Everyone's interconnected with trading goods. A lot of countries depend on America buying their crap.

[Safyre420]

World economy, dude. Everyone's interconnected with trading goods. A lot of countries depend on America buying their crap.

While that is true, the rest of the world SHOULDN'T depend on America for their economy. If they are that insecure about their own economy perhaps they should consider either fixing their own or joining forces with another country to bolster their economy, not RELY on the very incredibly fickle American Economy.

My original statement still holds.

[Nekowolf]

Sorry Ivan, consumer-targeted propaganda (aka. marketing), and capitalism, won't change. I'll be surprised if things even become regulated again after this.

It'll just be some bitching and moaning, a few laws will be passed, the end until the next one a few years down.

I vote we revive zombie Teddy Roosevelt to break up the too-big-too-fail, then revive zombie FDR to finish it up. Then we'll outfit zombie Teddy with robotics and send him to Afghanistan. He shall be our greatest war machine!

[Safyre420]

Sorry Ivan, consumer-targeted propaganda (aka. marketing), and capitalism, won't change. I'll be surprised if things even become regulated again after this.

It'll just be some bitching and moaning, a few laws will be passed, the end until the next one a few years down.

I vote we revive zombie Teddy Roosevelt to break up the too-big-too-fail, then revive zombie FDR to finish it up. Then we'll outfit zombie Teddy with robotics and send him to Afghanistan. He shall be our greatest war machine!

I vote we revive zombie jesus and get rid of all the annoying people. No offense meant to any christians, mainly ICad.

[Mistermook]

While that is true, the rest of the world SHOULDN'T depend on America for their economy.
That's just silly. It's not like economies exist in vacuums. We buy things from other places and other places buy things from us. The rest of the world can no more extricate themselves from our economy than they can remove themselves from ours. It wasn't as if globalization was a word invented to describe something that people had decided to do, it was something that was already happening, had happened already, that people needed to define so that they could start understanding the rules and implications of having a fast communicating marketplace where goods, employment, and financial markets were all responding to things all over the world faster than they ever did before. And make no bones about it, we had a global economy before - we just had an easier time with managing it in terms of local markets because things took longer to do and market forces were slower back before we had things like satellite communications and the internet.

It's not about "trust" really, it's about US market position and that's nothing the rest of the world could very well do much about without suddenly waking up rich one day. That might be an interesting premise for fiction, but it would be rather difficult to manage in the real world. The EU has been trying, but they've recklessly expanded themselves to include some stinkers too. China is trying to engage the US market position, but they're rolling over an awful lot of important things like the environment on their way to do it. Everyone else? They're really not in a position to make a serious play - not enough population, not enough intrinsic wealth, too many risk factors from politics.

So really, what you're left with is waiting for another large market upon which everyone will find themselves more or less at the mercies of, hoping that large markets completely dissolve (which would have some really powerful and scary implications politically and divorced entirely from economics), remove the speed of communication between markets (again, the only way this happens is a list of Very Bad Things), or working with what we've got and playing the complicated and delicate push-pull task of managing the existing situation until it transforms naturally again. It's not some simple situation where another country can go "Golly, I better not have anything to do with the US any longer!"

What happens in the US matters to everyone else in the world in the same way what happens in the rest of the world matters in the US, people might not understand that quite so definitely as they should, but global macroeconomics is like a loop of string where everyone on the planet has a tiny hand on the string with a force to apply onto it of virtual relative wealth. You can choose to not apply tensions bu not spending your finances, but no one ever releases the string because we're all simply too wrapped up in each other with a confusing dance of interactions that occur in markets, politics, trends, and the like.

[Mistermook]

As an aside, this is why I get frustrated with people who want macroeconomics to be simple like their own personal finances. Microeconomics is like plumbing, you keep your pipes in order and things work a certain way for most people. Macroeconomics is more like meteorology, except where a cloud can suddenly change course and decide that beanie babies are in this year. In macroeconomics people can make general observations and outline basic ideals, but barring crystal balls and Ouija boards it's really hard to put a mind to the future (or the past) and figure out how and why many billion people act the way they do in every facet of their life enough to make absolute economic predictions.

[Nekowolf]

Rather than an issue of global reliance on the US economy, instead, right now, what should be focused on is how a few corporations can devastate the world economy, e.g. Goldman Saches.

[Safyre420]

That's just silly.

Actually it isn't silly, it's simple logic. One economy SHOULDN'T rely on another economy to survive, if it is it is ultimately doomed to fail when the economy that they rely on fails. When the American Economy started falling the rest of the world's started falling, not of their own doing but because the American economy started falling. While it's alright to kind of rely on another economy, if you can't keep your economy afloat on your own, you shouldn't rely on the shoddiest economy in the world. Yes I did just say that the American economy is the shoddiest in the world. The American economy was built upon the backs of the working class, the economy ultimately failed because our government catered to the rich. They gave money to those that already had money and DIDN'T NEED IT while letting the working class flounder and drown in the mess that the RICH created while GIVING money to the rich to "save" the economy. We all see how well that worked out. It didn't help shit, the people that truly needed the money never got it. The trickle down effect doesn't work in this country, if you want to bolster the economy the bailouts should've went to the people not the corporations as the corporations would've eventually gotten their money if the people were given the money that THEY worked for.

[fakepeeps7]

Here in Canada, we were somewhat sheltered from the economic mess in the U.S. (I'm not sure of the exact reasons... I'm not an economist). We didn't have people losing their homes left, right, and centre, anyway. Our banks apparently didn't have as much trouble, either. But despite that, we are still tied into the U.S. economy. Aside from the U.S. being our major trading partner, its economy also seems to affect the value of our dollar; watching that value go up and down, when it has nothing to do with what we've done, gives me a sense of how intertwined the system is.

