Capitalism versus Socialism

[Duke87 1,070]

Okay, so... when we last left off, George Bush was still president of the US, the economy hadn't crashed yet... some things have really changed! In light of that, how does this debate change?

One obvious lesson learned with regard to the economy is what Capitalism is capable of when it is insufficiently regulated. Sub-prime morgatges, "predatory lending", etc. Nasty stuff, shouldn't have been allowed.

It's thus perhaps unsurprising that in reaction to this the American people started to run a little more over to the "socialist" side of things. We elected a very liberal president and gave the democrats a majority in the house and a supermajority in the senate. We've had huge unprecedented government bailouts, takeovers, and stimuli. There's been a huge debate over the future of healthcare (public versus private), and other matters of government control versus free market (c.f. "cap and trade").

Of course, since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, there has since been significant backlash. What started as a series of anti-tax "tea party" protests has turned into a sizeable neo-conservative, anti-socialism, anti-big government movement. The democrats just lost their supermajority in the senate in a huge upset in a special election, and all signs point to them losing big in the general election this fall.

Basically, in the past couple of years we've seen the some of the ugly sides of both Capitalism and Socialism.

Okay, there's your recap. Resume discussion!

(this thread would have been destined to "drop off the page" in a couple weeks. I think it's worth keeping.)

[chicah 20]

I don't think I've even seen this thread before!

I think it is an easy choice. Socialism? Aye. There are many reasons for this, the main being that socialism is the ideology of the suppressed, and that profit-making should (and this should be evident to everyone) not be the pillar we build our society upon. Because it leads down a path of exploitation and cruelty in the name of monetary interests. Multi-national companies hire workers in poor countries basically as slaves so they can take what they have made for virtually no pay at all and sell it for hundreds of times as much and be filthy rich. We cut down rainforests, "sell" villages' waters to the Coca Cola Company, privatize water and spend more money researching Viagra than AIDS medicine. And the people affected rarely get a say. I doubt the poor South Africans who now barely can afford any water, or the villagers in India who have to walk several miles extra to fetch water, or the thousands and thousands who die every year from AIDS asked for these priorities to be made. It was their politicians and cynical businessmen, seeing an opportunity at making money and jumping at it, without any thought for the ordinary man and woman.

The world has completely lost focus and we're going off track. What I am one hundred percent certain about is that although what we have now might appear to be working (good thing w have the crises to remind us it's NOT), it is based on the interests of the strong, not the weak; on the minority, not the majority; and it's UNFAIR. You might come up with hundreds of reasons as to why socialism won't work, and I don't think turning the whole world into socialism Utopia will ever happen, but if we value the ideology more we'll go in the right direction. A huge part of those speaking for peace, solidarity, environmental consciousness and a more fair world trade are socialists, or at the very least left wing. We should listen to the (peaceful) protesters at the G8-summits, World Economic Forum and Environment Conferences. Because they have the right priorities, they believe in equality, fairness and humanity. If we listened to them, I honestly think we would see a change for the better in the world. The road might be paved with conflicts and we may struggle for decades getting there, but if we really want to, we WILL get there.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Duke87

(this thread would have been destined to "drop off the page" in a couple weeks. I think it's worth keeping.)

quote>

It is worth keeping.

LOL, socialism is unAmerican, countless American souls died fighting it; both on the battlefield and in dark secret dungeons like Lubyanka prison's basement, or at the hands of the SS. Both Communism and fascism are socialist systems, the population is letting it sneak up on them even while they fly MIA flags in the front yard. It is antithetical to the American way of life, and and a US nationalist like myself knows it is poisonous in any concentration to our society. It works in other places, they like it? Fine, good for them. Don't try to bring it here. Our system was not designed for it, and it cannot be made to fit.

Medicaid returns 18¢ on the dollar in care, we have already built a socialized healthcare machine that is best at wasting money. When a machine doesn't work, building a bigger machine is not the answer.

[astronelson 339]

I'm terribly sorry if this has been posted before, I just simply haven't the inclination to read through over 12 pages of argument right now.

