Capitalism versus Socialism

[navyrules 1]

One thing people are forgetting is that the United States has a free market economy, but it also has a bit of a command economy (government controls the economy, if you didn't already know that). Take the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). In a true free market economy there would be no such thing, but we need it to prevent contamination and make some order in food and drug production. I agree with Danlikebooks there are good stuff and bad stuff with a free market economy and democracy. The same with socialism and communism and despotism (dictatorships). I am a proud Oklahoman and Conservative ( Sorry Barbarossa), but democracy and the free enterprise economy doesn't always work. No government or economy is perfect.

[dafiden 11]

N_O_Body, I see your point about questioning the value of life insurance, but life insurance is still socialism the same way that P&C insurance is. All lives in the "pool" (let's say an entire life insurance company) share risk with each other. So, if you live out your term, you've basically subsidized the death benefits for those that died. The difference is that in P&C, you realize the compensation, where in life, your family realizes the compensation (monetary, of course).

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Duke87

Capitalism in America at the moment is not unlike a troubled marriage.... if we can manage work things out, we'll be fine. If we can't, we're getting divorced and running off with our adulterous mistress, socialism.

quote>

Adulterous mistress? Isn't it Uncle Sam that's cheating on Mrs. Capitalism America here?quote>

That would be an alternate way of phrasing it, sure.

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Property insurance is a means of spreading out the risk of physical destruction, and I agree that is a good thing, and yes, it is a form of socialism in that it protects the interests of the many to the benefit of the individual.quote>

On the other hand, it's handled by a private insurance company, not the government. I wouldn't call it "socialist".

Although, that's really one of the biggest problems here. Definitions. Let's try this as an exercise: without consulting a dictionary or other refrerence, define "capitalism", "socialism", and "communism". I'll start:

Capitalism (kaah-pih-tul-iz-um): n. A system, or belief therein, where the government has minimal control over the economy and provides few goods or services to its citizens. Instead, the people provide for themselves and accumulate wealth according to how much they earn.

Socialism (so-shul-iz-um): n.  A system, or belief therein, where the government controls certain key services or products and provides them to its citizens based upon its ability to do so and a set of standards as to who deserves or needs what. Accumulation of wealth is dampened as those who earn more are required to contribute more to others.

Communism (kah-myoo-niz-um): n. A system, or belief therein, where the government exerts extensive control over many aspects of the economy, and rations what it controls based upon its ability to provide and a set of standards as to who deserves or needs what. Accumulation of wealth is actively discouraged, many things are considered to inherently belong to everyone in equal share rather than be owned by any one person or entity.

[beebs 129]

I'll play:

Capitalism: An economic system that promotes a minimal amount of governmental control over the economy. Markets are determined by the businesses, and the gaining of wealth is encouraged for the individual. An example of a capitalist state is the United States.

Socialism: An economic system in which the government plays a key role in the economy. Some businesses may be owned by the government, and there is a focus on ensuring the welfare of the population as a whole. An example of a socialist state was the Soviet Union.

Communism: An politcal/economic system, characterized by a stateless, classes society. People work for the betterment of society and all goods are communally owned. Although many states have claimed to be Communist, no state has achieved this, in the truest sense of the word.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Capitalism : a functional economic system based on greed and profit with a focus on the individual or private enterprise.

Socialism :  a functional economic system based on national welfare and the future success of its citizens, with less focus on the individual in critical economic/social arenas.

Communism : a dysfunctional economic system based on the welfare of the State to the detriment of its citizens, with no focus on the individual.

That's just on the fly, mind you!

Barbarossa

quote>

Sorry, you are confusing Soviet Maxist Leninism with Communism.

Communism: a system of joint ownership of everything where assets are allocated to those in need.  This only works in convents and monasterys on the basis that everyone is honest and believes in the system.

[raja_indy14 8]

Capitalism; a system where private property is protected and where individuals pursue the accumulation of capital largely unconstrained by the state. Generally, goods and services are provided by private interests with the objective of accumulating further private capital, not in the interests of 'the public'. A state is required to enforce contracts, protect private property, and manage currency, but in the future these roles may be taken on by some other entity. In all current capitalist systems, the role of the state extends, often considerably, beyond these basics.

