Capitalism Vs. Socialism

TheAbsurdist: Which political philosophy do you see as more fit for our present world between these (essentially) binary opposites, and why?

Karma: Like most of the planet, I think we need a blend of both. The incentive of Capitalism with it's reward for risk provides motivation. The safety net of Socialism ensures that none are left behind.
I think the problems come with absolutism on either end. The idea that the Free Market is the best solution for any problem is absurd. The idea that government or collective ownership of all businesses is the most effective and equitable mode of operation is laughable.
I think governments need to operate essential services and industries and should closely regulate private businesses.

john1576: We have already seen the two examples in practice. People in Eastern Europe found the Western lifestyle exciting and glamorous, they abandoned Socialism and adopted Capitalism. However they did not realise that in Consumer Societies there is little money available to Governments to fund Public Services, and there is also no guarantee that you can be a member of the section of Society that enjoy 'the American Dream'. Americans are also finding that 'Capitalism with the Gloves off' is often not motivated by socially responsible ideals, you simply have powerful Lobby Groups defending their own Turf, even when that freedom to do so has a negative effect on the rest of Society.

Asia91: I think none with these systems isn't good because capitalism divides sociaty on the class and Socialism was in Poland for a long time in different forms and that only killed lots of people.

sabrinalilypup: Nothing to see here. Post deleted by user.

davidk14: Asia91....You can go onto the web and type in Capitalism and Socialism go to different websites. Many web-sites lean ether left or right. You need to decide for yourself without getting information from either left or right leaning people on Wire. Why? Compare Sab's posting to mine. I dont use Wikipedia.

I prefer to use dictioary.com because it shows you who authored the description.

so·cial·ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved



Capitalism definition
n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Investopedia Commentary

In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated. The U.S. is a capitalistic system.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

sabrinalilypup: Nothing to see here. Post deleted by user.

davidk14: Sab: Sorry folks, I have to delete my earlier post.

Me: You really mean it was deleted because if was full of mis-directions? Why would you if it was accurate?

Sab: My post was meant for the intellectuals I would like to hear from...not from a grade schooler level point of view.

Me: Thats the problem with "intellectuals". They only want to talk their own kind, sort of a discrimatory point of view looking down on the people that walk the walk, not talk the talk like intellectuals, especially liberal intellectuals.

Sab: I would like to join in this argument but I think its best that you listen to your own wisdom....I would love to debate in a healthy environment where a protocol is observed.

Me: Oh now..rules? You mean free speech is no longer acceptable on wire? Who decides these rules? You? Like to control your enviornment do you and the environment of others.

Sab: I was once the captain of my debate team, I enjoy the challenge because you have got to do your homework.

Me: Oh now you are going to do homewok yet when I did mine, you just were to say the least, very unfriendly. Great leadership skills you have.

Sab: And in doing so, I too amaze myself with all the information I gathered to get ready for the debate.

Me: And what debate are you now speaking of?

Sab: I learn much by doing so. There is also what they call a protocol in every arguments. This is one factor that controls a healthy debate.

Me: Again, who determines the rules? You? Is there a rule book you go by or just wing it as you go?

Sab: If this factor is absent, debate or argument can be infinite, like say, going around in circle without an ending.

Sab: Compromise is a word that can end a debate or argument.

Me: You mean..if you say we get our heat from the sun, and I say the truth that you are correct, you win the debate. Life is not about who wins or loses, life is about the truth, respect and being honest, not who wins. I wont lie to win.

Sab: It is not a sign of who is right or who is wrong, it is parting gesture to maintain a friendship under a disagreement.

David: You dont care about truth? See thats the problem. Debate this, doesnt matter what the truth is, doesnt matter not to stand up for what is right, its just ok to just to be mediocre.

Sab: In every argument it is not to prove you are better than the other.

Me: I agree

Sab: It is picking up the good and discarding the bad ones.

David: All topics should be on the table and not discard anything. If its bad, then so be it.

Sab: That is why I love debates, because I learn so much of things I have no knowledge of, but if you can not tell me any different than what I already know...I am wasting my time.

Me: So you are closed minded to the possibility to have possibilities and learn something that you did not "prepare" for? That it is a waste of your time to perhaps learn something new? Life is not a debate and nor is wire.