Anyway, in the poll on the first page, I voted for them not being mutually exclusive. Why? Lets look at a couple of definitions:

Socialism is a set of left-wing political principles whose general aim is to create a system in which everyone has an equal opportunity to benefit from a country's wealth. Under socialism, the country's main industries are usually owned by the state.

Capitalism is an economic and political system in which property, business, and industry are owned by private individuals and not by the state.quote>

One could argue that in a pure capitalistic society, no business or industry would be owned by the state. However, it is the case in many countries that call themselves capitalist, or at least don't call themselves socialist, that a few businesses are government-run to put a certain level of control on the private sector, to make sure that there is no price-fixing and to protect against monopolies, among other things. These businesses are rarely the largest in their sector, thus not fulfilling the definition of socialism, but they do exist, thus also not fulfilling the definition of capitalism.

I consider a balance between socialism and capitalism, such as this one, to be the best system. Of course, I may be biased, as Australia, in my view, seems to have this balance. For how much longer I am not sure, as we are privatising a lot of the nationalised companies and their general service quality has decreased.

On the topic of monopolies, as you can't force anyone to start a business, and you can't really fine people for not having any competition, how do you stop them forming in a pure capitalist society?

[hym 358]

And so begins again the classic debates on the virtues of capitalism versus socialism...

In my experience, most supporters of socialism argue that the current system is unfair and that we need to embrace a system that believes in the fair economic treatment of everyone, while most supporters of capitalism argue that socialism ignores the fact that life is inherently unfair, and the best solution is to use a system that recognizes this and believes it can be used to the benefit of humanity in general.  While it is not the most idealistic, it is my opinion that capitalism is the only long-term sustainable economics model because it is the only one that accepts basic realities about humans and acknowledges that those realities can be utilized for personal benefit.

Years ago, my sister wanted extra money, so she tried to get a cashiering job like a lot of other teenagers.  She went over to the local Lowes store, asked if they were hiring cashiers, the manager said yes, so she filled out an application.  My mother told her that she had heard that cashiers got approximately $8/hour at Lowes, so she should ask for at least that much, because my sister was just as competant as a cashier as anyone else working there, and that it would be unfair to expect her to work for less than everyone else was getting paid.  My sister was turned down for the job despite having a skill set that most managers would kill for in a cashier.  The reason was she wasn't worth the $8/hour that she demanded.  By expecting to be treated as an equal, she wound up costing herself in the long-term.

Contrast this with my job-hunting experience.  When it came time during the interview to address the issue of compensation, the manager always asked me what salary I wanted.  Unlike my sister, who expected to start out earning the same as everyone else who had been working for longer than her, I always told the manager I was flexible with salary and would work for what the manager thought I was worth because I recognized that the decision to hire me had nothing to do with me and everything to do with what I offered the company in return for hiring me.  This had employer after employer expressing a desire to hire me on the spot (I was unwilling to work past the summer and this unfortunately killed most of the positions since they wanted a person that could work longer than 3 months).

The difference between my continued string of employers wanting to hire me versus my sister's continued string of rejections despite having skills that most managers would kill for was that my sister expected to be treated as equal with people who knew the job better than she did, while I was okay with not receiving the same pay as everyone else despite essentially performing the same work.

Several years ago, polticians in the US, Europe, and other countries thought that it would be good for the Third World if we established an international minimum wage.  The claim was that it would end the "economic oppression" of people in underdeveloped nations by international companies that were using them as little more than slave labor.  However, economists from both ends of the political spectrum blasted it as the most asinine economic development policy ever proposed for underdeveloped nations and with good reason.  These countries need outside investments to foster the economic development needed to lift the citizens out of poverty, and for many such countries, the only thing they have to offer is cheap labor and resources.  Take that away (which is what a global minimum wage would do) and you have destroyed any reason companies have for employing the people and thereby doomed them to live in continued poverty.

