by AFL
CATEGORIES

 Military  
 Current events  
 Religion 
 Technology 
 Countries 
 Politics 
 Society 
 Other 






There are currently no top
rated posts : don't forget you can "thumb" up or down posts.

Website intro. Please login or register (it's very fast and free).



  • Index
  • » Politics - Room 1
  • » Socialism vs Capitalism by depresser
  •    Thread focusing on the pros and cons of both systems.

    I personally am a socialist, not a Communist, a socialist. Socialist countries have longer holidays, are more atheist, have a free health service and of course actually care for the poor. Rampant capitalist countries like the US shit all over their poor whilst some people are getting 8 figure paychecks.

    Edit

#41 2014-08-03 18:01:45

          Ireland    irishgenius
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




@Dorian 
                       
Capitalism to me: Where the vast majority of people slave away every day creating the wealth for a small minority who don't. Where capitalists dominate us politically by funding every major party. The free market system is always for the ruling class capitalists, never for the majority. It actually drives down working class living standards because of the tops relentless drive for more profit. Hitler is the definition of fascism!. What, just because his party had the word socialist in it means he's a socialist?. Just because North Korea has the word democratic in it means its democratic?. Private property: When I say abolish private ownership, i mean of the wealth in this society, Factories etc., Not peoples homes (unless purchased via other peoples money). Look up Trotskyism

Offline

#42 2014-07-10 06:15:56

          Taiwan (ROC)    Archduke
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




Government collects tax. Market becomes 'un-free'. Correct?

Offline

#43 2014-05-25 08:58:33

               Dorian
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




@NewAtheist 

No a free market does not require government regulation at all.
the gov requiring people to honor contracts they've made is basically the same thing as saying stealing is against the law.
why is government regulation necessary furthermore throughout history monopolies were typically a result of government intervention in fact it was the open policy of mercantilism for a government to have a monopoly businesses to help with the country's trade (east India trading company for example) a naturally occurring monopoly is rare and is typically only successful because they are leaps and bounds better than there competition and are able to provide consumers with the best option.

animal's are preserved best by letting people own them we own all domesticated animals thrive.

The creation of art is almost completely market driven people like music there is a market for music and so music is made for money, same with visual art       

no one needs free museums (the museum isn't actually free taxes or labor are paying for it)  in a free market because everything is so cheap you could pay to go to a museum a hundred times over and still be better of than being in a socialist or communist system were there are shortages of everything and even basic goods are ridiculously expensive.

government regulations and licensing requirements hurt small business more than anything else.   

equality is neither the antithesis of liberty nor the apotheosis of it. liberty is freedom one can be free without being equal and all "can" be equal by being free. and vice versus how ever those that are free are generally better off weather they're all equal or not.

free education does not exist somehow someone (typically the taxpayer) is paying for it  education provided by government does exist but this is one of the monopolies you wrote about earlier (again a monopoly created by gov) the same go's for healthcare.

people are more free to express ideas in a society were they can more easily afford to express themselves and in a true free market over time prices fall and goods become cheaper and more available to more people. in short a free market is the best place for the expression of ideas.

they are in contradistinction because government intervention in the economy contradicts the very concept of a "free market" in effect even one rule limiting the freedom of any economy means that the economy is not truly free.

Offline

#44 2014-05-25 08:21:29

               Dorian
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




@irishgenius 

No Hitler was the head of the National socialist party or Nazi party ie not a fascist . and communal type socialism was tried in the early American colonies in witch the people farmed communal property owned by everyone under this system there were food shortages and famine. it wasn't until everyone had there own private property that the colonies began to prosper under a free market system. Please give me your definition of capitalism as it may differ from mine i don't want to argue in support of capitalism if your definition is different (don't want to argue for something if im not sure what im arguing for lol) But i will stand up for the free market, private property, and basic rights all day long :3

Offline

#45 2014-05-21 12:16:13

          United States    spyguy181
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




ok neither is good or bad. you can't have pure communism or pure capitalism on paper it may look like it but it can't be pure. Lenin for instance he wanted to be free from the king because during WWI he made more money but didn't raise pay. and for that Lenin made the Soviet Union. Stalin fucked all that up. but socialism isn't bad at all. no one has private property and everyone is equal. but America is saying that it's bad. but in reality it's not bad. Stalin in the other he was bad and cold hearted (funny how he's cold hearted and he was dictator of the soviet union.) but if i had to choose to live in socialism or capitalism i would say: Socialism because you can pirate movies and no one cares.