Socialism; a system where considerable property and capital in the economy is controlled by the state, with the intention of providing more equitable access to public goods and services. Or, where workers control the means of production. It aims to redistribute private capital, and in doing so may violate private property. Public goods, such as natural resources, are controlled by the state for the public good.

communism; a system where property is held communally, and each member is entitled to an equitable share. There is no private capital accumulation and no private property, goods and services are exchanged on the concept of reciprocity and/or for the public good, rather than for the accumulation of private capital. Ideally, there is no state, as such, but there will inevitably be local power structures that regulate day to day interactions, such as courts. Communism, in this sense, is practiced by small clusters of humans, but it is obviously impossible for any state to practice communism, or really, for any large groupings of humans to attempt to practice it in a system of capitalist nation-states.

Communism; a system that aims to violently overthrow everything you hold dear (the family, the church, your home, democracy, etc) and replace it with slavery and despotism. Practiced by several highly degenerate states, most of which, thankfully, have either failed or reformed.

[galees 0]

Why do you Americans always include Communism as a Economic Entity? My Family is from Russia and my parents always have said that it the USSR was a Socialist State(economically) and Communist(Politically). It even says on Wiki USSR was a "Federal socialist republic, Single-party communist state" no "Communist country could have been Communist Economically in human nature its not possible".

Today a good Communist country uses Capitalism (ex China) to grow and they needed Capitalism to survive.

[Duke87 1,070]

Hmm... good responses so far, keep 'em coming.

Actually, it would be helpful if you also noted where you're from and which one of the three you most favor. I suspect there is a correlation between those things and how people define the words.

[raja_indy14 8]

I favour a free market liberal democracy. It's quite difficult to say you "favour" capitalism, because it doesn't mean much. Capitalism can exist with varying degrees of state intervention, and no capitalist system exists with no state intervention. I think that private property should be inviolate, I think that people should be relatively free to accumulate capital, but I also think that the government must play a role in regulation of the free market system, and that it should play a role in alleviating inequality. I definitely do not favour laissez-faire capitalism, because I think that rampant capitalism can be a very ugly thing that must be tempered by a public conscience, by Adam Smith's "moral sentiments".

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: galees

Why do you Americans always include Communism as a Economic Entity? My Family is from Russia and my parents always have said that it the USSR was a Socialist State(economically) and Communist(Politically). It even says on Wiki USSR was a "Federal socialist republic, Single-party communist state" no "Communist country could have been Communist Economically in human nature its not possible". quote>

I was taught that it was Socioeconomic - that is, it's both an economic and a political entity. And I would still say that, despite multiple nations in the last century calling themselves a Communist country, none have met the criteria as laid out by Karl Marx. Socialist, sure, to varying degrees, with governments varying from democratic to autocratic and everywhere inbetween.. communist, never.

Duke: Canadian, and if I can only pick one of the definitions, I'd say I agree most with Socialism (by my definition).

Well no, it's not nearly that black and white.. I don't think I can say that I agree with just one.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If you don't already know, I am another of those pesky Canadians who have a larger world view than many others, especially the young.  All cats are grey in the dark, and all politico-economic systems are members of the coal-bin brigade.  I also love to take a contrary attitude in discussions for my own entertainment.  You need a big grain of salt to take with me.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: beebs

and if I can only pick one of the definitions, I'd say I agree most with Socialism (by my definition).

Well no, it's not nearly that black and white.. I don't think I can say that I agree with just one.

quote>

Well, I wanted to say "what is your political alignment?", but then I realized that all the words used to describe those things ("liberal", "conservative", etc.) are defined differently by different people in different places as well, so that doesn't objectively work.

...okay, you know what? I was trying to avoid biasing responses, but it looks like I'm going to need to explain what I'm trying to get at here. Let's compare your definition of socialism:

An economic system in which the government plays a key role in the economy. Some businesses may be owned by the government, and there is a focus on ensuring the welfare of the population as a whole. An example of a socialist state was the Soviet Union.quote>

to mine:

A system, or belief therein, where the government controls certain key services or products and provides them to its citizens based upon its ability to do so and a set of standards as to who deserves or needs what. Accumulation of wealth is dampened as those who earn more are required to contribute more to others.quote>

The partiular thing that jumps out at me here (and I've seen this before), is the categorization of the USSR as "socialist". It seems to me that people from Europe, or people who lean further left, tend to do so - while people from America, or people who lean further right, would categorize the USSR as "communist", and say "socialist" describes more what exists in much of Europe currently. This is where the contentiousness with these words arises: people on the right call Obama and his policies "socialist" and mean it in the Europe way, but then people on the left hear the word and think USSR, and see those on the right as crazy for thinking that's what it's like. They then get into arguments about whether or not the label is accurate or appropriate as opposed to actually discussing the pros and cons of the policy.

