Capitalism versus Socialism

[MrFingers 0]

since we've been muted on the other thread, let's reconvene here

Be aware that Socialism is not regulation.  It is;
"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

[2ch.net simplayer 180]

You could do it here according to the stuff in https://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=30&threadid=87061&enterthread=y

[M-SIL 2]

Great, another potential flame thread. 

[frogface 352]

Capitalism, though Socialism has cooler logos

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: M-SIL 

Great, another potential flame thread. quote>

 

Could very well be.  But not necessarily.  

This thread could be interesting if people remember to discuss the issues -- in this case, capitialism and socialism and the effects of each -- instead of discussing each other.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

I wanna say capitalism because it allows every man to make his future, and it is what he or she makes it, it's not preset or limited..

oh and this will definately turn into a flame war ..

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove I wanna say capitalism because it allows every man to make his future, and it is what he or she makes it, it's not preset or limited..

oh and this will definately turn into a flame war ..quote>

Yes, it can, but it doesn't have to.  If it turns into a flame war, it will get closed, no doubt, but until that time, it can remain open.  As SkiGeek implied, discuss the issues, not each other.

[Cjah 15]

pffttt....fancy capitalism....once socialism takes over all will be well...

all will be equal...

[MrFingers 0]

I think it would be good to discuss whether or not they are mutually exclusive.

I think that every degree more of Socialism that a country takes, is a degree further away from Capitalism.  Any service that is free and provided through state controlled taxes is inherently not governed by the price mechanism and therefore not capitalistic.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

I think that every degree more of Socialism that a country takes, is a degree further away from Capitalism.quote>

That's the idea, socialism is the anti-capitalist form of government.

[schm0 27]

Anarchy in the UK!

[M-SIL 2]

Could very well be.  But not necessarily.  

This thread could be interesting if people remember to discuss the issues -- in this case, capitialism and socialism and the effects of each -- instead of discussing each other.quote>

Well said SkiGeek, I'll give that a try. I think both areas has there good and bad but I personal prefer capitalism (with regulation) because it gives people the freedom to create goods and services and self-independence from the government services like welfare (which make people lazy and unproductive). Thats my opinion.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: M-SIL

Both areas has there good and bad but I personal prefer capitalism (with regulation to control greed) because it gives people the freedom to create goods and services and self-independence from the government services like welfare (which make people lazy and unproductive). Thats my opinion.quote>

I agree with you 100%..welfare indeed makes people lazy. And with proper regulation, capitalism can work quite well. Welfare was intended for a time when it was neccessary (the Great Depression) and is not quite as neccessary today, with the exception of the disabled, etc.

[Cjah 15]

Welfare DOES NOT make you lazy.....

[screamingman12 30]

Well, if you are on wellfare, you are less inclined to work, so it might. It depends on what type of person you are. Also, I prefer capitalism with regulation, I'm big on regulating corporations, because if they are allowed to run wild, pretty much all hell breaks loose (ie, Enron, GM/Nat'l City Lines, Smackdonald's/Obeasity outbreak, etc.). Although I sometimes wonder what it would be like to live in the USSR or Cuba.

[coolotter88 2]

I believe they are not mutually exclusive. you can have a mix which is probably the best way to go. pure socialism doesn't work well because it is much too expensive (imo) OTOH, capitalism does leave certain people behind. with a mix, you can give those not so well off a swift kick in the behind to get moving and we can keep the rich happy.

[beebs 129]

Welfare hardly gives you a large sum of money each month. Barely enough for you to scrape by, while counting the pennies. I've yet to meet someone who actually wants to live like that.

There are many good things about Capitalism and there's many good things about Socialism.. there's a reason why no country in the world operates under a 100% Capitalist economy (no, not even the US is completely capitalist) or 100% Socialist/Communist.

[JanYpe 17]

Welfare DOES NOT make you lazy.....quote>

Knock it off right now, you guys. Plenty of people are willing to put in some time to make a decent post and have a cool discussion here. Don't turn this thread into a "DOES TOO", "DOES NOT!" shoutfest where everybody talks and nobody listens.

See, this is why we can't have nice things.

(I voted 'They are not mutually exclusive', btw. Still fixing up a post.)

