Capitalism versus Socialism

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: Micah

Just curious, what is the difference between communism and socialism?quote>

Socialism is basically democratic communism. 

[Voar Tok 4]

defcon: Rather than quote it all and have a really long post, I'll just reply.

Everyone who lives in a society is dependent on the work of others to make that society continue to succeed.  However, it's not my responsibility to see to it that the people who made my house have the means to support themselves throughout the year.  It's their responsibility to see to it that they charge enough for the house plans to be able to survive for the year on the business they will get in that year.  Lest anyone think that I would see things differently if I were in that position, I will mention that one of my aspirations in life is to start my own business.  It is my responsibility to see to it that I charge enough for my goods or services to my clients to be able to support my livelihood.

Pertaining to withdrawing from society and laziness induced by an economic system, nothing that I said was a lie.  Starting with the laziness, while no economic system can induce laziness, they can remove incentive, which is the first step to laziness.  If I do all the work, and someone else who can work but isn't is getting benefits equal to mine, how much incentive do I have to work?  I may have had a lot, but it'll be fading fast.  This is human nature.  It isn't going to change.  It is a known fact that people with the means to support themselves usually don't work if given the option.  How they acquire the means to support themselves is irrelevant as long as it is legal.  So, if they obtain the means to support themselves through the government and don't have to work, odds are good that they won't.  The lottery is a prime example of this.  How many people who buy a lottery ticket and win big go back to work?  Not many when they have millions and millions of dollars to spend.  If you aren't working, you are probably not putting anything back into society in the form of a product or service (with the possible exception of charitable donations).  As such, you have withdrawn from society as was defined in your earlier post.  If the government continues to support that person, animosity will soon develop and spread, and the system will fall.  If the government cuts him off from support, you have just stepped into the realm of capitalism - he is now responsible for his own well-being.

As for the Jamestown example, communal thinking wasn't that they didn't work.  It was that everyone was responsible for the welfare of everyone else.  The problem that arose (and will eventually arise in every true socialist situation) is that a small group of people lost the incentive to look after their own well being because they didn't have to.  Soon, other's noticed that, lost their incentive, and did the same.  Before too long, the entire community had lost the incentive to support themselves, and no one was working - all because of the actions of a few people who didn't want to play along with the system.  True socialism only works in an environment where everyone is gladly willing to work together for the mutual well being of everyone else.  Thing is, as has been evidenced by what I said about sharing the Snickers bar, even on the most basic unit of society, this doesn't work.  If the kid with the candy is arguing about it, he's not wanting to share, which means that at the moment, he's not being a willing participant in the system.  Like it or not, the entire system is flawed.  There is no exception to prove the rule.

Americans are not inherently stingy people either.  Lots of people give money away.  Even people like myself who have no steady source of income (not even an allowance).  Those who can't will usually donate their time or talents.  None of that counts?

IMHO, having to pay taxes to support the "charity" of the government is the biggest problem with socialism.  The system is just as cold and heartless as capitalism.  Charity through the government isn't charity.  It's forced redistribution of resources.  Charity is about giving someone assistance because you want to help - not because someone you don't even know is forcing you to do so and will take legal action against you if you don't.

The thing about the two Canadians wasn't to prove that socialism is a failure, but a mention of the known fact that there are Canadians that come to America to get their health care because they don't trust the Canadian system, even though it's free.  Granted, Americans have come to Canada for cheap drugs, but not because they wanted to see the doctors.

[Zelgadis 638]

someone said the walton family were extremely rich and they could afford to raise wages...but did you consider this? wal-mart employs 1.3 billion people. wouldn't you say it's better for those people working under wal-mart to have a job rather than have no job?quote>

That someone was me. And it is impossible for Walmart to employ 1.3 billion people. That's nearly 20% of the world's population. I wasn't able to find a number as to how many employees Walmart has but the Waltons can certainly afford a dollar or two raise for all of their lowest level earners. Or what if walmart raised all their prices by a measily 10 cents? That would be enough to pay for the raises. They could even advertise that they did that. People would be more happy to go there.

Back to the topic, Canada's system isn't perfect. I said myself that it has kinks. But it's not bad, and it's here. A well-off Canadian has the means to go globe-trotting to find the best medical care in the world. But I have no such luxury. In the US, for 60,000,000 uninsured people, the "free market" system is, for all practical purposes, no system. I was one of these people. And I'll take a flawed system over no system any day.

Instead of turning Canada's system over to the free market and leave who-knows-how-many-people to die for lack of health care, I think we should work more towards achieving the sleek, efficient system of Japan's socialized medicine. It is a work of beauty.