Perhaps you should set up a Debating Forum where debating is where you would be much happier.

sabrinalilypup: Nothing to see here. Post deleted by user.

TheAbsurdist: Stick to the discussion, thank you.

Outbackjack: I wholeheartedly agree with Karmas statements.

We have learnt the lessons of 1917 and what that led to but have we really learned the lessons of 1929 and 2008?

The Capitalist media would like us to carry on as if the 2008 GFC never happened.

john1576: Jack. One of the biggest problems is that some situations have gone on for so long and so often people accept them as 'Normal'. I tried to explain to David that he was correct in saying the great leap forward in China may have been a mistake, but would he not concede that the hardships inflicted on millions of Americans by 'Reaganomics' was also unacceptable, he thought that was ridiculous.

davidk14: John, I disagree. You cant compare the death of 10's of millions of Chinese under Mao to the hardships of Americans under Reagan or any American president. When the outcome of Reagan politics did not cause the death of 10's of millions of Americans as with Mao's politics, there's just no way to validate the comparison.

davidk14: Outback, I agree with you're statement "The Capitalist media would like us to carry on as if the 2008 GFC never happened." Now hang on, except for Fox News. They have been consistent in bashing the liberal media especially for not covering the 2008 GFC.

writerboy: There is no reason why Capitalism and Socialism cannot co-exist. I don't know why but some people, particularly Americans, seem to think of Socialism as being best represented by Fidel Castro and Chairman Mao. They weren't Socialists, they were Communists. But for some reason, Socialism is a big boogeyman to Americans.

Sweden is Socialist. In fact, most of Europe is run by Socialist governments, including the UK. Some are competent, some less so. None are particularly poverty stricken. It's really a tradeoff. You pay higher taxes, but you live in a better society. And yes, it is better. You won't find the kind of slums and poverty in Sweden as you will in the US. And the average Swedish worker (you could say the same for much of Europe) gets eight or more weeks of paid vacation every year. They get more statuatory holidays, better benefits, better protections, and yet still have higher productivity. On the other hand, you won't find legions of super rich like you have in the US. But unless you think you honestly have a chance of being in that category why oppose Socialism?

davidk14: Today, Wednesday, April 28th, 2010
Moody's Investors Service, the world’s most respected and widely utilized sources for credit ratings, research and risk analysis by 100 nations, downgraded Greece, Portugal and Spains credit rating to Junk Bond rating. More EU countries are forecasted to follow. The WB is discussing a bailout for Greece that may reach $170 Billion dollars. Not good. America is still has a AAA credit rating even though it owes over $14 trillion dollars and current forecast shows it going up to $20 trillion in just a few years which will also place the US credit rating to junk. Wonder what is causing that.

writerboy: Credit ratings are all very well and good, but that's dross to the ordinary citizen. And the fact is the ordinary citizen leads a happier life with less stress, more time off for his family, better benefits, less crime, poverty, etc. in Europe than in the US. And he is more productive. Yeah, some European governments have been irresponsible. That's particularly so where there are constant minority governments because everyone is always making deals. But the life of the average German or Frenchman or Finnish guy is simply better than that of the average American in many ways. So all I'm really saying is this fear of Socialism is silly. Democratic governments can do stupid economic things with or without it. Just ask George Bush.

john1576: David. You keep using Europe as your example of failed liberalism. There is an irony in what you are saying. The most Right Wing and conservative country in Europe is Britain, and Britain is in the most debt, has the worst standard of living, and lowest wages of most of the rest of the E.U. Conservatism is blossoming here David?

davidk14: Has Moody's lowered the credit rating for Britain to junk credit? No. Has Moody's lowered the credit rating of the US to junk credit yet? No. Not saying that we are not far behind but many more EU countries are going into default very shortly. Iceland and Greece's economies completely collapsed and Portugal and Spain are there as well. Dont minimize the negative effect on economies with socialist societies. Just take at real close look at the riots in Iceland and Greece because of their defaults.

Outbackjack: Before we get into this in detail we need to understand that Capitalism and Socialism comes in many guises.