The reality, of course, is that neither is crazy or wrong but merely that the sender intends a different meaning than the reciever interprets, and that derails the discussion, leading to unneceesary resentment and disdain. Ties into this:

Originally posted by: galees

Why do you Americans always include Communism as a Economic Entity?quote>

Many times I've been told by people from Europe I'm getting "socialism" and "communism" confused. Or that I don't know what "socialism" really means and am misapplying the term as Americans often do.

Well, you go through that enough times, and you start to realize... wait a minute, it's not that either of us is wrong or misguided, it's merely that we have different definitions of the word and are thus misreading each other's statements, making them appear foolish when they are not.

A good comparison would be the word "chips". To an American, they're thin slices of potato  (what Brits call "crisps"), but to those east of the Atlantic they're thicker strands of potato (what Americans call "french fries").

Yeah, well, it's the same idea with the word "socialism", it seems, except it's not just Europe versus America, it's also left versus right.

And methinks a lot of the more heated debate on subjects involving such policies or philosophies would be avoided if people were aware of this and kept it in mind. Don't get hung up on the definition of the word, take it in context even if it seems to be a malapropism.

[raja_indy14 8]

The partiular thing that jumps out at me here (and I've seen this before), is the categorization of the USSR as "socialist". It seems to me that people from Europe, or people who lean further left, tend to do so - while people from America, or people who lean further right, would categorize the USSR as "communist", and say "socialist" describes more what exists in much of Europe currently. This is where the contentiousness with these words arises: people on the right call Obama and his policies "socialist" and mean it in the Europe way, but then people on the left hear the word and think USSR, and see those on the right as crazy for thinking that's what it's like. They then get into arguments about whether or not the label is accurate or appropriate as opposed to actually discussing the pros and cons of the policy.

I think the problem is that many people are using the terms "Socialist" or "Communist" more in line with their technical definitions, whereas much of the American public seems to define these terms based on the very sloppy usage of half of century of propaganda and socialization, both by the right and the left. Communist becomes equivalent with the Communist party, even though the Communist Party was only, ostensibly, working towards communism, but never actually achieved it; i.e. it was never really a communist entity. States like the Soviet Union are Socialist states that are ruled by a political party that calls itself Communist. In reality the aims of the Communists were simply incompatible with the economic and political realities of the states they were governing, and instead they were forced to build up significant state-military-industrial complexes, and if they hadn't, they would have been eradicated by other states. If one really wanted to attempt a communist experiment, I think Fiji would be a better place to try it than 1917 Russia.

I think the US is fairly unique in being a major developed country that still finds socialist concepts largely abhorrent and even terrifying. This can be attributed, in large part, to the propaganda campaign that was waged relentlessly in that country for over half a century that targeted any hint of communism, no matter how benign. But it is also attributable to the greater sense of independence exhibited by Americans and their greater fear of government, and these are factors that have been apparent for centuries. America is exceptional in it's lack of a real labour party, and no doubt this is in large part due to the fear of socialism. As is usual in such circumstances, any system that even exhibits some sympathies towards this abhorred socioeconomic system is given the blanket label of 'socialist'. Europe is not socialist, nor is Canada, but there is a much larger socialist element in these countries, particularly on continental Europe. A similar thing happened in the Cold War, when any government that attempted to nationalize something that was of interest to US Big Business was instantly labelled 'Communist'.

When people call Obama socialist, they are either being purposefully hyperbolic or they are ignorant. Calling Obama a socialist is a good way to scare people, or at least some Americans, but it certainly isn't a term that anyone doing meaningful analysis of his policies or aims would use. It is true that everything in the US is shifted more to the right than in most other advanced democracies, so that your Democratic Party would really be a centre-right, or even right-wing, party anywhere else. This does not mean, however, that labeling Obama as a socialist is technically accurate, even in the US. For instance, Canada is not by any definition a socialist country, despite having a universal healthcare system. What is ironic, is that the US federal government actually spends more money per capita on healthcare programs than Canada does, but gets worse health outcomes as determined by general indicators such as infant mortality rate and life expectancy. I would say that clearly some sort of reform is necessary, especially in a period of spiraling public and private debts, but that the very effective system of checks and balances built into the US state is showing it's weakness in enabling significant reforms.