I guess, in a global economy, there are no real safe havens. But it seems unfair that one country could, in theory, be doing everything right and still get dragged down by another country that's doing it all wrong. (Just look at the mess caused by Greece and how it affects everyone else!)

[Vanito]

The middle way seems better long term. Social capitalism works better than the more extreme forms or capitalism on the longer term. Pure socialism does not work at all anymore.

Humans are not programmed that way in big anonymous societies. We aint live in small tribes anymore where socialism works better. If everyone knows eachother, good karma pays off more. As soon as groups get big, money is usefull as an exchange.

Many people mean well, some are greedy & don't care to exploit. That kind plays within the limits given, and some limits are needed for that kind. So giving people some limits is good, even if only to stop the 5% greedy/exploit/people and help the 10% who lose out to stop losing out more. Social capitalism makes not too many grow poor, and therefore pays off on the longer ter,.

The USA is an example of more capitalistic. The number of people living under the poverty line is already ridiculous and gets worse.Who dives under in the USA (loses job, house etc) doesnt gets out easily, so the line between the rich and poor gets bigger and bigger. That kills itself out on the long term.

The EU like done now was a bad idea. There is no EU patriotism, the way the EU joined is too much. Culturally its too different. Put that with the amount of poor countries joining one may wonder if it will make the economy stabler. Some countries itself are not even stable and they join already. Would have been better to send help, but not join.

[tjstreak]

Four years of George H.W. Bush turned me into a Democrat. Eight years of George W. Bush turned me into a Social Democrat.

What we have in the United States is not Capitalism. And it's not socialism, either. Instead, we have what is best described as Lemon Socialism, or Crony Capitalism. We have a right-wing nanny state which coddles the rich at the expense of everyone else.

Instead of looking at it as a choice between more government and less government, it really comes down to how the rules are written.

Take interest on credit cards. You or I cannot lend money out at 30% interest. However, if you are a nationally chartered bank or a payday lender, you can charge whatever interest you want. The rule: little guys cannot engage in usurious transactions; wealthy guys can.

If I want to go to Vegas and gamble money, I have to put up 100 cents on the dollar. If I am a bankster and I want to gamble, I put up 8 cents on every dollar gambled, and the remaining 92 cents is put up by the government. The rule: little guys have to gamble with their own money; wealthy guys get to gamble with the government's money.

Big banks borrow money from the Fed at zero percent interest. They then buy U.S. treasuries and other government securities for which they are paid interest. In other words, wealthy guys borrow money from the government at no cost, then lend it right back to the government and charge interest. Of course the government borrows the money from the wealthy guys, so it can lend it right back to the wealthy guys. The government will not give zero percent loans to the little guys.

Plus, the government offers all sorts of goodies to the wealthy and powerful. These include corporate organization, licensing, and patent and copyright protections.

The whole idea of capitalism is that you make money by providing value to other people. However, the people making money in our system are not providing value for anyone.

[kattenijin]

Now your turn. Do you prefer socialism or capitalism?

There have been times in US history where those pictures wouldn't have been so out of place. If McCain had somehow won the presidency, they're probably what you'd see today (that, and a lynch mob in front of the White House); so, capitalism isn't a panacea either. You need something that has aspects of both.

[tjstreak]

As I live in a post-communist country I have a lot to say about socialism in Poland. I did not experience communism in any form, but my parents do remember these times very well.

Unlike you, I actually lived under Communism. I was an exchange student at Leningrad State University in the former Soviet Union in 1978.

However, most of us can draw a distinction between Communism and Socialism. Communism in Eastern Europe was pretty miserable. But Socialism in places like the U.K., Germany, France, Sweden and Canada are not all that bad.

Similarly, Capitalism is not universally wonderful. Here is a little film about poverty in one of the mostcapitalist nations in the world, India: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UvYRpjz0no&feature=related Capitalism at its best?

If you want to see more about life in capitalist India, you might want to see the movie "Slumdog Millionaire."

Now were things better in Russia during the 1970s than they are in India today. I think the answer is an enthusiastic "Yes."

In fact, it was the failure of a free market system that lead to Socialism (and Communism). In the latter half of the 19th century, between 30 and 60 million people starved to death as a direct result of free market theories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts You literally had people starving to death on railroad tracks outside of granaries filled with grain. There was enough food for everyone, yet millions of people starved to death because of a rigid adherence to free market capitalism.

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has written about this tragedy.

[fakepeeps7]

However, most of us can draw a distinction between Communism and Socialism. Communism in Eastern Europe was pretty miserable. But Socialism in places like the U.K., Germany, France, Sweden and Canada are not all that bad.

Good point. I think a lot of people equate socialism and communism.

Socialism isn't such a bad thing, in moderation. My country is quite "socialist" in some respects... but I don't have to stand in line for toilet paper, I can freely move out of my country (provided another country will take me in), and I can open my own business if I want to.

It's amazing how much some people (often Americans) demonize "socialism"... while at the same time taking for granted their libraries, public schools, and emergency services.

[Nekowolf]

Let's get this right though; it's mostly the Right, the conservatives (or rather, the Republicans) who demonize socialism and equate it to Communism, Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, fascism, etc.

Just clearing that up. They're pretty much reverting back to McCarthyism >.> *coughGlennBeckcough*

[fakepeeps7]

Let's get this right though; it's mostly the Right, the conservatives (or rather, the Republicans) who demonize socialism and equate it to Communism, Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, fascism, etc.