I wouldn't call socialism "charity" either. Socialism is supposed to be about making sure basic human rights are being attended to. No matter how lazy and worthless a person might be, we are all entitled to health care, food, and a roof plus a few other things. Now, if you want more than that, and most people do, then you must go out and make something of yourself. Socialism doesn't take away the need for achievement. It provides the basic necessities of life so that everybody has the chance to go out and achieve something.

Again, there is confusion from old anti-USSR propaganda that is floating all around out there. As a former American who grew up during the 15 years before the collapse of the USSR, I know it well. Modern socialist democracies are a combination of socialism and capitalism. And I feel much more comfortable here knowing that, even if something catastrophic happened and my life crashed and burned for awhile, there's a net to catch me so that I can get back on my feet.

ISF

[coolotter88 2]

did I say billion? I meant million....1.9 million people. imagine if all those people didn't have jobs.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 did I say billion? I meant million....1.9 million people. imagine if all those people didn't have jobs.quote>

Heh heh.  I think the Walton family can dip into their $20billion dollar fortune to give some of those workers a raise.  And it needn't be anywhere near the 1.9 million people total who work there.  Just the lowest-paid ones.

ISF

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: zelgadis

Originally posted by: coolotter88 did I say billion? I meant million....1.9 million people. imagine if all those people didn't have jobs.quote>

Heh heh.  I think the Walton family can dip into their $20billion dollar fortune to give some of those workers a raise.  And it needn't be anywhere near the 1.9 million people total who work there.  Just the lowest-paid ones.

ISFquote>

This is an extremely socialist trait.

He's got more money, he can give me some.

I'm sorry, but I'm willing to bet a lot that the Walton family can make better use with $20 billion than 1 million consumers.  The 1 million workers will just put the money back into the system, where as the Walton family, proven to be entrepreneurial and competent, will invest that money and create something new.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[MrFingers 0]

Barbarossa,

Blaming people's misfortunes on other people's fortunes is another classic socialist trait.

I mean, honestly, the idea that someone can make an honest buck is just unthinkable. Especially when you've got socialists running around trying to "redistribute" the wealth.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: MrFingers Barbarossa,

Blaming people's misfortunes on other people's fortunes is another classic socialist trait.quote>

You bet it's socialist.    This is the main problem with capitalism, that it provides incentive to make hordes of cash by underpaying the people who help you make that money. 

I mean, honestly, the idea that someone can make an honest buck is just unthinkable. Especially when you've got socialists running around trying to "redistribute" the wealth.quote>

An honest buck is nice.  An "honest" $20 billion is overkill by a longshot.  What could they possibly do with all that money?  I don't have any problem with redistributing 90% of that money to people who work a lot harder than they do.  They'd still be amongst the richest 1% of the people in the world.  They'd still have plenty of money for investment.  Plenty of money for their mansions, their cars, and whatever else the super-wealthy have.  Go socialism!  They got their money from the blood, sweat, and tears of their labor force.  Time for them to give it back.

ISF

[crazyyaya 4]

Communsim is to government as socialism is to ecomonics. And let me tell you something people, communism dosen't work.

In theory socialism sounds good, everyone gets an equal share. Capitalism works much better socialism, a system of socialism cannot be achieved without reduced prosperity for the general populace and a loss of political and economic freedoms. A free market is the engine of any country.

[beebs 129]

crazyyaya: That is true... but every economy needs socialist traits to function. One can't work without the other.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

From as far as I can see, it takes experience within both types to really know which is ..'better'. Most European folk who live in my area would never go back to living in Europe, I don't know if it's just the more free and less taxed environment or what, I even have new neighbors from France who like living in the US more than their country. The youngins especially enjoy it because they do no have to pay so much in taxes that they are paying nearly twice the value of the product. (such as if they go to buy a game or something). However, this is just a random thing i observed through personal experience, it does not necessarily reflect everyone's views...

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok 

If you aren't working, you are probably not putting anything back into society in the form of a product or service (with the possible exception of charitable donations).quote>

 

  So all of us retired people doing volunteer work of various sorts don't count?   

Gee, thanks. 

Originally posted by: zelgadis

we are all entitled to health care, food, and a roof plus a few other things.quote>

 

We are?  That's not how I learned things.  One thing I was told repeatedly while growing up is "The world does not owe you a living."