The point is, doing what appears to be "fair" often isn't the best decision in the long-term.  My sister demanded "fair" treatment by her employer and it cost her every job she applied to for years whereas I had no such demand and received numerous opportunities for self-advancement.  The same general principle works on the macroeconomic scale also.  The key to economic success isn't found in socialist ideals; rather, it is the result of recognizing opportunities for personal advancement and possessing the initiative to seize them.  This is one of capitalism's greatest strengths; everything, including your own disadvantages, can be turned to work for you if you possess the knowledge and initiative to make it happen.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: chicah

Multi-national companies hire workers in poor countries basically as slaves so they can take what they have made for virtually no pay at all and sell it for hundreds of times as much and be filthy rich.quote>

This is a problem, granted. But the problem is not that "evil CEOs" go and oursource jobs (how dare they find ways to save money, right?), the problem is that economics encourages them to do so.

In other words, those workers in China, India, etc. who work long hours in poor conditions for low pay... that is not the problem nor fault of the US or any other developed country for permitting companies to do such things. The problem, really, is that such conduct is acceptable in places like that. What needs to happen is the governments of those countries need to get their acts together and start coming up with some labor laws to ensure workers there are treated and paid fairly. Meanwhile, we, the consumers can be wary of such mistreatments and speak out against them/boycott the products made in such ways (e.g., don't shop at Walmart).

Also, meanwhile, we need to stop this nonsense about labor unions, as they just breed excess and laziness, and make problems for everyone who isn't a member of the club.

Street sweepers should not be chillin' in the parking lot at CVS at 1:30 in the afternoon when there are streets to sweep. Transit workers should not be getting 11% annual raises in a recession. Train conductors should not be making six figures, being on the clock and getting paid overtime to sleep in a bunk in the conductor's lounge for seven hours between the 1 AM train they need to be on and the 8 AM train they need to be on. It's this kind of crap which is a huge part of the problem: workers in developing countries may be underpaid and treated poorly... but workers here are overpaid and treated too nicely! Our standards are simply not sustainable. They need to go down.

We cut down rainforests,quote>

Well, "we" don't. There aren't any rainforests in the US save for in Hawaii, and I doubt there are any in Norway.

But yes, people in more tropical areas do cut down rainforests (usually for farmland), and it is a problem. Ultimately though, while we can nicely ask that they stop (and perhaps even provide incentives), we can't make them. So until the will is found in those places to cull such practices, nothing is going to change.

"sell" villages' waters to the Coca Cola Company,quote>

This one I find interesting. From what I can gather, Coke built a plant in India in a region that was drought-prone. Then a drought came and everyone blamed coke for sucking up all the water. And yes, they shouldn't have built a plant in a drought-prone area. But when you say "sell village's waters to the Coca Cola Company", you make it sound like the well in the village square was piped off to the Coke plant leaving the villagers to buy Coke or die of thirst.... and I doubt anything quite so dramatic happened. Coke's actions were stupid, not cruel.

privatize waterquote>

My tap water comes from a well. That's as private as it gets, and it's great!

Meanwhile, the people in the denser parts of town who get water piped in from elsewhere recieve this service from the Aquarion Water Company (local private water company). In some places, the water supply is municipal (New York City's huge water supply system, for instance, is owned and operated by the city DEP). But, both systems function just fine. What exactly is the problem with having a private water company?

and spend more money researching Viagra than AIDS medicine.quote>

This would be hilarious if it was true, but somehow I doubt it actually is. Viagra is but one medication (though, I suppose you may choose to include Levitra and Cialis in the total figure). Meanwhile, I spy no fewer than seventeen AIDS medications here. And, regardless, we have made huge strides in the treatment of AIDS since it first was "discovered" 30 years ago. Doesn't seem to me like there's much to complain about there.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

[Our standards are simply not sustainable. They need to go down.  quote>

and that is freaking people out.  People who are carrying on about how our way of life is being destroyed -- well they are right but not for the reasons they believe.  It has nothing to do with which political party is in power now or was in power four years ago or will be in power four years from now.  It is a economic reality that politics can not fix.