When we look at history in the last 200 years there has always been an ideological battle of ideas between Capitalism,Socialism,Communism,Anarchism and Fascism.

Some of these ideas have often been put together especially when you throw nationalism into the mix.

If it was 1917 and I was around then.Then I like many would be embracing the workers revolution taking place in Russia against the Tzar.

It is with the benefit of hindsight that we can see now how the revolution failed and became a dictatorship.

I will post links here so it saves me explaining everything as I would be here all day.

The main turning point being the red terror: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror

The main challenge to the Bolsheviks came under Petropavlovsk resolution which led to the kronstadt rebellion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion

I ask that anyone who is interested in Communism/Socialism have a look at the above links.The Kronstdat rebellion is an interesting case in point as Lenin/Trotsky had called the sailors "The vanguard of the revolution" as they were crucial to the overthrow of the Tzar.There was never anything unreasonable in the Petropavlovsk resolution.

Lenin then led to Stalin and as we know the rest is history.

Another interesting development was the Spanish civil war. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_civil_war

The Fascists under Franco won in the end because he had the backing of American,European industrialists(Capitalists) and Adolf Hitler.Also the Anarchists and the Communists chose to fight each other which made his job much easier.

Germany in the 1930s was next and the Fascists sought to elimate all their Communist/Socialist opponents.It was Karl Marx who stated in the 19th Century that he expected a workers revolution to occur in Germany first.Ironically it was Fascism under Adolf Hitler that succeeded.

After Hitler and Mussolini were defeated,the idea of Nazism/Fascism lost traction and Communism/Socialism came to the fore.

First of all I would argue that the U.S.S.R was not Communist but state Capitalist as all capital went to the state.Western Capitalism takes many guises and can usually be found supporting Fascism and repressive oppositions/governments when its assets are threatened(Nationalisation being a great example.You only have to look around the world at the coups and uprisings over the last 200 years to see this.

Outbackjack: Socialism is another muddled mix.
You have many variants and each person within them will usually tell you that they are a true Socialists.
The main difference is between Revolutionary Socialism and democratic Socialism.
One believes in overthrowing Capitalism and the other believes in the parliamentary system to make change.
When you throw into the mix Leninism(dictatorship of the proletariat) as opposed to classical Marxism and then former British Prime Minister Atlees(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism) Socialism,they are all completely different things.
Even Adolf Hitlers political party was called the Nationalist Socialist party even though they were dyed in the wool Fascists.

Continuing on after WW2 you had Peronism in Argentina.This sought to bring Capitalism and Socialism under one umbrella controlled by Peron.Peron was ultimately a Fascist. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronism

You had Maoism in China which sought to have a more Agrarian form(peasant) of Communism as opposed to Lenins (industrial worker)orientated.This was another failure in the same mould as Stalin.

There were many more interesting developments in Central and South America when Socialism clashed with Capitalism.

The Cuban revolution which exists even today.Any Socialist who looks to this as an example should remember that we couldnt even be able to have this debate in Cuba today as we would be locked up.

Nicaragua rebelled under the U.S occupation of its country: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front

Costa Rica,Guatemala,Brazil,Uruguay,Cuba(bay of pigs),Panama are all examples of Capitalism(mainly being represented by the U.S) opposing Socialism/Communism.
The war in Vietnam/Cambodia is another example.

One of the most interesting developments was in Chile when Allende came to power,He was the first ever elected Socialist leader in the whole of Central or South America.What happened next was a Fascist under Pinochet was supported by Capitalism (U.S and other western countries)was overthrown in a violent coup,So much for democracy.

Today in South America you have many examples of Socialism.You need only look at Bolivia and Venezeula.

Venezeula is an interesting example of where Capitalism and Socialism has been joined together.Whilst there have been crackdowns there still exists a vocal opposition and media who have repeatedly tried to overthrow Hugo Chavez: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez

Can he survive or will he be another Salvatore Allende?

sabrinalilypup: Brilliant Outback....this is just like a review of my Socio-Economics class. I must think you are better than my professor You have outlined mostly the history of Social Economics. I could not have said it any better. My grateful thanks.

franklin1950: " the trouble with socializm is that it soon runs out of other peoples money "
. rush limbaugh

" white folks greed runs a world in need "
. barac obama paroting his mentor reverend wright

dave3974: IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHERE RUSSIA WOULD BE TODAY IF THEY HAD BEEN MORE PATIENT WITH SOCILAISM WAITED TILL THEIR OIL WEALTH CAME ON LINE , AND STUCK WITH GORBACHEV.