How can one equate socialism with fascism? Aren't they on opposite ends of the spectrum?

[Nekowolf]

It doesn't make any sense, but they still equate them nonetheless. Like how they call Obama a socialist. Hardly.

[Purity4]

Good point. I think a lot of people equate socialism and communism.

Socialism isn't such a bad thing, in moderation. My country is quite "socialist" in some respects... but I don't have to stand in line for toilet paper, I can freely move out of my country (provided another country will take me in), and I can open my own business if I want to.

It's amazing how much some people (often Americans) demonize "socialism"... while at the same time taking for granted their libraries, public schools, and emergency services.

Yes, so true. I hear all the time people equating socialism with communism, enjoying their medicare and medicaid, yet saying there should be no welfare or socialized medicine. :blink:

[fakepeeps7]

So would you still like to live in a communist country where you are assigned one chocolate-like bar a month? :rofl:

Who said they would?

[Nekowolf]

All Communist are Socialist, but not all Socialist are Communist.

You can generalize Capitalism. You can generalize Socialism. But Communism is an aspect of Socialism; not the other way around. Communism is more specific than socialism, because it is an ideology covered by the umbrella term of socialism.

In other words; Socialism is more broad than Communism. You're mixing things up. It goes: Socialism > Communism, not Communism > Socialism.

[kiwi_tea]

I don't think we should be perpetuating the myth that Authoritarian dictatorships of the past that called themselves "Socialist" or "Communist" actually were either. There was a brief couple of years of transition towards Socialism in Russia, before Stalin and co killed all the socialists, but we just haven't seen Socialism tested or implemented at all.

Not to devalue the pain your family suffered Wojtek, but they suffered due to lack of democracy, due to Authoritarianism, nationalism, and insularity, not due to Communism. Communism is, almost by definition, democratic.

[kiwi_tea]

My point was, Wojtek, that you didn't compare Socialism with Capitalism. You compared an Authoritarian, Nationalist, Fascist regime that called itself 'Socialism' when it wasn't, with a Plutocratic Capitalism that pretends to be a democratic republic.

[kiwi_tea]

There aren't any Socialist countries. There was the beginnings of Socialism in Russia between 1918 and 1921, but Stalin leveraged his way into power following debates about the role of trade unions, and destroyed any such progression by ensuring all progressive elements were killed. Where Socialism might have been he set up an insular, Nationalistic regime, ensuring a climate of scarcity that - alongside his massacres - would kill and cause massive suffering. A coup like many others, they can happen as much under Capitalism as under Socialism (Fiji is a recent example of one under Capitalism, albeit without any confirmed killing).

There are capitalist countries with some social welfare policies - the welfare state - but this ought not be confused with Socialism. Socialism is, in it's most basic description, democratic control of the means of production by workers, with democratic control of the economy in the interests of human welfare.

[jooxis]

There aren't any Socialist countries.

Is Cuba more or less socialist? I thought it was a good example of one.

[tjstreak]

There aren't any Socialist countries....
There are capitalist countries with some social welfare policies - the welfare state - but this ought not be confused with Socialism. Socialism is, in it's most basic description, democratic control of the means of production by workers, with democratic control of the economy in the interests of human welfare.

What we have is a continuum. You still find small privately owned shops, restaurants, hotels and the like in the U.K., France and Germany. In fact, you probably are more likely to find a small privately owned shop in socialist Europe than in capitalist America.

Small business in American really cannot compete with heavily subsidized mega-businesses. The U.S. is filled with stories about how the likes of Walmart have driven small business owners out of business and have devastated downtown areas.

So, is an economy run by mega-corporations better than one run by the state. And is there any real difference? Is there any difference between economic decisions being made by a central planner in Moscow, as opposed to a buyer in Bentonville, AR?

Consider, in the U.S., corn is so heavily subsidized, that corn growers sell the corn for less than it costs to grow it. This has had all sorts of unintended consequences. For example, millions of corn farmer in Mexico were driven out of business because they could not compete with the cheap and heavily subsidized U.S. corn. So they crossed the border into the U.S. to take low paying jobs in places like meat packing plants. And now we complain about illegal immigrants.

You can go through the American economy sector by sector, and you will find that in most sectors, a few large corporations control most of the market. It is very hard to find or start a business where you are not forced to compete against very large and powerful corporate interests. These corporations continue to dominate because they receive generous government subsidies and because the "rules of the game" are changed so no one can compete with them.

[kiwi_tea]

tjstreak, I think you're misrepresenting the situation in Europe. Corporate control and plutocracy is as much a reality in the capitalist EU (there's nothing socialist about the EU) as it is in the US. That's one of the reasons we're seeing the protests in Greece right now, or the routine student protests in France. Because at any point when the economy worsens, government and business legislate to make it easier for businesses to profit in the longer term, at the cost of working class quality of life. Plenty of EU countries subsidise their industries, and I'm skeptical as to how much easier it really is for small businesses in the EU. A few large companies control most of the market in the EU as well. Same goes for Australasia. I imagine the same goes for Asia proper.

Protectionist subsidies like the US farming subsidies do make matters worse, but lack of competition is the ultimate goal for any large capitalist structure. Internationally, it becomes the norm. Sure, regulating agencies can provide some safeguards against monopoly, but not against international price-fixing and cartels. Large business is pretty much free to rort consumers on a global (and often national) scale, because it's nearly impossible for authorities to get cooperating witnesses (why would they cooperate when they're rich and cooperating would put them in prison - Mark Whitacre is one of the only examples).

jooxis

Cuba is a sort of semi-Stalinist nation embedded into a wider barter-trade economy in the Americas. Heavily Nationalistic, it does have good social welfare compared with somewhere like the US, but it's Stalinistic policy of 'socialism in one country' (something that in the long term is impossible), mean it's gradually being forced to implement austerity measures on an already deprived population. Its regime is militant and undemocratic, and the working class are basically bystanders rather that active participants, so it was never a workers' state: Never Socialism. It's closer to a friendly Fascism than to Socialism.