My tap water comes from a well. That's as private as it gets, and it's great!

Meanwhile, the people in the denser parts of town who get water piped in from elsewhere recieve this service from the Aquarion Water Company (local private water company). In some places, the water supply is municipal (New York City's huge water supply system, for instance, is owned and operated by the city DEP). But, both systems function just fine. What exactly is the problem with having a private water company? quote>

I live in a planned unit development community that is assisting the Washington suburbs and the Baltimore suburbs to become one merged chunk of urban / suburban sprawl.  When the community was being built, a deal was made about the water.  Yes, it will require new pipelines, sewer lines, and new treatment plants and, guess what?  The people who live here get to pay for it.  Every residence here gets a semi-annual assessment for 20 or 30 years (I forget which) to pay for this new construction.

That's only fair, don't ya think?

[hamsterTK 93]

A free market allocates capital more efficiently and is more likely to generate new wealth, but does not provide fairness or order. Socialism provides fairness and order but upsets economic activity to a degree that this outweighs any benefits.

I think it is the Government's job to provide services that produce broadly distributed benefits that are intangible or hard to monetize per the free rider problem but readily understood as beneficial. Education, consumer protection, police and emergency services, and other issues fall into this category.

Our standards are simply not sustainable. They need to go down. quote>

Like I said, a free market should generate new wealth. The ideal situation is for developing countries to DEVELOP, while we adapt and change in the ever shifting global economy. Environmental and Human sustainability is the catch. However, I believe that we can generate wealth and a higher standard of living by using what we have more efficiently and putting people on a level playing field, not necessarily just consuming more for ourselves. And I mean that in a very broad way.

If you ask me the real problem is we worship at the altar of Ayn Rand while other countries have discovered Fordism.

[astronelson 339]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

LOL, socialism is unAmerican,quote>

Argument only applies within the USA. This thread seems to be intended as a more general discussion of the pros and cons of each system, not on whether it is intended for the USA.

countless American souls died fighting it; both on the battlefield and in dark secret dungeons like Lubyanka prison's basement, or at the hands of the SS. quote>

The politics of the two examples you gave weren't truly socialist. They were run by tyrants acting purely for their own benefit, with no regard to the welfare of the people.

Both Communism and fascism are socialist systems,quote>

In name only. There is usually a massive divide between the people in power and the majority of the people in these systems, which is antithetical to the actual tenets of socialism, i.e. that everyone is equal and should be treated as such. Communism and fascism are usually tyrranies or oligarchies. As I said before, they don't act in the interests of the people, but rather the interests of themselves.

the population is letting it sneak up on them even while they fly MIA flags in the front yard.quote>

Sounds like there's a conspiracy going on, when you put it that way.

Like it or not, and regardless of whether or not you voted for him (although you quite obviously didn't), Obama won the election, and the Democrats have a majority in both houses. His platform was universal healthcare, so you can't say it snuck up on you. The population has to live with their choice. Was it the right one? It is too soon to say. In any case I'm not qualified to make that decision.

It is antithetical to the American way of life, and and a US nationalist like myself knows it is poisonous in any concentration to our society. It works in other places, they like it? Fine, good for them. Don't try to bring it here. quote>

I particularly like that phrase "poisonous in any concentration". As far as I can tell, public schools are open to everyone. They give everyone an equal chance at an education, regardless of background. A small concentration of socialism? Perhaps. Poisonous to US society? Hardly.

National parks: government owned land, open to everyone. They're socialist too! Public libraries - socialist!

Our system was not designed for it, and it cannot be made to fit. quote>

I don't know. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Everyone equal? Sounds like socialism!

Medicaid returns 18¢ on the dollar in care, we have already built a socialized healthcare machine that is best at wasting money. When a machine doesn't work, building a bigger machine is not the answer.quote>

Wrong thread for diatribes against universal healthcare. You want this one: https://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=138&threadid=96278&enterthread=y

You know, it's really fun watching someone call things unAmerican on an international site based in Canada.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: astronelson

As far as I can tell, public schools are open to everyone. They give everyone an equal chance at an education, regardless of background.quote>

Well, yes and no. In America, yes, the public schools are open to everyone but, no, it does not provide an equal chance at an education.  It depends greatly on which part of the country you are in.