CUBA MIGHT ACHIEVE BETTER WITHOUT THE BLOCKADE TO.

davidk14: Outback says: Socialism is another muddled mix. You have many variants and each person within them will usually tell you that they are a true Socialists. The main difference is between Revolutionary Socialism and democratic Socialism. One believes in overthrowing Capitalism and the other believes in the parliamentary system to make change.

David Says: I went to the Revolutionary Socialist Party website and retrevied the following www.rsp.com

The Revolutionary Socialist Party -
....is a revolutionary Marxist party, based on a definite program, whose central aim is to organize and lead the working class and its allies to overthrow the rule of the capitalist class and to build a socialist society. The RSP bases its organizational structure and methods on the proven Leninist principles of organization, summed up in the concept of democratic centralism. The history of the working-class movement has yet to provide a better example of the type of party that is needed for leading a proletarian revolution. Democratic centralism is a dialectical concept which does not lend itself to rigid definition and application regardless of time, place and circumstance. All members of the party are required to abide by the decisions of the party. Party loyalty is not an abstract idea, but a standard of political conduct. Loyal members always seek to defend and promote the party’s interests. They work to build the party. They seek to the best of their ability to abide by and implement its decisions. The RSP therefore selects its members on the basis of their loyalty to the party, as demonstrated by their acceptance of the party’s revolutionary program and willingness to work for its implementation.
www.rsp.org

David Says: The following is from New World Politics by Reimer and Simon

Democratic Socialism Strengths
Advance social justice for those who have traditionally been workers and the needy, especially through the services offered by a socialist welfare state. It pushes for a democratic society in industry, politics, and society through a strong trade union movement, a labor party, and social legislation in fields such as but not limited to education.

Democratic Socialism Weaknesses
Spending for generous health, retirement, unemployment, and other benefits produces budget deficits and also unable to overcome recessions or depressions, business failures, unemployment, loss of worker income, troublesome inflation, worker alienation and social malaise. Democratic socialists have been no more successful than non-socialists in achieving dreams of world peace.

davidk14: Outback says: When you throw into the mix Leninism(dictatorship of the proletariat) as opposed to classical Marxism and then former British Prime Minister Atlees(Wikipedia: Democratic_socialism) Socialism,they are all completely different things.

David says: The goal of Socialism is communism.
Quote: Lenin

David says: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUattlee.htm
During Prime Mister Atlees six years in office, he carried through a vigorous program of reform. The Bank of England, the coal mines, civil aviation, cable and wireless services, gas, electricity, railways, road transport and steel were nationalized. The National Health Service was introduced (1947).
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUattlee.htm

Outback says: Even Adolf Hitlers political party was called the Nationalist Socialist party even though they were dyed in the wool Fascists.

David says: National Socialists Party (Germany) on 24th February, 1920, the NSDAP later nicknamed the Nazi Party. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERdrexler.htm


Outback says: Continuing on after WW2 you had Peronism in Argentina.This sought to bring Capitalism and Socialism under one umbrella controlled by Peron.Peron was ultimately a Fascist. Wikipedia: Peronism.

David says: Peronism in Argentina
An economic, political, and social ideology called “social justice”, the combination of nationalism, and social democracy. It is the form of government in Argentina that exalts nationalism and attempts to accommodate the interests of business, industry, labor and the poor. This form of government highly subsidizes its military, private industry, public works, and the poor. Post WW2 , Peronism had been highly influential in Argentine politics and which resulted in Argentina's record for its inefficiency, bankrupt civil services, profitless industries and strong unions. Peronistic governments have also been accused of pursuing policies that abuse the human rights of Argentine citizens.
http://www.answers.com/topic/peronism

Outback Says: You had Maoism in China which sought to have a more Agrarian form(peasant) of Communism as opposed to Lenins (industrial worker)orientated. This was another failure in the same mould as Stalin.

David says: TBC