[tjstreak]

That's one of the reasons we're seeing the protests in Greece right now, or the routine student protests in France.

The Greeks are facing a really nasty end result here: wages in Greece will eventually be 20% to 30% less than in Germany. The government is being forced to cut public benefits because public spending (even without the debt service) is outstripping public revenues, and Greece is looking at sovereign default as a result.

As for the French, I guess they don't need a reason to go en grève.

Besides, compared to the U.S., most of Europe is socialist.

Most of this talk of socialism is coming from the American right wing. They claim that Obama is a socialist, which must be bad. The simple truth is that just about every major European political party, including the Conservatives in the U.K. are to the left of the Democratic party in the U.S.

[kiwi_tea]

The simple truth is that just about every major European political party, including the Conservatives in the U.K. are to the left of the Democratic party in the U.S.

That's true, but I think you're buying into an ahistorical use of the term 'Socialism'. There's nothing Socialist about Europe.

[tjstreak]

I consider myself to be a Social Democrat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy It means that I probably would find myself agreeing with the Social Democrats in Germany or the Labour Party in Britain a good deal of the time. Now this is very different from the Bolshevik viewpoint, and most Bolsheviks do not consider Social Democrats to be socialists. Fine.

Basically, Social Democrats believe:

* A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs of education, universal health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.
* An extensive system of social security, with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
* Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.
* Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.
* A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
* A secular and a socially progressive policy.
* Immigration and multiculturalism.
* Youth rights and lowering the voting age.
* Fair trade over free trade.
* A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
* Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

I am in agreement with every one of these points. Specifically, I would like to see the top marginal income tax rate return to where it was under President Eisenhower (90%) Does this make me a socialist, or a capitalist?

[smulan]

"This debate topic is about Capitalism and Socialism and how they are implemented in today's societies".

Implemented? Capitalism and Socialism?

I prefer to call it casino economy and globalization ie neoliberalism for that is precisely what globalization means- the quest of neoliberal global dominance-. Divide and rule. Neoliberalism/ globalization dictate our politicians' proposals and consequently our own terms.

[Synthesis]

Now your turn. Do you prefer socialism or capitalism?

Wojtek, first off, I think most people would appreciate that living in a state of foreign national domination as being primarily, if not overwhelmingly negative.

Also, your evidence is, well, based primarily on the anecdotal. That doesn't make it inaccurate at all, but it does mean it's as topical as another anecdotal view. I'll give you one. though I warn you, it is pretty long:

For example, I was born in Taiwan. I served in the Armed Forces there as well. As you might (or might not know), Taiwan spent a half-century, between 1946 and 1996 (more or less depending on one's political views) as a capitalist police state. The reason was to ensure that the island, which was host to the defeated of the Chinese Revolution, the KMT, would be ready to retake China when the time was right. Thankfully, that ended in the 1990s, when the political establishment opened up.

As I had the chance to live in a (mostly) post-police state Taiwan, I have a lot to say about capitalist dictatorship in Taiwan. I did experience the police state first hand, having seen (and known) people being arrested for objecting to the state's economic practices, and having been drafted into the armed forces. Firstly, I'd like to start off with some pictures:

http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID1969/slideshows/090623115307228_massacre.jpg

These people are protesters to the new economic policies. Many were later arrested because they were involved in the early trade unions and cooperative leagues (or suspected of). There were riots later, but they declined, because many of the prior rioters did not come back (because of the 228 Incident).

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/10/10/world/taiwan.650.22.jpg

A recent military parade. No, it's not Russia. This is the Armed Forces of the Republic of China. During the Cold War, Taiwan had a huge military force for such a small resident population. It is still very huge. It's where most of the wealth generated by Taiwan's businesses--which were owned by wealthy businessmen who also happened to make of the General Staff--went too, if it did not go into the KMT (I will address that later). I served in there, because, like many countries, we use a system of conscription. I'm actually lucky--the Armed Forces, of course, have never fought China, but they have become very good at fighting and arresting the Taiwanese, which is much less dangerous. Coincidentally, when in the 1950s food was scarce, the army legally acquired food reserves to ensure that the army was well-fed. paying out of their own pocket. The rest of the population, incidentally, starved.

Taiwan is not a very big country. At least 100,000 people (probably more like 150,000, it is not known exactly) were killed or imprisoned during the White Terror, primarily for being in the way of "economic progress" or being "dangerous leftists". Primarily those whose families were living there prior to the end of the Chinese Civil War, and aborigines. The arrests declined in the 1980s, though I still knew people (including some of my neighbors).

Here are some other aspects of the capitalist police state:

Here is an illustration (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tyTkKBwFho8/SsHrGHTDI0I/AAAAAAAABdk/kTwYAg8cNzY/s1600-h/Taipei+2+035.jpg) that depicts what happened to some of the "enemies of freedom and progress" or "Red sympathizers". Only recently has it become legal to discuss--or artistically depict--what happened during the White Terror. Then again, it was done--according to the people who perpetrated it--to ensure the country's economic viability. Was it worth it?