Many times I've been told by people from Europe I'm getting "socialism" and "communism" confused. Or that I don't know what "socialism" really means and am misapplying the term as Americans often do.

Well, you go through that enough times, and you start to realize... wait a minute, it's not that either of us is wrong or misguided, it's merely that we have different definitions of the word and are thus misreading each other's statements, making them appear foolish when they are not.

Unless we're using a technical, academic definition instead of a popular one; in which case the popular American conception is quite inaccurate, while the European one is closer. In casual discussions between Americans that definition might work, but in more technical debate it is good to have a commonly accepted definition of a term, and in this case that definition has already been established. Having said that, the word "socialism" is really quite useless without qualifiers, as it is taken by different people to represent a wide range of socioeconomic systems. Any state that has existed that is led by a Communist Party is in fact a socialist state, not a communist one, however, and this is even evidenced in the, admittedly often otherwise misleading, names that are given to them, such as Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. No state that I know of has called itself 'Communist'.

At the same time, Canada and Europe countries are not Socialist states, they very much run on free market principles, the protection of private property, and the accumulation of private capital. Socialism is not simply advocating that the state should play a role in redistributing wealth (a little) more equitably, or in providing certain essential goods and services. You might say that these are the policies of democratic capitalism with a social conscience. Europe and Canada might be more socialist than the US, but if we accept that these countries are socialist, then why isn't the US socialist as well? It isn't as if it operates a pure form of capitalism by any stretch of the imagination.

For the record, I'm Canadian, and that's probably rather rambling and incoherent, I apologize in advance.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

For the record, I'm Canadian, and that's probably rather rambling and incoherent, I apologize in advance.quote>

I too belong to the advocates of "Peace, Order and Good Government" and I see no reason not to ramble on.  However, I do try to keep it brief, since I am also aware of the amount of space this kind of thing can take up on the server.

One thing about our government that I find interesting is that there is no doubt that power corrupts.  Over the years, the longer a government is in office, the more corrupt it gets.  The Conservatives are on the slide now, but nothing like what the Liberals got themselves into by being around too long.  A minority helps to restrain abuse, but not while the opposition is in such disarray as it currently is.  The Liberals have to get their house in order soon.  Getting rid of Iggy should be a priority, and they need to flush out Bob Rae of the bad baggage at the same time.  They need a good caretaker until Justin Trudeau either proves himself or fades away.

What we have here, by the way, is a Constitutional Enlightened Monarchy with a Parliamentary Representational system.  While somewhat socialistic at present, we are also doing our best to put the bit back in the teeth of the capitalists without harming them too much.  They do need a touch of the riding crop, but we have a fairly competent jockey in the Minister of Finance.

[Eastwinn 6]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I'm gonna assume we're all in agreement that the US is already a socialist country. In which case, it annoys me how people call Obama a socialist. Maybe I don't quite get it because I wasn't around during the pro-pro-pro-capitalism era that N_O_Body, for example, grew up in.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Eastwinn

I'm gonna assume we're all in agreement that the US is already a socialist country.quote>

Bad assumption.

Obviously there have been socialist elements here for quite a while (e.g., Social Security), but very few people would say the US is currently "socialist". Pretty much everyone agrees that we are not (certainly we're much less so than the rest of the developed world, at any rate). The point of disagreement is on whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. 

[Jasoncw 11,949]

Communism is a branch of socialism, but while they have commonalities, they have different motivations.

Communism solves the problem that:  the Bourgeoisie (the capitalist owners of production) exploit the proletariat (the workers who are doing the actual producing).

The root problem of wars and other bad stuff is the friction between those two classes.  The way to solve these problems is to unite the proletariat and the bourgeoise, by making the proletariat the owners of production, via the government. 

So communism is political and social, but not really about economics.

I think socialism is more about social, political, and economic good through economics (the same as capitalism).  Socialism says that capitalism has systematic flaws that prevent the population from maximizing their potential (their own personal potential, including economic potential, and I think the economic side of socialism is not emphasized enough).

My opinion is that different systems have different pros and cons, and that a mixed system where the two complement each other is best.  I think that there are a lot of people who agree that a mixed system is best, but of course, there's not as much agreement over what mix is the best mix. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw

Communism is a branch of socialism, but while they have commonalities, they have different motivations.

Communism solves the problem that:  the Bourgeoisie (the capitalist owners of production) exploit the proletariat (the workers who are doing the actual producing).quote>

You are confusing communism with Soviet-style Marxism/Leninism

...