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: zelgadis

we are all entitled to health care, food, and a roof plus a few other things.quote>

 

We are?  That's not how I learned things.  One thing I was told repeatedly while growing up is "The world does not owe you a living."quote>

Nope, not a living.  But the most basic of necessities.  This is good for the economy too.  If something catastrophic happens in your life, the farther down you crash, the harder it is to pull yourself back up.  I can well imagine that it would be harder to find a job if you were living in the street and had no place to wash yourself than it would be if you at least had a roof over your head.

Sometimes I see "crazy" people on the street and think to myself, "If I had no home and lived on the street, I'd probably go nuts too."  Having a home, no matter how rudimentary, must do wonders for the psyche. 

ISF

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

We are?  That's not how I learned things.  One thing I was told repeatedly while growing up is "The world does not owe you a living."quote>

The world owes you the most basic needs. A living is just peanuts after that.

[Goldfish4209 9]

Originally posted by: MrFingers Barbarossa,

Blaming people's misfortunes on other people's fortunes is another classic socialist trait.

I mean, honestly, the idea that someone can make an honest buck is just unthinkable. Especially when you've got socialists running around trying to "redistribute" the wealth.quote>

Yeah, and capitalistically paying your employees minimum wage and having them work as much as possible is better? Yeah, right.

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, it's important to keep in mind that the founders of the US were quite libertarian. In many ways, the US we have today has drifted far from the US they envisioned. The federal government is bigger and more powerful than they ever would have liked. There's a lot of government programs and spending that they certainly wouldn't approve of.

I read through a modernized version of George Washington's parting address recently (the speech he gave to announce he wouldn't be running for a third term), and found that his opinions were all quite libertarian and in support of people having as much freedom as possible. There was, in fact, only one opinion of his in that speech which has become dated and simply no longer holds true because the world and society has changed. That opinion is that without religion, there can be no order in society. Note that while our founders supported freedom of religion, they all personally believed that while it didn't matter what the religion was, that everyone must follow a religion in order to be a good person. And, well, at the end of the 18th century, there weren't really any atheists or agnostics out there, so such an opinion back then isn't too surprising. Such an opinion today, however, would be almost bigoted now that "non-believers" make up a significant portion of the population.

So, yeah, I have no doubt that were George Washington and other such people alive today, that they would almost certainly look at what we've become with disgust.

[alexjon 0]

Saying that it's far better for someone to be plutocratic in order to better distribute wealth is socialism. Saying the Waltons do us better by investing the money in more business rather than raising wages is still socialism, but in a roundabout way.

The main failure of modern "capitalism" is the lack of insight into your own station; that is to say, those who promote capitalism the most are unknowingly promoting socialism along the way. What people call socialism nowadays is nothing more than measured altruism, whereas in the past, it was about taking the chain of production and anchoring the people to the government for their benefit.

In my mind, socialism nowadays needs to move away from the monetary aspects, because money is so easy to come by. The difficulty is in providing when you do have the money, such as in housing. NIMBYism will keep lower income housing from being built, the miserly will keep food programs from being funded, entrepreneurs will keep work programs to a dull roar, and they all fail to see how that is a detriment to society.

The modern concept of capitalism is like a city without roads and zoning. You can grow as high as you want, but what good does it do you and others if the benefits can't circulate?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

alexjon: Welcome to our conversation.  Hope you will post in the other forums.

I am a social-capitalist.  I believe that there needs to be a corporate culture that does not necessarily worship the bottom line, but cares much more for the workers who grind out the profit.

There is nothing wrong with profit, nor shareholders.  What is wrong, is wringing every last bit of energy out of the workers and giving little or nothing back.  The disgustingly high rewards at the board room and executive committee levels in many corporations should be subject to a preemptive tax.  This tax must be dedicated to the required social programs that support the population in general.  The amount of money squandered by some of these high-rollers would finance an obscene quantity of medical or dental coverage for the populace.

I strongly doubt that anyone needs more compensation than $1,000,000. per annum, and find it hard to even imagine this amount of income.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

I strongly doubt that anyone needs more compensation than $1,000,000. per annum, and find it hard to even imagine this amount of income.quote>

Problem is, in order for capitalism to work, there can't be a cap on income. Just look at Microsoft. If Bill Gates was only allowed to keep a million a year, he'd have absolutely no motivation to attempt to earn any more... which means you could expect to see the company downsize by an order of magnitude or two... and this would also be happening with Apple, Dell,  HP.... and all of a  sudden the computer industry has shrunk several times over and can no longer meet the country's demands. ...and this would happen in every industry, not just with computers.

Seriously, the amount of tanking the economy would do if an income cap was imposed would make the great depression look prosperous.

So yes, there's greed involved, and yes, a select few people end up with more money than they know what to do with... but that's just a necessary evil.

