Socialism vs Capitalism

#1

LouderVol

Extra and Terrestrial
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
50,198
Likes
47,670
#1
Where is the line?

I think most people would still consider us a Capitalist society, but we are definitely heading down some socialist paths. and its impossible to say where we are going to stop. its the slippery slope vs fear mongerer argument.

What are you ok with being socialized, and where is the line of when we stop calling ourselves Capitalists? I guess I want to hear more from the pro-socialism people.

Health Care and retirement are already socialized. thru high school education is already socialized, and college is heading that direction. infrastructure and a dozen other things are socialized to the point where we don't even recognize it as such now.

are cars next? driverless cars are coming (good thing imo) will the government take over that? That way everyone will have access and no one is denied, and that way the government can keep us safe and save the enviroment.

Housing is already socialized for some, is it coming for the rest of us? Do you really need that 4000sf house that kills the environment and has rooms dedicated to being space occupiers? surely everyone deserves the same housing, its wrong that some are denied.

Food, some people eat really nice, other people eat crap and get fat. surely the government can step in and tell us what we can eat and save us and make everyone equal. cuts down on waste at the end user and at the growers/producers end.

gyms? clothing? TVs, computers, phones, internet?

Where is the line, and where should it be? Or do people think we have actually gotten to a point where it will stop? I don't think it will.
 
Last edited:
#2
#2
In my world there would be very limited of it. mostly just infrastructure. state level for education, parks are fine.

The way I am seeing it is that our Capitalist society has given us the success enough where we are pushing towards socialism. However, socialism doesn't have the success record to make me feel good about it building up this country, in fact it tends to tear apart countries. Is socialism worth it, the level we are at now, if it tears down the whole system?
 
#4
#4
It's not a matter of Socialism vs. Capitalism. It's a matter of how much Socialism and how much Capitalism. Unbridled Capitalism always ends up like a game of monopoly and fails all but a few. Unbridled Socialism fails because it stifles incentive and eliminates competition.

Neither systems works exclusively.
 
#5
#5
It's not a matter of Socialism vs. Capitalism. It's a matter of how much Socialism and how much Capitalism. Unbridled Capitalism always ends up like a game of monopoly and fails all but a few. Unbridled Socialism fails because it stifles incentive and eliminates competition.

Neither systems works exclusively.

This all day.........

Capitalism and socialism would each theoretically work perfectly in its purest sense. Obviously neither have come even remotely close to evolving to its purest sense. Currently, a combination of the two is required. Also, one should always consider the motivators and what you wish to promote as an ideal objective for society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Go aeiou
#6
#6
It's not a matter of Socialism vs. Capitalism. It's a matter of how much Socialism and how much Capitalism. Unbridled Capitalism always ends up like a game of monopoly and fails all but a few. Unbridled Socialism fails because it stifles incentive and eliminates competition.

Neither systems works exclusively.


Correct, because we are fallible beings.

It's a constant tug of war between the haves and the have nots to control government and who it responds to. At the moment, the haves are winning. But the have nots are getting pissed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
For me it's capitalism, as enhanced by socialism. It seems like adopting some socialism makes capitalism work better, and I'm in favor of those -- healthcare and wealth tax.

Technology and labor reducing innovations will undoubtedly force us to become a more socialist nation. It's just a question of how quickly we adapt to the new changes with our government policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
It's not a matter of Socialism vs. Capitalism. It's a matter of how much Socialism and how much Capitalism. Unbridled Capitalism always ends up like a game of monopoly and fails all but a few. Unbridled Socialism fails because it stifles incentive and eliminates competition.

Neither systems works exclusively.

The REAL problem with socialism & communism is, unlike capitalism, they base their government on the premise that everyone will work towards the common good. They discount unbridled greed and avarice in the bureaucracy and the slothfulness of too many of the homme ordinaire.

Capitalism is also faced with both, the predatory capitalist and those who aren't really there when they show for work. The best across the class spectrum growth this country has seen is when loan sharks were jailed breaking usury law and owners could fire poor workers without challenge.
 
#10
#10
It's not a matter of Socialism vs. Capitalism. It's a matter of how much Socialism and how much Capitalism. Unbridled Capitalism always ends up like a game of monopoly and fails all but a few. Unbridled Socialism fails because it stifles incentive and eliminates competition.

Neither systems works exclusively.

This all day.........

Capitalism and socialism would each theoretically work perfectly in its purest sense. Obviously neither have come even remotely close to evolving to its purest sense. Currently, a combination of the two is required. Also, one should always consider the motivators and what you wish to promote as an ideal objective for society.

Correct, because we are fallible beings.

It's a constant tug of war between the haves and the have nots to control government and who it responds to. At the moment, the haves are winning. But the have nots are getting pissed.

so are you happy with where we are? no need to socialize more?

my issue is that the current theme seems to be to socialize everything. not to socialize where it works and we can afford it.
 
#12
#12
It's not a matter of Socialism vs. Capitalism. It's a matter of how much Socialism and how much Capitalism. Unbridled Capitalism always ends up like a game of monopoly and fails all but a few. Unbridled Socialism fails because it stifles incentive and eliminates competition.