Schools in Mississippi, for example, are not as good as schools is, say, Connecticut.   Mississippi is a poor, rural state.  Connecticut is relatively wealthy and has a higher percentage of urban / suburban area than rural (at least compared to Mississippi).  

Since education benefits everyone, I used to be naive enough to think that no one would be against it.  Turns out there is a whole group of people with the mindset "What good is it if it benefits everyone?"

I spend time trying to understand where other people are coming from.  Sometimes, I just don't get it.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

I live in a planned unit development community that is assisting the Washington suburbs and the Baltimore suburbs to become one merged chunk of urban / suburban sprawl.  When the community was being built, a deal was made about the water.  Yes, it will require new pipelines, sewer lines, and new treatment plants and, guess what?  The people who live here get to pay for it.  Every residence here gets a semi-annual assessment for 20 or 30 years (I forget which) to pay for this new construction.

That's only fair, don't ya think?quote>

The interesting part is that in private enterprise it doesn't necessarily work that way.

Local story: there's this old landfill in town. It was officially closed in the 1960's but a lot of illegal dumping there continued into the 1970's until it was actually physically capped. Part of the land is now a park. Part of it is one of the city's two recycling centers. Much of the rest of it is where the city makes compost out of all the leaves they pick up off the curbisde every fall.

In 2006, the well of a church/catholic school about a half mile down the road was condemned. About a mile of new water main was installed in order to bring them acceptable water, entirely at the church's expense - but part of the contract was that if anyone else tapped into the main, they'd have to reimburse the church for part of the main's construction cost.

Fast forward to the spring of 2009. In a routine test, several various nasty chemicals are discovered in the pond in the park, a few of them in concentrations above the human secondary exposure safety standard. The park is immediately closed. Considering it was built on top of an old dump, this was unsurprising. I personally had suspected for years that something in that park might be "hot", and I was not alone in that.

But, it gets more fun from there. September 2009: the wellwater of several homes in the area tests positive for a couple pesticides. Their wells are condemned. By the end of October, the city has approved a couple million dollars in funding to put these houses on Aquarion's system. The local homeowners are not being assessed for the cost, since that would be considered an unfair penalty to them - it's just regular taxpayer money taken out of the emergency construction reserve.

Thing is, the nearest existing water main is - you guessed it - the one to the church. So "their" water main is getting tapped into. This contract provision about people who tap in owing them money was completely ignored or overlooked by the city, though. A few paritioners now complain that the church is getting a raw deal and that they ought to be entitled to some reimbursment from the city or the homeowners. But the church itself is doing nothing on the matter. After all, it's the church. Suing people for money doesn't really fit in with the image of faith and charity they like to maintain. Which is a shame, because they do deserve some of their money back here.

As for how the pesiticides got in the groundwater - it is known that barrels of the stuff were part of the illegal dumping that occured there. It's postulated that the local chemical company Cytec (then known as American Cyanimid) dumped them there, but of course, there's no evidence, so no legal action is ocurring there. In addition, it's hypothesized that the tanins from the leaves the city has been composting on the property helped degrade the barrels and make them leak.

But anyways, yes, this idea of "assess the locals for the cost" is pretty common. Installing some new sewers? The cost is divided among the owners of the homes getting hooked up in proportion to the number of bedrooms. Some cities will assess local homeowners for the construction of new sidewalks.

The city of New York even outright takes zero responsibility for the maintenance of sidewalks, legally making it entirely the responsibility of the owner of the property the section of sidewalk fronts. Slip on ice and break your leg on the sidewalk? You get to sue the owner of the house you slipped in front of. Sidewalk all cracked and broken? The owner of the building it's in front of has to fix it. So New York City has essentially privatized its sidewalks, even though they're technically public property. Thoughs on this?