[MrFingers 0]

I love it how people portray Walmart employees as victims of coporate domination.

Hey, guess what? No one is forcing them to work there! Walmart is successful because it aggressively cuts its costs. They have worked out their human resources sector to be the minimum possible that still attracts labour. It's not barbaric rape of the working class, it is the smart way to run a business.

They have $20 billion because they worked hard for 50 years building a successful business, and that money is theirs, not yours. If you go around punishing, demonising, and stealing from anyone who creates a successful business, then I have no idea how you can then expect to have a successful country.

[football_fever 6]

Hey, guess what? No one is forcing them to work there!quote>

What about when Wal-Mart moves into a small town and puts everyone else out of business, and Wal-Mart is the only place to work?  Wal_Mart can offer products at lower prices and make the people that have...

worked hard for 50 years building a successful businessquote>

...go out of business in a month

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: football_fever

Hey, guess what? No one is forcing them to work there!quote>

What about when Wal-Mart moves into a small town and puts everyone else out of business, and Wal-Mart is the only place to work?

quote>

 

I'll bet you $1000 you cannot find a town who's sole source of employment is a walmart store.

[football_fever 6]

I'm not saying 100% of the population works at walmart, but many many small towns have a huge percentage. Walmart won't move in unless there's people to put out of business in the first place

[coolotter88 2]

if the townspeople were loyal to their local businesses, they would not shop at wal-mart even if there are lower prices at wal mart.

[neder 2]

What you get payed is actually controlled by demand and supply too. Apparently Wal-mart can find employees is such abundunment that they don't need to pay them any more. If Wal-mart had a problem getting staff they would be forced to increase their salaries or shut the stores. It's the free market at work!

If people want to get payed more they need to get off their lazy behinds and get an education to give them a higher demand at the workmarket. What's wrong with pushing people to get more competence?

[belfastuniguy 18]

@neder. I agree, wages to an extend are determinded by the free market / demand and supply. Other factors influence wages but the former is by far the most important.

I'm not sure why we have focused so much on Walmart employees, I think the major issue is not the are paid a low wage but the social support systems in the United States is awful compared to Europe. I'm not a socialist but I do agree with social support, free health and free education. This does not exist to a degree but the social institutions are underfunded and seen as unimportant. Maybe if the US had developed and well funded social support then the wage issue would not be a great as it is.

Walmart has 1.8 million employees, a 0.10c per hour pay rise, working an average 10 hours a day for 6 days a week every week would cost an extra (roughly) $561,600,000 to walmart, so I'm sorry but that would lead to massive job losses, then where will the socialists be when those they demanded higher wages for have no jobs.

If American comsumers were so appalled by the working standards and wages of the Walmart employees then why continue to shop there. I really doubt the majority of US consumers would happily pay more for food and whatever else they buy so that store employees got paid more in line with socialist ideals and in total disregard to free market labour economics. It doesn't happen.

Walmart can pay 'low wages' becuase they can find people willing to be work for that. The reality is that Walmart is the largest retail corporation in the world and that is something that should not be taken away from the founding family, this is something that should be praised and the arguement "They have loads of money, how about they spread it around" - Why should they, they have worked to build that company, invested, taken all the risks and are perfectly entitled to have their wealth.

If people want to be paid more then look for another job or try to seek assistance in respect to gaining new skills and better education which will result in greater opportunities. Don't blame the company you work, you decided to work there fully aware of the wages that would be paid, so you can't really complain. I'm not in favour of gross underpayment for labour, but the reality is that some jobs will pay more than others, that's a simple fact of like and economics.

I don't like socialism due to the fact they believe that everything in the economic sphere should be fair, sorry to say, that's not how companies and nations develop and increase in influence and wealth and it doesn't work. Many nations combine both democratic socialism and capitalism / free-market economics. No nation that is 100% capitalist or 100% socialist has ever work and will never work. Europe is a great example of where both can be combined so that the poorest are looked after and are helped to better themselves through good and free education and if they are sick they are treated, no matter the cost for free. It also allow people with the means to continue to better themselves, develop new ideas/companies and products and build something for the future.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: football_fever I'm not saying 100% of the population works at walmart, but many many small towns have a huge percentage. Walmart won't move in unless there's people to put out of business in the first placequote>

rephrase;

Walmart won't open business in a town unless there is business to do.

[MrFingers 0]

belfastuniguy,

I am strongly against the national minimum wage, simply because it hurts most the people it is trying to help. Very simple supply and demand. When you introduce a price floor, you create a gap between demand and supply. hence there is less labour demand, and more labour supply. and that equates to people out of work.