Offline

#46 2013-10-30 16:34:05

          Ireland    irishgenius
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




@eWizard 
                       
Socialism has never really been tried.The Russian revolution started in its early days as Socialist,as it was intended to be, but Stalin and his ilk ruined it.Socialism does not believe in equal pay, after all why should a doctor be paid the same as a sales person?.Lenin wanted it to be in a 1 in 4 gap ie. at the most one person might earn four times the pay of the other but not any higher.Socialism argues for the workers to be in charge not the State.Communist (Stalinist) Countries like to say that the people are incharge but really it is a dictatorship. champ

Offline

#47 2013-10-18 18:47:02

          United Kingdom    eWizard
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




@irishgenius 
                       
By all means, I concur. Although I did yes unmistakbly mix the two up, the implimentation of either in society dosn't work. My argument still stands. The idealology in communism is that everyone has the same pay and everyones equal, but I riddle you this why dosn't socialism work? Is it because of its blackened name or maybe from the sheer lack of political purity. Please I am very curious to see your point to enlighten me.

Offline



   

#48 2013-10-17 15:22:54

          Ireland    irishgenius
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




@eWizard 

Do you know what socialism is?!.Here is a definition:
Socialism:a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Hitler was a FASCIST i.e extreme capitalism.Hitler didnt give two fucks about the working class, only followers and business owners.Communism is worst than Socialism, because that advocates for a dictatorship (Stalin, who ruined many a Socialist revolution) and State ownership, while socialism advocates for workers to be in charge.Obviously the State takes the "profits",but that is for use on infrastructure and free health care etc.Tell me why u got the two mixed up?.Socialism=Marxism with democracy Communism=Pure capitalism i.e the State the new employer. omg

Offline

#49 2013-10-12 20:59:01

          United Kingdom    eWizard
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




Neither system is ideal in reality because of the way we are governed. If the leaders of the world collaborated then certain aspects of communism would work way better than socialsm. A very bad example of socialism is Hiter, yes Adolf Hitler was an awful socialist who unfortunatly took it too far. A very good example of communism id Lennin who was an astonishing leader and brough communism to Russia like the black plague to London.

Bad Socialism... diagree

Offline

#50 2013-09-05 10:43:55

          India    abyskaria
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




For social governance with the rule of book and its constitution, socialism has never been pure absorbed anywhere. May be capitalism today is an act of transparency with public in all fronts where state has laid its rule as a challenge that lead non-profit empowerment of all. We are today accepting the mix where land, capital and manpower just begins with the change of development activities in focus and total revenue as a resort for few who profits, yet transparency in the fall of the market rise and comeback. Why would socialism and capitalism lead democracy in favor of the demand and supply economy of scale? If there is so pure order of both, i am not saying mixed economy, the institution we have in place still exist where question of administration will be on the democratic parliament in  place. This still exist today. I must say we must say Capitalism is not alone for few capitalist, there is the development, empowerment of entrepreneurs and social order where the will of individual or group make them rich and the road map leads to prosperity of a global state. In socialistic citizenship, alone the right to own private property still remains a barrier where we need to work that state alone can lead to prosperity in an aging society. The big gap exist and solution is still not simple for non-profit recipe for all the people of the state. There is a gradual change, we see this as a beginning as people we gear for daily work live today with more trade participation globally and it is not so easy like never before.

Offline

#51 2013-08-27 21:40:43

          United Kingdom    NewAtheist
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




The problem with capitalism as a system is a lack of incentives. In a pure capitalist society, animal preservation, support for the arts, free museums, etc. are immaterial; after all, all of these things appeal to an esoteric group of people, and thus have very little bankability. Also, a truly "free" market paradoxically requires government regulation to ensure that smaller businesses are not smothered. Let a business get too big and it will even begin to monopolise ideas and the law as can be seen by the numerous examples of Tesco bullying officials into providing planning permission. (See Andrew Sachs' Tescopoly for more details) I do not see how equality is portrayed by some as antithetical to liberty when it is in fact the apotheosis of it; allowing for free education, healthcare, etc. helps people to more freely express ideas. Besides, why must the two systems be forever in contradistinction? I would support a Nordic-esque system combining the best of both worlds.