[your_adress_here 11]

I'll take anarcho-communism and do my own thing.

[astronelson 339]

Meg: Oh, OK. I knew they didn't actually provide equal opportunities nationally, but I thought they were intended to at least try to provide equal education to everyone.

Originally posted by: Duke87

The city of New York even outright takes zero responsibility for the maintenance of sidewalks, legally making it entirely the responsibility of the owner of the property the section of sidewalk fronts. Slip on ice and break your leg on the sidewalk? You get to sue the owner of the house you slipped in front of. Sidewalk all cracked and broken? The owner of the building it's in front of has to fix it. So New York City has essentially privatized its sidewalks, even though they're technically public property. Thoughs on this?

quote>

That's quite astounding. Here, the road and 2 metres either side (I think) is council property, which includes the footpath (sidewalk), where there is one. Sidewalks are a public thoroughfare, like roads. Why should they be the property of the person who owns the building they're in front of?

[sneakeypete 16]

When was the last time you saw council here mow the footpath though? All they do is maintail the actual paths, if any, and they don't do a wonderful job at it.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: astronelson

That's quite astounding. Here, the road and 2 metres either side (I think) is council property, which includes the footpath (sidewalk), where there is one. Sidewalks are a public thoroughfare, like roads. Why should they be the property of the person who owns the building they're in front of?quote>

The sidewalks are public thoroughfares and they are the property of the city. But they are not the responsibility of the city.

You as the landowner do not own the sidewalk, but you are legally mandated to maintain it.

I get where this would seem like a strange concept.

But, see, the problem is one of scale. Depending on who you ask, there are anywhere between 6,000 and 20,000 miles of streets in the City of New York. That's an awful lot of sidewalk, and for the city to keep track of it all would be a daunting task (NYCDOT struggles to keep track of everything they are responsble for!). So they don't bother, and make it the landowners' problem instead.

[chicah 20]

Duke87: You must evidently not have read my post thoroughly. When I talked about privatization of water, I was talking about a specific incident in South Africa - where the water has been privatized, which results in this: All households get a certain amount of water a month. The same amount for everyone, regardless of if the family consists of 8 or 2 people. And; after that, if they use it up, they have to pay for the water, which a lot of the rich people can afford, but a lot of poor people (who usually have the biggest families aswell) can NOT. Which has resulted in a major water shortage for a big part of the population. Besides, the MORE water you buy the cheaper it is pr litre - so the richest can fill their swimming pools for less money a litre than what the poor can buy more water for their family for. Water is a right, we DIE without water - thus, we should not deny anyone water, based on an opportunity for profit. On a political summer camp I was on last year, we gathered money for a sabotage group who lead the water from the president's palace (the president of course does not have to pay) to the poorer part of the city, and you might call that stealing, but I think stealing is completely just when it is necessary, and if it makes life better for a huge amount of people.

hym: That argument has never been valid, and I don't understand how anyone can think it is. People kill eachother, does that mean we should think "well, it happens anyway, no point in trying to stop it, just keep it up..." or that we shouldn't mind terrorism or wars because it'll happen anyway? Standing idly by irks me more than trying to help and failing. You say capitalism is the best solution because it simply is there. I think we should always try to aim for something better. The world would not have developed into this if people didn't dream of change, of something better, of a future. Simply succumbing to the present and saying we shouldn't bother ensures no development at all. We have to actively DO something. And the fact that it is unfair should be a valid argument, because if millions suffer for our wealth, should that be accepted? If the third world rises to "take revenge", it would not be surprising. The system we have today polarizes and strengthens conflicts. The gap between the poor and the rich grow. We can't just ignore it and say "hey, it's the way it is." That will just result in more war and violence, not less.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I've never seen this thread before, so I'll just post my position and vote.

When people are free to do what they will so long as they do not initiate force on others, a capitalist economic system results. Therefore, I vote for capitalism.

[Craig91 12]

I'm currently studying sociology, social policy and politics in university (not trying to say my opinion is worth more, just that I have studied a lot of different aspects of this argument).