This is the old Headquarters of the KMT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KMT_Headquarters,_Taipei.JPG), the only acceptable party in Capitalist Taiwan for most of its history. Not too shabby, is it? Did you know it was became the richest political party in the world, with assets estimated at as much as $10 billion US in the 1980s? That is wealthier than both the Republicans and Democrats in the United States! Why? Taiwan is certainly not the richest country in the world, nor does it have the highest standard of living. It's because the large majority of Taiwan's businesses, which flourished during the Asian Boom of the 1970s and 1980s, were owned by a small number of very intelligent businessmen, who were more than willing to dominant the Legislative Yuan, our Parliament. According to Wikipedia, they "amassed a vast business empire of banks, investment companies, petrochemical firms, and television and radio stations." Taiwanese Congressmen were among the top 0.1% wealthiest men in the country.

Taiwan was turned into an economic power house--at the cost of a few hundred thousand dead, imprisoned, or otherwise "treasonous" actual Taiwanese people. And most of that wealth belonged, legally, to the political party. As they say, it takes money to make money.

Now it's your turn. Do you prefer to live in a capitalist state? Or not?

(I hope the point I was trying to demonstrate is made clear. If not, I'll come right out and say it: just as there are a wide variety of socialist states, so are there a wide variety of capitalist ones. As was demonstrated throughout East Asia--Taiwan is not the lone example--after the Second World War, capitalism dictatorships exist, and they are not pleasant.)

[tflst5]

This is about the easiest decision i ever had to make.

Capitalism.. 100% and more.


Entrepreneurs are the key to a society's growth, innovation, and evolution. People who create new things, find better ways of doing old things. In a true capitalist society these people are heavily rewarded and encouraged. These people create massive wealth and opportunity for others in the society through their ingenuity. Think about some of the great inventions of the last 2 centuries - television, radio, the internet, the cell phone - these were not invented and marketed for free. Someone did it because they wanted to make money. And we sure are glad they did.

Socialism is the act of taking wealth and ability from these people by force. It is the belief that wealth is static, and must be divided equally among the populace, like a giant piece of pie you carve up for desert. What happens when you start to implement this is you begin losing your creativity and innovation. It doesn't matter if its socialism implemented honestly or dishonestly, it has the same effect. Nobody wants to live in Cuba or North Korea - for good reason. That pie your carving up gets smaller and smaller.

Once people start realizing that they don't need to work hard to achieve success, then they'll stop working. Once people realize they don't need to pay off their loans, they'll stop paying them. As this slope continues, the hands of the socialist government must tighten their grip to maintain control. More regulation, more laws, and more entitlements for the democracies to keep the politicians in power. Eventually the society as a whole collapses or becomes absolutely dependent on another society- as in Greece today. Socialism is thus defined as the gradual decline of a society into first poverty, then famine, and eventually war. We've seen it all before, and we'll see it all again.

The argument socialists use to get their foot in the door is that the greedy entrepreneurs are stealing your money. This is about the most dishonest and tired message, but yet you'll hear it from all corners of life and hear it from the most highly regarded "intellectuals". As far as i know Bill Gates never stole anything from me when he created Windows. And to date i believe hes done more good with his private charities then entire governments have done with their forced charity. Walmart is another example. Here is a company that rose to power by designing a highly efficient means to get products to market. This allowed them to offer consumers excellent prices. The poorest in society were able to obtain products they weren't able to before. Walmart has done more good for the poor then the United States government. And before you say social security - let me say this - if you had all that social security money you'd been putting in and had invested in Walmart stock - you'd be retiring a little early.

In the end socialism is a failure. It was an idealist idea that failed in practice. Our country has lived it and we really need to move on. The 20th century should have been a warning sign that this path should best be avoided. Unfortunately i think we will need even more convincing.

[tflst5]

Now it's your turn. Do you prefer to live in a capitalist state? Or not?



Capitalism is unsuccessful for two reasons mainly:

1. Businesses are allowed to develop monopolies and destroy competition. Eventually they'll grow so large as to outgrow their countries governments. At that point you can't really consider this a capitalist state any more.
2. Businesses are not allowed to fail. Governments bailing out or taking control of businesses is another way for the system to fail.
A business failing opens up opportunity for others to rise.

[kiwi_tea]

Capitalism is unsuccessful for two reasons mainly:

I'd add to that the assumption under capitalism - even welfare states - that the necessities for a tolerable quality of life are not fundamental human rights.

2. Businesses are not allowed to fail. Governments bailing out or taking control of businesses is another way for the system to fail.
A business failing opens up opportunity for others to rise.
Except that capitalism has always, since its origins, thrived on ever deepening recessions and depressions that hit the working class majority, but not really the capital holders. The bailout was a disaster for that very reason - tax money thrown at a problem, utterly draining the government's funds, and all of it now in private pockets, without changing the fundamental contradictions of the system that cause a near collapse every few decades. The money won't be there next time this happens at this rate. And it will happen again, and again, killing thousands directly (as this recession has) and hundreds of thousands indirectly. Leaving many more in dire situations. Any genuine public uprising will swiftly be crushed, if not by the government directly, then by private outfits that have an interest in preserving capitalism. Well, at least that's what history suggests. It's happened so many times before.

[Nekowolf]

@tflst5

Ah, finally. Nice to see this thread back. Now...

You are so freaking wrong.

100% Capitalism would be a complete disaster. Let's break it down to something simple; Wal-Mart. If you want a true 100% absolutely no-socialism nation, it would be like Wal-Mart vs. small stores but expanded. Entrepreneurs would struggle tooth and nail, because the larger corporations can sell merchandise at reduces prices due to an expanded quantity. You would get exactly what you said makes capitalism fail.