Offline

#52 2013-07-28 19:02:27

               Socijalist
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




Capitalism is a system that views people as consumers and government as a tool to play monopoly with. Socialism at least favors people's rights and health more than Capitalism does. Or well, at least that I know about Josip Broz Tito's system, life in my country was much better under his system than it is now by the imperialistic capitalism.

Last edited by Socijalist (2013-07-28 19:08:25)

Offline

#53 2013-07-03 02:52:56

          United States    visverbi
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




Neither system is perfect of course, no ideal ever is, and each system has its good points. For instance, capitalism has the strongest driving force of any system: self-interest, but that drive often leads to callous disregard for the poor. Meanwhile, communism is ideally a more forgiving and supportive system, but with it comes the partial elimination of personal drive.
Honestly, the best model of a compassionate but competitive government is Sweden, who's people, while still competitive on the free market, are also provided with one of the highest standards of living in the world.
In response to Madd:
Your last paragraph was out of line, a company is only deemed monopolistic when it uses a near total control of a certain market to manipulate prices and, you guessed it, destroy competition.
The solyndra loans, while perhaps not well invested, were certainly not out of line. The U.S. government invests in emerging technologies that have the potential to benefit the nation as a whole only when it is deemed an important area of development for the future.

Offline

#54 2013-06-14 03:44:24

          Chile    cris-comuni
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




I appreciate it because he is very wise and always says "if the whole world was communist, social unrest would not exist demanding better education, better health, etc..
in Chile, there are student demonstrations calling for an end to profit, and universal free.
explicitly support them because I'm one of them ....
        thanks

Offline

#55 2013-04-24 10:55:51

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




@calibur 

 

  As for govt investment in companies, is that not similar to government-provided research grants for universities and weapons companies? 

 

No. It is not similar at all. When the Governments gives out research grants it is for a common purpose, either to benefit the Government itself or the populace as a whole. Those grants are not designed to aid one particular company but rather an entire industry.

I'm not sure what research grants any weapons companies are receiving or if you meant military contracts? If it's the latter, that is a competitive process, not a politician playing favorites based on agenda.

 

 Subsidizing farms? 

 

No, farm subsidies are available to all qualifying farms, they are not an 'investment' in a given business so do not provide a competitive advantage. They are typically given to encourage one crop be grown over another (corn instead of a more profitable crop because of ethanol mandates is an example), or to lower the cost of certain foods to the final consumer (Sugar is a good example), or to discourage the growth of unfavorable crops (tobacco). In any event, farm subsides don't benefit just an individual farm owner.

 

  After all, they are hoping to improve technology and lower costs for those industries. 

 

Yes, for the industries as a whole, not for individual businesses. There is a distinct difference. Government certainly wants industries to succeed and giving industry wide grants and subsidies is a perfectly legitimate way for Government to assist.

 

 They are going to legislate ecological laws anyways, this is just another route for that 

 

They have been legislating ecological mandates for decades, this is nothing close to the same thing, or a legitimate alternative. Legislation applies to all companies/persons, it doesn't benefit or harm a single individual or individual business.

A legitimate (though still foolish) way the Government has promoted their 'green' agenda is to offer tax credits to consumers who purchase an electric/hybrid vehicle. It's legitimate because the consumer can choose whichever electric/hybrid vehicle they want be it a Chevy Volt, a Ford Focus, a Toyota Prius, a Tesla, etc. It doesn't favor one company or product over another.

The money given to Solyndra and Fisker was not for industry R&D or even to bailout a large employer (the excuse for GM) it was given to provide capital to private companies that they could not obtain in the marketplace. They were companies and products that the capital markets did not believe could be profitable, thus unable to service loans. In a free market, the market decides success or failure of a company. The Government tried to force success on failed companies with the influx of a cash source unavailable to their competitors. That is as anti-competition as you can get. The government does it because they want to force a market for a product where one does not exist...and because it's "free" to the suits picking the winners and losers in Washington. They have no real stake in whether a company succeeds or fails so the "investment" decisions are not based on capitalism. They are much closer to Communism, actually.