I don't think this is or ever will be an 'either/or' situation. Socialism is required to keep the most vulnerable in our society from being subject to socio-economic manipulation beyond their control. Capitalism on the other hand is necessary to fulfill those basic aspects of human nature that make us competitive and to motivate us to do more.

The goal of a nation's social policy should be finding the balance between the two. For example, having unemployment benefit at a level that people can stay above the poverty line, but not having it too high and taking away any reason for them to work when they don't have to. Any state that has ever gone to the extreme end of socialism or capitalism hasn't done well for itself, e.g. communism & fascism.

It is clear what countries have gotten the balance between the two, Sweden being two of the richest countries per capita in the world and both also having a very effective social welfare system. My own country Ireland hasn't gotten the balance right. I believe the US is even further from it.

P.s. Particularly to Americans here (though obviously not all), please don't stigmatize the term 'socialism' by seeing it as the same as Communism, especially Leninism and Stalinism. Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Leninism and Stalinism too are extreme forms of Communism that would have Karl Marx rolling in his grave.

[saltandsauce 0]

this is a post for the thread starter, could you rename it to "Corporatism vs Socialism" please

corporatism and socialism are both capitalistic (there are no systems that DON'T involve capital)

corporatism is the practice of concentrating wealth (ergo power) into the hands of very few people

socialism is the practice of concentrating power in the hands of government

democracy helps to balance out government corruption and abuse of power (but not entirely)

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: chicah

When I talked about privatization of water, I was talking about a specific incident in South Africa {...} Water is a right, we DIE without water - thus, we should not deny anyone water, based on an opportunity for profit.quote>

Ah, okay. That wasn't entirely clear. What you describe there is despicable.

Although, it sounds to me like another African political corruption problem, not a capitalism problem per se. Remember that this is a country which up until 20 years ago had an apartheid system. Not exactly a good history of freedom and equality there. Don't expect such things to change too quickly, people resist it, especially those in power.

On a political summer camp I was on last year, we gathered money for a sabotage group who lead the water from the president's palace (the president of course does not have to pay) to the poorer part of the city, and you might call that stealing, but I think stealing is completely just when it is necessary, and if it makes life better for a huge amount of people.quote>

Heh. I like this.

And no, I don't call it stealing, I call it civil disobedience. Sounds like another example of people standing up against oppressive government to me. Keep it up, guys!

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

this is a post for the thread starter,quote>

MrFingers has not logged in since May 16th, 2008. He can't hear you.

could you rename it to "Corporatism vs Socialism" please

corporatism and socialism are both capitalistic (there are no systems that DON'T involve capital)

corporatism is the practice of concentrating wealth (ergo power) into the hands of very few people

socialism is the practice of concentrating power in the hands of governmentquote>

Odd, I've never heard the term "corporatism" before.

And "capitalism" does not mean "a system involving capital". It means (according to Princeton Wordnet) "an economic system based on private ownership of capital".

[saltandsauce 0]

corporatism and socialism are both capitalistic (there are no systems that DON'T involve capital)

corporatism is the practice of concentrating wealth (ergo power) into the hands of very few people

socialism is the practice of concentrating power in the hands of governmentquote>

Odd, I've never heard the term "corporatism" before.

And "capitalism" does not mean "a system involving capital". It means (according to Princeton Wordnet) "an economic system based on private ownership of capital".

quote>

um, the actual situation in western society is that most wealth is in the hands of companies. i.e. corporatism not capitalism.

wealth was still owned by individuals even in Stalinite communism. so "capitalism" is still inaccurate for the system many people are defending but inintentionally defending corporatism. capitalism is fine but corporatism is what many people are attacking on the thread.

[PhilsCafe 8]

I don't think either one of those is better... they're both extremes after all. I only think that "capitalism" is based on a more realistic idea of man... people are driven by their own advantages, maximizing their benefits. That certainly doesn't make it okay though, but it's natural.