Anyhow, that stuff was not invented for money! They were invented for technological revolution! For functionality! To make something better than we have now! The greatest inventions of history were made for these reasons; sure, perhaps some thought they could sell it, but I don't think that was ever a primary reason to invent.

Anyhow, your idea of socialism is a lie. It's a perpetuated misconception by the opponents of socialism. What you are saying is completely bullshit. Wealth is not static. You can still be wealthy. However, if you have more wealth, you will pay more because it is a benefit to the populous. The intention is not to bankrupt anyone. It's a matter of responsibility. There are people who are struggling to stay in their homes in a gang-ridden drug-infested slum districts, who can barely afford the essentials they need, while there are people buying god damn private islands. If you want more wealth, then you better take up more responsibility, because while you are living in a nation, you are a part of that nation, just as much as those struggling people. It is about making life better for everyone.

Losing creativity and innovation? No, bullshit. We're losing creativity and innovation here in the United States, because of the sheer, enormous cost of college education. I'm taking one class a semester at a community college, and it's cost over $300! FOR ONE CLASS! AND THAT'S CHEAP! There are some people paying over $1,000 a semester! People are paying off their college loans for YEARS AND YEARS! We are losing creativity and innovation because these tuitions continue to rise and more and more people cannot afford it! In Denmark, college and university is not only free, but they pay you to further your education! If you saw that kind of system here, sure, it would be expensive as hell but everyone in our nation could have access to college education.

Cuba and North Korea are NOT Socialist. They are dictatorships, they are Authoritarian; they are Socialist, Communist, Democratic, in name only. They're about as socialist as I am conservative.

Next, they'll become lazy? Most of the funding from socialist countries come from taxation. That means the people still have to pay taxes. You can't pay taxes if you're not working! Lazy my ass! And if they're unemployed, you can cut them a break for a little while, sure. But here's a thought; if they can't find a job within an allotted time limit, then a job is found for them. This idea that socialism leads to national laziness is just ludicrous. But yes, there MUST be more regulation. Firstly, regulation does not equal control. If you want no regulation, just take a look at British Petroleum and what they have fucking done to the Gulf of Mexico. Just take a look at the financial industry like Goldman Sachs. Just look at the lead-tainted products we have shipped in from China. Just look at the Industrial Revolution. That is what we have without any regulation, without laws. Yes, there can be too much regulation, of course. There must be a balance. But first and foremost, our people, our economy, our resources, must be protected FROM these industries; not the other way around.

Now perhaps a poorly knowledged Socialist might make an argument on that. But a more education Socialist like myself can find other things to argue on. Just as how you are arguing the tired and untrue argument of what Socialism actually is about. And stocks. STOCKS? That's your answer to Social Security? Just ask those who had stock in the finance industry and lost almost ALL their money.

Stocks are unreliable. They fluctuate, they go up and down. They are unstable; you could be sitting on a fortune one week then become dirt poor in another. Social Security is a great idea; even the Teabaggers don't want their Social Security to be touched, just like their Medicare; both socialist programs. The problem with both of these is they were somewhat poorly executed and maintained. But they can work. Even poorly executed and maintained, they have done a great help to those they have helped; if they were to be reformed to be much better, the benefits could be wonderful.

Lastly, socialism is not a failed idea. You find one thing wrong with a socialist nation, I bet I can find the equivalent in a capitalist nation. The idea that it's a "failure" is nothing but a crock. What we need is a balanced nation; both embracing capitalist and socialist ideas. They are not counter to each other, not entirely. They can be made to work with each other.

[fragglerocks]

@tflst5

Ah, finally. Nice to see this thread back. Now...

You are so freaking wrong.

100% Capitalism would be a complete disaster. Let's break it down to something simple; Wal-Mart. If you want a true 100% absolutely no-socialism nation, it would be like Wal-Mart vs. small stores but expanded. Entrepreneurs would struggle tooth and nail, because the larger corporations can sell merchandise at reduces prices due to an expanded quantity. You would get exactly what you said makes capitalism fail.

Anyhow, that stuff was not invented for money! They were invented for technological revolution! For functionality! To make something better than we have now! The greatest inventions of history were made for these reasons; sure, perhaps some thought they could sell it, but I don't think that was ever a primary reason to invent.

Anyhow, your idea of socialism is a lie. It's a perpetuated misconception by the opponents of socialism. What you are saying is completely bullshit. Wealth is not static. You can still be wealthy. However, if you have more wealth, you will pay more because it is a benefit to the populous. The intention is not to bankrupt anyone. It's a matter of responsibility. There are people who are struggling to stay in their homes in a gang-ridden drug-infested slum districts, who can barely afford the essentials they need, while there are people buying god damn private islands. If you want more wealth, then you better take up more responsibility, because while you are living in a nation, you are a part of that nation, just as much as those struggling people. It is about making life better for everyone.

Losing creativity and innovation? No, bullshit. We're losing creativity and innovation here in the United States, because of the sheer, enormous cost of college education. I'm taking one class a semester at a community college, and it's cost over $300! FOR ONE CLASS! AND THAT'S CHEAP! There are some people paying over $1,000 a semester! People are paying off their college loans for YEARS AND YEARS! We are losing creativity and innovation because these intuitions continue to rise and more and more people cannot afford it! In Denmark, college and university is not only free, but they pay you to further your education! If you saw that kind of system here, sure, it would be expensive as hell but everyone in our nation could have access to college education.

Cuba and North Korea are NOT Socialist. They are dictatorships, they are Authoritarian; they are Socialist, Communist, Democratic, in name only. They're about as socialist as I am conservative.