Neither systems works exclusively.

I like your first point.

When has there been unbridled capitalism?

The biggest "monopoly" in US history is standard oil. JP Morgan completely changed the course of human history by making energy affordable. And we're not talking about a slight reduction in prices, we're talking about completely unaffordable to everyone can afford it.

He also gave more $ charitably than anybody in human history.
 
#13
#13
so are you happy with where we are? no need to socialize more?

my issue is that the current theme seems to be to socialize everything. not to socialize where it works and we can afford it.


Greed works at cross purposes. On the one hand, it is the fuel for the engine of development and technology. On the other hand, it can and sometimes does reach a point where the broader societal effects are not appreciated by the elite.

Greed is good, as Gordon Gekko would say. But, too much greed is really bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
Greed works at cross purposes. On the one hand, it is the fuel for the engine of development and technology. On the other hand, it can and sometimes does reach a point where the broader societal effects are not appreciated by the elite.

Greed is good, as Gordon Gekko would say. But, too much greed is really bad.

The tricky thing about greed is that basically everyone is driven by it in some way. The best solution is to to make incentives that attract greed/ambition to align with societal good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
The tricky thing about greed is that basically everyone is driven by it in some way. The best solution is to to make incentives that attract greed/ambition to align with societal good.

I agree. It's all a question of perspective.

how does socialism actually do this though? Can it? to me it seems to do the opposite. It attracts laziness for temporary personal gain.
 
#17
#17
just to prove I am not against socialized/government ran stuff here is something I firmly believe in. Its a federal program that gives money for local studies and plans that will result in fewer cars and better spaces.

Livable Centers Initiative Report - ARC

I would argue there is an end benefit to all without any one group of people being hurt. thats not what we get.
 
#18
#18
Greed works at cross purposes. On the one hand, it is the fuel for the engine of development and technology. On the other hand, it can and sometimes does reach a point where the broader societal effects are not appreciated by the elite.

Greed is good, as Gordon Gekko would say. But, too much greed is really bad.

I agree with the statement.

Greed should never be the only or even primary motivator.

The hurricane relief efforts, the blood donations in Las Vegas, the people helping in CA, and cancer researchers. There is a higher purpose than the one served by greed. An economic system should recognize this fact and behave accordingly.
 
#19
#19
I agree with the statement.

Greed should never be the only or even primary motivator.

The hurricane relief efforts, the blood donations in Las Vegas, the people helping in CA, and cancer researchers. There is a higher purpose than the one served by greed. An economic system should recognize this fact and behave accordingly.

less taxes (less government programs) and people have more money to be charitable. and you realize that ACA and most socialized programs, to be fair its most government programs in general, work by punishing people?
 
#20
#20
how does socialism actually do this though? Can it? to me it seems to do the opposite. It attracts laziness for temporary personal gain.

I am not making the claim that it does, but I also haven't put a ton of thought into it. If we're just talking about controlling the means of production, then I would say it probably doesn't. If we're talking more broadly in terms of regulation, there are probably lots of ways that it can/does.

One example might be subsidies for green companies. Not saying I support that, I'm just saying it's a way to make greed align with a societal goal (ignoring potential unintended consequences).
 
#21
#21
I am not making the claim that it does, but I also haven't put a ton of thought into it. If we're just talking about controlling the means of production, then I would say it probably doesn't. If we're talking more broadly in terms of regulation, there are probably lots of ways that it can/does.

One example might be subsidies for green companies. Not saying I support that, I'm just saying it's a way to make greed align with a societal goal (ignoring potential unintended consequences).

fair point.
 
#22
#22
Pure systems exist in books only. Reality is a hybrid. I don’t think it’s government’s role to “make things fair”, if you feel there is inequality give to your church or charity that addesses those issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#23
#23
less taxes (less government programs) and people have more money to be charitable. and you realize that ACA and most socialized programs, to be fair its most government programs in general, work by punishing people?

I don't agree with the premise of your argument.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
To my mind the simplistic answer is that capitalism circulates around the premise that if there is a need someone will be willing to provide the good or service for a price that exceeds the cost. If unfettered by regulations, multiple suppliers will compete and competition will regulate the price. However, we've seen multiple times that some rules are necessary to keep the playing field level - monopolistic behavior being one.

Liberalism, socialism, and communism are one and the same - just the degree of implementation. It's all around the belief that government control is the answer to everything whether it is entry to the market, quotas, price setting ...

The differences: Liberalism seeks to influence a free market through elected candidates and lobbying to set policy, and the government may in response supply/control some goods and services.

Socialism is the point where the government actually does control, but voters have influence through elections and lobbying - sorta.

Communism is where the government steps in and says "we got this, and you don't matter." It's never in practice been the wonderful revolutionary workers state proposed by Marx et al. It's simple slavery - you work or perish; we'll provide you healthcare or not; we'll provide you education or not ... It's a simple matter of whether you provide a service worth more than your cost and control over your will to provide it.

Liberalism is the start of a slippery slope. There's never been a perfect government, and the thought that government is the answer to most problems is simply stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

VN Store



Back
Top