[astronelson 339]

Originally posted by: PhilsCafe

I don't think either one of those is better... they're both extremes after all. I only think that "capitalism" is based on a more realistic idea of man... people are driven by their own advantages, maximizing their benefits. That certainly doesn't make it okay though, but it's natural.quote>

Selfishness may be natural, but so is altruism.

Most people have a certain degree of altruism. So while they will seek to maximise their benefits, they will reduce the amount they benefit if other people are in greater need.

As you said, neither is better, they're both extremes. The most realistic idea would have man sharing both capitalistic and socialistic traits - wanting to help himself, but not if it means others around him must suffer. The best system, therefore, would take this into account, and share elements of both capitalism and socialism.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[PhilsCafe 8]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

[...]

I have serious and strong doubts about altruism in nature.  Humans are different because we are self-aware.  But even when we commit an altruistic act, there is a reward... it makes us feel good, if nothing else.  Or it helps someone we care about, like family and friends, who have traits we want to support.  There is a whole field of study that comes into play.

quote>

That was exactly my thought. I don't know about animals, but I don't think that there is something like selfless beahvior in humans. Even the most selfless act has a "selfish" drive. Be it to feel good, or whatsoever. This probably sounds very bad for everyone who considers themselves selfless (me included), but it's actually not negative. It's how we function... and I believe something good can come out of it. After all, there are many "selfless" people out there.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

As long as we have the concept of meus et tuus, capitalism is risky. Socialism can be tasted, but never partaken to the full. All things being equal, while I live in a capitalist society with socialistic tendencies, I always use a long spoon.

[astronelson 339]

You can argue (and believe me, it has been argued) that since we get a reward through feeling good about ourselves, it's not purely altruistic. The point is, however, people will give money to those who are in need - an act inexplicable under pure capitalism. You expect no future financial gain, therefore, capitalistically, the act is absurd. But there are very few people who would call it that.

Note: the following section takes evolution as true. Those who wish to debate evolution can do so in this thread.

We evolved to function in a social group - as John Donne put it, "No man is an island". As such, giving to those who had less maintained the proper working of the social group, thus increasing your chances for survival, and evolutionary pressure was toward altruism. Evolutionary pressure on this front may have been reduced somewhat, but the results are still present.

End evolution section.

It may be so that a purely capitalist system may be devised that works on paper. But many things work on paper. The problem is getting it to work in real life. And things that work in real life are, through changing circumstances, patchwork systems cobbled together from compromises and quick-fixes. They may not be efficient or to some people's liking, but they work.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[morriswalters 16]

Questions? 

Does possession of wealth make it easier to acquire more wealth and what are the ramifications if it is true?  For instance 1 percent interest on 100 dollars is 1 dollar and 1 percent interest on 1,000,000 is 10,000 dollars.  Compound interest would give the person with more money an advantage since the more wealth the faster you double your original holdings.  No taking this as a starting point and assuming the chances of gains or losses on any investment are equal for all investors, I proceed to my next question.  The only way to gain wealth is to either take it from someone else(nothing nefarious) or to create it.  Does there come a point where old wealth consumes so much new wealth that opportunity to gain new wealth becomes impossible for the average person?.  Stated differently, if capital attracts capital, does that imply that wealth will eventually become so concentrated at one end of the range that it will become impossible for anybody to acquire enough capital to become wealthy?  And if this is incorrect what mechanism prevents it?

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

 Besides, my comment that humans are different appears to have been ignored. We are self-aware, and we manipulate our environment, animals do not.  quote>

um . . . maybe not all animals are self-aware but some are.  They can understand language and initiate conversations.  They can tell the difference between their name and the names of those around them.  They know when they are hungry or cold.  They know when they are in pain.  They have dreams when they sleep.

As for manipulating the environment, beavers building a dam do that.  Some primates use tools.  Take a stick, insert into an anthole, remove the stick, eat the attached ants.  A primitve tool, granted, but still a conscious effort to use an object to achieve an objective.

This is a bit off-topic; it might need a thread of its own.

quote>