When one company holds a competitive advantage unavailable to competitors through no fault of their own the Government deems it  Monopolistic and not only stops the practice but fines the offending company. When Government itself is the cause of that competitive advantage they are violating the spirit of their own rules and regulations.

Offline

#56 2013-04-24 02:09:14

          United States    calibur
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




@madd693 

very well, in your responses to me.

As for govt investment in companies, is that not similar to government-provided research grants for universities and weapons companies? Subsidizing farms? etc?
After all, they are hoping to improve technology and lower costs for those industries. They are going to legislate ecological laws anyways, this is just another route for that.

Last edited by calibur (2013-04-24 02:10:41)

Offline

#57 2013-04-24 01:23:30

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   1    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




@SgtPeppers 

@SgtPeppers

 

 Not even remotely true. Capitalism without government oversight is doomed to failure, the system becomes corrupt, the weath disparity grows and the whole thing will topple itself. That is the point Marx (unknowingly) made, unfettered capitalism is intrinsically destructive. 

 

Oversight is necessary in any system. Some of the most corrupt systems in the world are socialist. And those doing the most abusing are usually connected with the Government. To single out Capitalism in pointing this out is disingenuous.

The biggest problem capitalism has isn't the need for oversight of the companies, but preventing the Government from over reaching in that oversight.

I'll give you a couple of examples. Here in the USA the Obama administration has taken to giving sizable loans/grants to private companies that it deems are good for the admin's "green" agenda.

- Solyndra. Solar energy manufacturer that the Obama admin forced a multi-billion dollar loan to. The company is poorly mismanaged and blew through the money, ending in bankruptcy. The worst part is, the Government knew the business model and the people running the company were seriously flawed before giving the money. The were trying to force a failed model to succeed because it fit their political agenda.

-Fisker. Private electric car company that received Government loan guaranteed of half a billion dollars. This company is so wasteful even the Government cut off their subsidies and guaranteed before they could use them all. In total they lost almost a half million dollars for every car they built. Tax payers will never see the money returned just as they won't with even huge companies like the General Motors bailout or the large bank bailouts.

So what is the problem, other than the Obama admin is horrible at picking companies to 'invest' tax payer money in? Such practices are completely contrary to capitalism. In order for Capitalism to work, it must be a free market competition. The Government can't prop up companies it likes to give them a competitive advantage. If an idea is a good one and company is sound, the market will provide the capital. After all, everyone benefits from a profitable company providing a valuable good or service. Government 'investment' skews competition because the Government has no real stake in the success or failure of the company they are giving the money to. If the company fails...oh well, it's just tax money, there is no accountability from the Governments end. How can you trust an entity to provide oversight when that entity itself is an 'investor' with no accountability?

So while oversight, especially in some industries, is necessary for Capitalism to work, it is equally important that the Government stay out of they way where competition is concerned. Governments can not be in the business of picking winners and losers, they can only act as referees or the system fails from the very oversight you deem necessary to succeed.

Offline

#58 2013-04-23 12:37:50

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




@calibur 

Where do you get the 99.5% thing?

Pretty simple. There are an estimated 270 million guns owned by private citizens in the USA. That is 88.8 firearms for every 100 people. Obviously many individuals own more than 1 gun.

There were 52,447 deliberate gunshot wounds in 2009 (last year for stats). 2/3rds of them were suicide attempts (meaning not crime related) That leaves around 17,000 intentional gunshot wounds (not accidents). 11,078 homicides.

Out of 270 million privately owned guns.

That is .0041% used in a homicide in a given year. Leaving 99.9959% of guns NOT used in a homicide. It is .0063% used in an intentional gunshot wound. Leaving 99.9937% NOT used in an intentional shooting.

Then keep in mind that not all intentional shooting are criminal acts and it's clear that well over 99% of gun owners are responsible citizens.
                       
 

 I would doubt that "most" who commit gun crimes don't own them legally. 

 

Doubt whatever you like. You would be wrong.

According to the ATF:

-  Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they're selling guns "off the books" to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 "missing" firearms.

(That is the majority of guns used in crime obtained illegally ALL BY ITSELF.)

- Straw purchasing: Straw purchasing is the most common way criminals get guns, accounting for almost 50% of trafficking investigations. A straw purchaser is someone with a clean record who buys guns on behalf of someone legally prohibited from possessing guns. Straw purchasers are often the friends, relatives, spouses or girlfriends of prohibited purchasers.