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: Cjah Welfare DOES NOT make you lazy.....

quote>

It's hard to deny that recieving free long term financial assistance makes you complacent and take it for granted.  I mean... the evidence is literally EVERYWHERE!!  It's just human nature.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: beebs

There are many good things about Capitalism and there's many good things about Socialism.. there's a reason why no country in the world operates under a 100% Capitalist economy (no, not even the US is completely capitalist) or 100% Socialist/Communist.quote>

I would agree with that.  But anything you "socialise" is no longer operating under capitalism.  therefore they are mutually exclusive.

sure there are certain merit goods, like education and street lighting, which a capitalistic free market would not adequately provide.  BUT, that just requires some minor government encouragement, not an industry state take-over.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I voted capitalism simply because it allows people to achieve goals, wealth and careers through merit and hard work that they may not have otherwise have been able to achieve if everyone was 'equal'.

I don't agree with socialism, I'm perfectly happy to pay taxes so that people who are not as well-off get support and can live and have enjoyment in life. I'm not however in favour of a welfare system that does not make people find jobs and allows them to be lazy, which I'm sorry but alot of people on welfare are.

Everyone, well at least the majority, in this world want to better themselves some people were not born into a world where they can do as we please and not have to worry about money etc etc. Thus capitalism systems allow people to do that and better their lives. The capitalist system has flaws like everything else but it is much better than socialist economics (I'm also an economist so I knoe social economics don't work as people always imagine).

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I voted capitalism simply because it allows people to achieve goals, wealth and careers through merit and hard work that they may not have otherwise have been able to achieve if everyone was 'equal'.

I don't agree with socialism, I'm perfectly happy to pay taxes so that people who are not as well-off get support and can live and have enjoyment in life. I'm not however in favour of a welfare system that does not make people find jobs and allows them to be lazy, which I'm sorry but alot of people on welfare are.

Everyone, well at least the majority, in this world want to better themselves some of us may have been born into a world where we can do as we please and not worry about money etc etc. Thus capitalism systems allow people to do that and better their lives. The capitalist system has flaws like everything else but it is much better than socialist economics (I'm also an economist so I knoe social economics don't work as people always imagine).

quote>

Is it 800,000 people in the UK who are on long term financial benefits?

Your willingness to pay taxes to help the poor gain a footing can be easily translated into a donation to a private charity.  Especially with the extra money you would have from the abolishment of the welfare state.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Originally posted by: beebs

There are many good things about Capitalism and there's many good things about Socialism.. there's a reason why no country in the world operates under a 100% Capitalist economy (no, not even the US is completely capitalist) or 100% Socialist/Communist.quote>

I would agree with that.  But anything you "socialise" is no longer operating under capitalism.  therefore they are mutually exclusive.

sure there are certain merit goods, like education and street lighting, which a capitalistic free market would not adequately provide.  BUT, that just requires some minor government encouragement, not an industry state take-over.quote>

Every economy in the world is a mixed economy.. even the US, China, North Korea, Canada... all mixed. If that's what you're saying with the mutually exclusive bit, I apologize.. I'm just unfamiliar with that term.

There are a few services which I think require state control, for the most part... Education and Health being two. Private schools are fine, but I really do see it as being quite unfair to those less fortunate growing up, that are forced to go to a private school for a decent education. My opinions on health care... how fair is it for people to have to mortgage their house in order to purchase treatments for their loved ones?

[Meg 368]

I agree that a system that is 100% either would have some problems.  I believe that both systems need to be tempered somewhat to be effective.

I didn't fully realize how much I was in favor of capitialism until some British friends and I had the capitialism vs socialism debate.  One of them is proud of living in a society that "takes care of" everyone by providing nationwide health care and so forth.  A different British friend is irked that her long work week provides her with little more than she could get "on the dole".

I found myself arguing that the socialist system drains ambition.  Why work to achieve all that you can achieve when you don't benefit from it, when it will just be drained away in taxes?   We compared taxes and expenses and I, a moderate American, was horrified at how high their tax rate is.  I found myself thinking "Well, we would revolt against that" and I realized that is exactly what happened.  Looking at the numbers, I could fully understand why we threw the bloody tea in the harbor.

I do believe that human nature is such that people will not exert extra effort unless they can see a point to it, unless they benefit from it.

I also see that a pure capitialist system could be very harsh and cruel.  As coolotter says, it would leave some people behind.

[Voar Tok 4]

I vote for capitalism.  Life is kind of like a game.  In socialism, everyone is responsible for everyone else, and if even a handful of people refuse to play along, but are still required to be a part of the game, then the whole thing comes crashing down.  In capitalism, if you don't want to play the game, you're more than welcome to leave it.  Problem is, if you leave it, you have to find your own way to survive.  Harsh, I know, but it's about the only way that the mass public will stay motivated.  History has repeatedly shown us that communal living is destined to fail.  If you have to provide for yourself, that is the strongest motivation on the planet.