Next, they'll become lazy? Most of the funding from socialist countries come from taxation. That means the people still have to pay taxes. You can't pay taxes if you're not working! Lazy my ass! And if they're unemployed, you can cut them a break for a little while, sure. But here's a thought; if they can't find a job within an allotted time limit, then a job is found for them. This idea that socialism leads to national laziness is just ludicrous. But yes, there MUST be more regulation. Firstly, regulation does not equal control. If you want no regulation, just take a look at British Petroleum and what they have fucking done to the Gulf of Mexico. Just take a look at the financial industry like Goldman Sachs. Just look at the lead-tainted products we have shipped in from China. Just look at the Industrial Revolution. That is what we have without any regulation, without laws. Yes, there can be too much regulation, of course. There must be a balance. But first and foremost, our people, our economy, our resources, must be protected FROM these industries; not the other way around.

Now perhaps a poorly knowledged Socialist might make an argument on that. But a more education Socialist like myself can find other things to argue on. Just as how you are arguing the tired and untrue argument of what Socialism actually is about. And stocks. STOCKS? That's your answer to Social Security? Just ask those who had stock in the finance industry and lost almost ALL their money.

Stocks are unreliable. They fluctuate, they go up and down. They are unstable; you could be sitting on a fortune one week then become dirt poor in another. Social Security is a great idea; even the Teabaggers don't want their Social Security to be touched, just like their Medicare; both socialist programs. The problem with both of these is they were somewhat poorly executed and maintained. But they can work. Even poorly executed and maintained, they have done a great help to those they have helped; if they were to be reformed to be much better, the benefits could be wonderful.

Lastly, socialism is not a failed idea. You find one thing wrong with a socialist nation, I bet I can find the equivalent in a capitalist nation. The idea that it's a "failure" is nothing but a crock. What we need is a balanced nation; both embracing capitalist and socialist ideas. They are not counter to each other, not entirely. They can be made to work with each other.

Re-quoted just because this post was so freakin' awesome!

About student loans...my father is 52 and dying of cancer. He is receiving his SS benefits next month. Out of the blue, he's got a pay in full notice on the remaining balance of his college loan he got when he was 18. Because they probably figure he isn't going to be around much longer, and even though they sucked away part of his income every month of his life, they have to get as much $$$ now as they possibly can. It's really sad.

[Nekowolf]

That really sucks, Fraggle. Really sucks. My sympathies to your father and family.

But yeah, that's exactly my point. I would love to take more classes, but the stuff I'm interested in, you just usually don't find, so I'd have to go to, uh, maybe special or bigger schools, which usually cost quite a bit more. There is no way I can afford that. And I know I'm not the only one.

We're talking maybe hundreds of thousands of people who either can't afford college or are going to have to sacrifice future financial security just for that education.

That's is just not right, especially for a country that's supposed to be so "great" as ours.

[fakepeeps7]

Don't some European countries have free post-secondary education? That would be so awesome.

But it's probably considered "socialist", so I wouldn't hold my breath. (Here in "socialist" Canada, college and university are partially subsidized... but you can still end up with a whole whack of student loans if you're in school for a while.)

[Nekowolf]

Well like I said, in Denmark, if you are a citizen, college and university education (I dunno if it's only tuition or not) is, I think, fully subsidized. In fact, you get paid to go to college or university. You get money for it. It's not a huge check or anything, but still, it's something.

[grumpy_otter]

Well like I said, in Denmark, if you are a citizen, college and university education (I dunno if it's only tuition or not) is, I think, fully subsidized. In fact, you get paid to go to college or university. You get money for it. It's not a huge check or anything, but still, it's something.

I think that's true--but you have to QUALIFY to get in. In other words, the country invests money in educating the best and the brightest, instead of letting capitalism rule the system. (Which means that lots of rich morons go to Harvard, and not-so-rich morons who think education is the only answer wind up with 100K in student loans and a degree in history)

I should clarify that the latter one is me.

[fragglerocks]

That really sucks, Fraggle. Really sucks. My sympathies to your father and family.

But yeah, that's exactly my point. I would love to take more classes, but the stuff I'm interested in, you just usually don't find, so I'd have to go to, uh, maybe special or bigger schools, which usually cost quite a bit more. There is no way I can afford that. And I know I'm not the only one.

We're talking maybe hundreds of thousands of people who either can't afford college or are going to have to sacrifice future financial security just for that education.

That's is just not right, especially for a country that's supposed to be so "great" as ours.


Thank you and I appreciate that. :)

I will say that even though the government is less than helpful in the long term of education, they helped me quite a bit.

Single parents receiving TANF (in MO at least) qualify to have up to one year of trade school covered by the work program. I would be working fast food the rest of my life if it weren't for this fantastic opportunity. It's not a lot, but it's something.

[Nekowolf]

I'll ask my Danish friend next time I can get a hold of her.

Anyhow, to Fraggle, the problem isn't that it helps, because of course there is help. Rather, we could do so much more. I think we should have a fully subsidized college/university tuition (at least) system, or at the very least, partially subsidized.

I guess I hate America for being Socialist :P I'll destroy our country with evil education-for-all!

[Synaesthesia]

Don't know if you guys have heard of C.S. Lewis, but he's an excellent writer and has some interesting things to say about government and democracy (which imo, goes hand in hand with socialism; about half way down the page he starts talking about it) http://screwtapeblogs.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/screwtape-proposes-a-toast/

[Vanito]

The best thing about education-for-all is that people can do a level of education based on their intelligence (and un-lazyness) and not mostly based on the wealth of their parents.