- Gun Shows and private gun sales: Gun shows have been called "Tupperware parties for criminals" because they attract large numbers of prohibited buyers. A loophole in federal law allows unlicensed or "private" sellers, many of whom work out of gun shows, to lawfully sell or transfer guns without conducting a criminal background check.

And this doesn't even touch on the number of guns that are just flat stolen.

In most cases where a gun is used in a premeditated violent crime, the gun was obtained illegally by the person using it and/or that person is not legally allowed to own a gun.

 

 The parts with higher gun ownership tend to be rural areas, where crime is less pervasive. 

 

This is largely correct. Now put that knowledge into common sense. The urban areas are where the majority of gun crimes are being committed. Who are they committed by? CRIMINALS. Largely gangs. How many gang weapons do you think are obtained legally? How many gang bangers do you think can legally own a weapon?  Remember, being convicted of any felony in this country automatically precludes you from legally owning a firearm.

How many criminals, even if the could obtain their weapons legally would WANT to? Nobody obtaining a gun to commit a crime wants that gun traceable back to them. If you were going to shoot somebody would you buy a gun off the street or from a legit gun dealer where you have to go through a background check and file paperwork on the purchase?

Note that I never said the majority of guns are obtained illegally initially (though a very large percentage of them are) I said that in most cases, the VAST majority, the gun user does not have a legal right to that weapon, either because it was obtained illegally by HIM/HER or because they aren't legally allowed to own or possess ANY weapon.

 

 I believe that people should be free to own guns, though I do believe in restrictions to certain groups. 

 

We are in complete agreement here. The thing is, a criminal is breaking the law when they commit their crime. You think any additional restrictive gun law is going to deter them? Of course not. They aren't getting their guns legally in the first place.

Last edited by madd693 (2013-04-23 13:02:46)

Offline

#59 2013-04-23 02:28:57

          United States    calibur
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




@madd693 

Russia, while not as free as america in regards to guns, is pretty free, you just have to have a license as I understand it.

Where do you get the 99.5% thing?

I would doubt that "most" who commit gun crimes don't own them legally. I would believe "a lot".

The parts with higher gun ownership tend to be rural areas, where crime is less pervasive.


I believe that people should be free to own guns, though I do believe in restrictions to certain groups.

I'm sure there is another debate for this topic, perhaps this should go there.

Offline

#60 2013-04-23 01:14:36

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Socialism vs Capitalism




@NikoLStak

 

 And like in everything else, balance is the key. No pro guns anarchist like those protesting in the American capitals's streets, and no traitor claiming themselves russian Communist but claiming that Stalin was the best Premier. Those two deserve only the worst gulags we can offer them. 

 

What exactly is a "pro gun anarchist"?

I understand that in your country the idea of everyday citizens owning guns seems ridiculous. But in America, the majority are "pro gun" whether they actually own one or not and they are nothing close to anarchists.

The 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives the absolute RIGHT to American citizens to own and possess firearms. An alien idea in Russia and certainly when it was the Soviet Union, to be sure. But there are very good reasons for it and is not anarchy at all.

Our founding fathers foresaw the potential for a Government that tried to strike down the Constitution and replace it with an alternative dictatorial system. The right to bear arms ensures that citizens have the ability to prevent, or at least resist that happening. In addition, by allowing responsible citizens to own weapons, they can take on a bigger role in their own security when necessary. 99.5% of American gun owners are responsible citizens who will never commit a crime with their weapons. Those who DO commit crimes with them (your 'anarchists) don't own/possess the guns legally to begin with in most cases so additional laws to restrict ownership would not affect the criminals at all.

Did you know, for example, that the places that have the lowest crime rates in the US tend to be parts of the country where gun ownership is high? Criminals are less likely to commit crimes against someone they know or suspect is armed. They prefer soft targets where the chances of resistance are low. They would love you as a target. Anyone who opposes gun ownership and wants stronger Government control over security is an easy target who will quickly give the criminal whatever they want.

Last edited by madd693 (2013-04-23 01:18:39)

Offline

Board footer

Created by AFL, powered by FluxBB
© 2011 theworlddebating.com