For historical evidence of what I mean, look at Jamestown when it was founded versus not long after Captain Smith took over.  Before hand, they had food, but most of the people who came didn't work, and the whole place was starting to starve.  They had communal living where everyone provided for everyone else.  Pretty soon, no one could provide for anyone.  One of the major changes made under Captain Smith was that if you wanted to eat, you had to work.  Pretty soon, the colony was starting to turn around.  The communal thinking is socialist in nature - it failed.  Smith's ideas are capitalist in nature - they ultimately thrived.

Communal living, or socialism, is better suited to smaller groups, and its effectiveness fades with more and more people.  However, even on the family level, it doesn't work too well.  If you had a massive Snickers bar that you received as a gift from someone when you were a kid, did your parents ever make you share it and if so, were you particularly happy about having to give away a portion of your candy bar?  Most people rarely are.  This is communal thinking present in the family - the fortune of one is applied to the others.  Thing is, most of the time, the kids don't want to share with each other.  It only works in a forced environment, or one where everyone is willing to play along.  Fights ensue, which on a national scale would mean that it'd start to decay.

Also, it should be noted that while pure capitalism is harsh and cold, most capitalists are strong proponents of charity.  Here is where the socialist ideas of everyone helping everyone else out come into play in capitalism.  There will always be people who will be willing to go to any stretch to make a buck, including child labor, which is why, as beebs pointed out, not even the US practices pure capitalism.

One of the things mentioned as a strong selling point for socialism is free health care.  While that sounds great, I've had the pleasure of knowing two Canadians and a Briton in my personal life, and none of them were impressed with what was the standard health care for them.  In fact, one of the Canadians mentioned that his mom was glad that she lived close enough to the US border to be able to go to a US doctor when she needed treatment for something, even though she pays through the nose for it.  There's one other thing of note that I feel should be pointed out also.  I, like a decent chunk of another Americans, am covered under a health insurance policy.  My British friend has indicated that the US and UK health care systems are roughly similar in how they treat you for the various ailments - what we in America call traditional medicine.  Not that terribly long ago, I started seeing a doctor for severe insomnia.  The traditional medical system, like what I would get on the US or, according my friend, the UK health care systems would be to take sleeping pills.  The doctor I went to follows the alternative care school of medicine, so my health insurance doesn't cover him.  He charges a fistful of money for his services (around $500 for the initial visit and tests) but it was worth every penny, and I'd do it again without a second thought if necessary.

Finally, socialism doesn't make everyone equal.  That is nothing but a dream.  Even in socialism, there has to be someone to manage the goods, or else the system won't work, and if you have people telling other people how to distribute the goods in order to achieve the greatest good, you still have a managerial class.  Hence, the "classless" society where everyone is "equal" has classes, which means that not everyone is equal.

[beebs 129]

The high taxes are for the peoples benefit though. Using Sweden as an example (mostly because it's what we used in school as a case study), they pay for just about anything. IIRC, most, if not all of University tuition is paid for by the state.. they'll pay for both parents to take a year (two years?) ma/paternity leave, full pay of what they would have gotten. Of course, it could be argued that this can be abused.. but what can't be abused these days?

While there are higher taxes, you'll be paying a LOT less for your essential services. You get ill? You don't need to worry. Just had a kid? They got you covered. This is where capitalism fails, IMO. With capitalism, if you can't work, you're effectively screwed.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I voted capitalism simply because it allows people to achieve goals, wealth and careers through merit and hard work that they may not have otherwise have been able to achieve if everyone was 'equal'.

I don't agree with socialism, I'm perfectly happy to pay taxes so that people who are not as well-off get support and can live and have enjoyment in life. I'm not however in favour of a welfare system that does not make people find jobs and allows them to be lazy, which I'm sorry but alot of people on welfare are.

Everyone, well at least the majority, in this world want to better themselves some of us may have been born into a world where we can do as we please and not worry about money etc etc. Thus capitalism systems allow people to do that and better their lives. The capitalist system has flaws like everything else but it is much better than socialist economics (I'm also an economist so I knoe social economics don't work as people always imagine).

quote>

Is it 800,000 people in the UK who are on long term financial benefits?

Your willingness to pay taxes to help the poor gain a footing can be easily translated into a donation to a private charity.  Especially with the extra money you would have from the abolishment of the welfare state.quote>

 

I don't agree with abolishing the welfare system. Here in the UK we pay tax so the nation can provide free health and education to every single citizen no matter how rich or poor. I don't use the National Health Service, simply due to my parents insurance, but if I were ever in an accident then I would be taken to a modern hospital and whatever treatments or operations I needed would happen. It has it's faults as does free education but those system are needed in a mainly capitalist society so those that have little can get medical treatments and good education without worrying about cost.