[Synthesis]

Capitalism is unsuccessful for two reasons mainly:

1. Businesses are allowed to develop monopolies and destroy competition. Eventually they'll grow so large as to outgrow their countries governments. At that point you can't really consider this a capitalist state any more.
2. Businesses are not allowed to fail. Governments bailing out or taking control of businesses is another way for the system to fail.
A business failing opens up opportunity for others to rise.

In other words, capitalism is unsuccessful because businesses are...and this comes as a shock to some people...interested more in their own success than the business community at large and society as a whole. And sometimes, not always, but sometimes, this has negative repercussions.

By your own definition, the capitalist dictatorship in Taiwan has done nothing wrong.

1. No business was larger than the state itself. Why? Because of the huge military force they helped build and purchase, and the government needed to maintain it, was worth more collectively than they were individually. Though why a capitalist state stops magically being a capitalist state just because of a shrinking state--everything else remaining the same--you haven't said.

2. Businesses were allowed to fail all the time. And they did. Their chairmen and presidents were even, on occasion, prosecuted and shamed publicly.

And yet, somehow, a totally successful capitalist system--one that produced an incredibly wealthy political leadership who happened to own all the businesses, many of which are still around--created an incredibly oppressive government that lasted for the longest period of marital law in human history.

There are no magic rules that promise capitalist prosperity anywhere you go. To think there are basically makes one like Francis Fukuyama--namely, a fool.

And if a a capitalist dictatorship that arrests or kills more than a hundred thousand people in a country of a few million is just fine so long as it follows a few arbitrary rules, capitalism itself can go to hell. Even Adam Smith, considered one of the fathers of capitalism, knew that capitalism was no protection against immoral, corrupt capitalists.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

Fraggle, it's really sad what's happening what your father--and perhaps even sadder that your situation is probably entirely too common in this country--and I offer you my condolences. My father came to the United States to retire, I'm fortunate that he's been able to keep his health.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

http://loscuatroojos.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/capitalism.jpg

[davidmorgan744]

I think the firm should not completely by the workers there will be equal partnership among the workers and the owners. This combination is perfect for the smooth running of company without any disputes and if occur can be solved out easily with the discussions.

[Oaktree]

The reason why there are typically levels of management in a company is precisely because things will run less smoothly. Any petty complaint that a worker has would be elevated to the status of a serious problem. Also, people don't typically agree 100% on anything, so having a total democracy in corporate management leads to massive time sinks and power struggles.

[kiwi_tea]

Management would still exist under socialism. How could it not? Projects benefit from a central pivot. The difference would be that the company would be democractic, that management would be appointed by democratic means, and that management wouldn't be paid many times a better wage than other workers. Oh, and management would be interested in a good workplace and good produce, instead of being interested more than anything else in providing good returns to shareholders.

Socialism does not mean the end of representative democracy, and I'm sure many workplaces would opt for that.

As to time sinks and power struggles. Competition would still exist. If a workers cooperative can't get its act together, it will fail. Other cooperatives will take all its work. And no-one will die or starve for having failed because, outside of a climate of scarcity, socialists assume food, board, and education to be fundamental human rights. Under capitalism not starving is a privilege.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

As to time sinks and power struggles. Competition would still exist. If a workers cooperative can't get its act together, it will fail. Other cooperatives will take all its work. And no-one will die or starve for having failed because, outside of a climate of scarcity, socialists assume food, board, and education to be fundamental human rights. Under capitalism not starving is a privilege.

this, made my day, and is absolutely true. <3

[grumpy_otter]

While in grad school, I worked as a waitress in a VERY exclusive retirement community. It occurred to me that if I worked there my whole life, I would NEVER be able to afford to live there--and I think there is something wrong with that. Or places like Martha's Vineyard and Aspen--people who work there can't afford to live there.

I'm definitely a fan of workers "controlling the means of production."

Some people, because they value things other than money, are just not suited to competing in a capitalist society. But depending on the accident of their birthplace, they are forced to do so, nevertheless. And some people ARE suited to a capitalist society. It would be nice if we could divide them up.

[Vanito]

FABLE 1) Social capitamism does not kill businesses. It leaves plenty enough space for business to want to become rich and work. Companies still strive to earn MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. They however are considered to play within tighter rules, treat their employees better, cheat less, and take their responsibilities. The system does more to prevent companies from sucking out society in a bad way for their own gain. Companies need some limits not to go destructive on society, but also need to still have enough room to still play the game. In social capitalism reality proves there still is enough space, with a nicer society for everyone.

FABLE 2) It does not kill the drive for people to want to HAVE a job. People still go for jobs and still work in social capitalism. The large fat majority of people is not on welfare. Rich people in the very socialist-capitalist Holland still work hard to get MORE rich, even though they pay more tax. Their drive is not limited by our socio-capitalist tax system.
In a social capitalist country not like you can sit on your lazy ass and have a great life if you dont do anything in social capitalism. The system is strong enough to help you out if you end up in trouble, but its not a spot you wanna stay in. (its not candy land.. its in peoples genes not to want to be the POOREST SUCKERS of society)

If you happen to think social capitalism is destructive for societies, you are living in a politician-manipulated-FABLE. There are quite a lot of countries which do very well on the system. And its not the same as communism.. come on.. you dont seem to have a clue what social-capitalism really is about.

Do a reality check, and take a look at many european countries. Dont fall for fear-tactic-based political speech like many "Socialist!!! Communist!!"-yellers do, without checking if what they say is true or manipulation. What politicians say is not nessecarily true, so take a look yourself to verify what they say. It never hurts to look at things for yourself and form your own opinion.