Northern Ireland has some of the best schools in Europe and some of the worlds highest academic standards and pretty much all the schools are free, some do ask for fees but if your family have a low income they the education board can pay. This is why I agree to paying taxes.

Those figures are roughly correct, they do of course change. The money they get monthy/weekly don't really give them a foot up, for some it will for others it will be the government funded projects and schemes that will help they achieve more and maybe eventually earn a good salary so they can have a life they have always wanted.

I would love to pay less tax but the reality with a moden capitalist economy is that some will lose out and these people need to be looked after and helped. This is where I think some nations outside Europe fail, many do not provide a good welfare support network and these leads to unrest and deepening poverty.

[Goldfish4209 9]

I wouldn't really go one way or another in real life, but I pick socialism. Socialism, if run correctly, is less chaotic, and (almost) nobody will die from not being able to make enough money.

And we wouldn't have to waste so much time on politics. Some might like this, but this would leave more time for the average person to enjoy their lives.

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Originally posted by: Cjah Welfare DOES NOT make you lazy.....

quote>

It's hard to deny that recieving free long term financial assistance makes you complacent and take it for granted.  I mean... the evidence is literally EVERYWHERE!!  It's just human nature.quote>

Right, everywhere. I too have never met anyone that lives on welfare. There's only a few people that do that, it's not like a big chunk of the population does it.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Cjah pffttt....fancy capitalism....once socialism takes over all will be well...

all will be equal...quote>

My name is Legion: for we are many.

Folks, like it or not, the proletarian revolution isn't going to come anymore. 1848 is long behind us. Communism has proven itself to be unsustainable and vulnerable in Eastern Europe over the past century, and has left a lot of people in a bad situation after the experiment. I can't conceive that anyone thinks a purely socialist society would work, let alone that they'd want to live there.

But a 100% capitalist society is unsurvivable for a great deal of people, because some people just aren't as capable as others. So while a 100% socialist society is unsustainable, a 100% capitalist society is undesirable. Which means we need to find a compromise. A good compromise results in a government which regulates it's economy as loosely as possible, while providing an acceptable life for its weakest members. I believe you have to strike a balance between personal freedom on one hand, and a societal safety net on the other.

If you let yourself get lured into believing that a 100% anything works, then you have lost contact with the real world.

Because of the stupid timezones it's getting late over here, and I really need to go to sleep. Hopefully this thread will still be there in the morning.

[Rochefort 13]

I'm not sure if anyone here has read "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx & Engels?

In it, they argue that society will go through a natural progression of political systems before finally adopting communism. Now bear in mind, that Marx argued that the journey through capitalism was a necessary evil on the way to true communism (ultra-socialism) and the types of communism that we saw develop in the USSR & China do not fit the model Marx envisaged.

Now I'm not introducing my point with the previous paragraph to support socialism, but Marx predicted things that are happening in today's capitalist societies. 

The corporation, legally, is duty bound to improve its profit margins to the benefit of the shareholders. Even companies who plough money into environmental projects have to justify a profit related policy linked to this decision..i.e..there's money to be made in appealing to the green marketplace. This all goes back to the Dodge v Ford case for those of you who want to read up these things.

Anyhow, we now see a system that is so relentless in its pursuit of profit that companies who have reaped fat juicy profits from mature markets like Europe & North America are switching jobs to the far east or Indian sub-continent in the search for lower production/operating costs and therefore more and more profit.

The outcome of this? Unemployment growing in the very countries which drive the demand. Do you see the inevitability of this? Unemployment means no money to buy these same goods and services, which in turn means the corporations abandon those loyal customers from the past in search of profits in the economies now reaping the rewards of lax employment and safety laws and a lower cost of living.

Its exactly what Marx and Engals predicted and whilst it may not fully come to fruition, take a look at the fastest growing economies in the world and there may be some truth in it.

EDIT: Just so no one gets confused as to my preference, its difficult for me to have one as I believe the desire to a politican from any end of the spectrum should immediately rule you out from ever being one and I'd rather spend a night naked in a box full of angry scorpions, snakes and tigers than spend the evening with a capitalist and a socialist arguing which one's right.

EDIT: EDIT: Before I get any angry messages from the Scorpion, Snake & Tiger Alliance, I've nothing against any of them, but I know some politicians I'd like to introduce you to.