I think socialism is more about social, political, and economic good through economics (the same as capitalism).  Socialism says that capitalism has systematic flaws that prevent the population from maximizing their potential (their own personal potential, including economic potential, and I think the economic side of socialism is not emphasized enough).

My opinion is that different systems have different pros and cons, and that a mixed system where the two complement each other is best.  I think that there are a lot of people who agree that a mixed system is best, but of course, there's not as much agreement over what mix is the best mix. 

quote>

I like the Canadian way.  We adjust to fit the current paradigm.

[Eastwinn 6]

Originally posted by: Duke87Bad assumption.

Obviously there have been socialist elements here for quite a while (e.g., Social Security), but very few people would say the US is currently "socialist". Pretty much everyone agrees that we are not (certainly we're much less so than the rest of the developed world, at any rate). The point of disagreement is on whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.quote>

Ouch, this would make it harder for me to justify why socialism is a good thing -- well I'll back out until I know more about socialism anyway. My main argument is that a goverment controlled economy, higher taxes on the rich and lower on the poor, and stuff like social security (can't think of a name, hence why I need to read more about socialism) are enough to make us socialist.

[raja_indy14 8]

The US doesn't have a "government controlled economy", your taxes on the rich are relatively unprogressive, and your social welfare programs are less developed than comparable countries. You are an advanced capitalist democracy with a relatively limited welfare state. The US is not socialist.

[DITRO 15]

I don't know if this has been said or not, but I support phasing out the current U.S. welfare system in favor of a system that more avidly encourages people to find work.  Similar to the Wisconsin Works program in that state. 

Wisconsin Works (W-2)

I believe that this is a semi-socialist policy that actually encourages capitalism.  Just my 2 cents.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: DITRO

I don't know if this has been said or not, but I support phasing out the current U.S. welfare system in favor of a system that more avidly encourages people to find work.  Similar to the Wisconsin Works program in that state. 

Wisconsin Works (W-2)

I believe that this is a semi-socialist policy that actually encourages capitalism.  Just my 2 cents.

quote>

Sounds like Ontario Works.  Both of them allow for continuing education in order for a participant to seek employment, and for employment to replace the dole.  Breaking the welfare-family cycle is a good thing, but this kind of thing has to be taken with a grain of salt and a whole helping of realism.

When a company downsizes a whole division or goes to the wall, the over 50 types not eligible for a retirement package find themselves on the scrap heap.  No government program will recover them into a new career.  It is too late for a new career at this point, and only part-time and subsistence employment is available to them. 

Employment in a business is usually based on getting more than a few years out of a new employee.  It is a long term investment, and probably won't pay off for at least ten years, so why invest in someone whose working life is less than, say, 15 years.  There is no break even point.  The downsized victim's skills are usually inapplicable to the current job market.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[saltandsauce 0]

umm, you do realise that free-market economics would actually leave a large section of the population dead (why is that a problem, well, it's not if you don't have a conscience) since so many people would be dead from starvation because they have no job (the river delta of the Mississippi where there is something like 30% unemployment from mechanisation of farming) those people would not have welfare payments (since that's "socialist") and they would crowd into the nearest big city causing huge overcrowding and lowering of wages/overmanning/corporate shakeouts.

the reason for the welfare state in Britain is that Londoners don't like the idea of everyone from Manchester,Liverpool,Northumbria,Glasgow, South Wales and Bristol all crowding into London and rightly so, they already have crumbling infrastructure and badly built housing which they wouldn't get to fix/demolished if more people crowded into the city.

the Conservatives (they are probably the second most Liberal party after the Lib Dems) would have let Northern rock and RBS go to the wall and Virgincorp would also go the wall since it has huge sums of wealth in RBS along with various other firms with money in RBS hence - controlling share of RBS by the state. free markets don't work since currencies are artificially inflated (US dollar) or deflated (Chinese Yuan/most east Asian currencies except Japanese Yen)

capitalism works when it isn't corporatism. when goons in suits can use the law and vast and unusually large masses of money to buy people out kills competition. look at Microsoft which is a monopoly it buys out any potential competitor and that is the very definition of a market failure. Intel, General Electric, Wal*Mart, tesco, ENRON, RBS, General Motors, Rupert Murdoch's media empire, AOL (for still existing despite being crap), Santander and various others all operate incredibly large sections of the market and are forming oligopolies/monopolies on huge sections of the market making it impossible for any newer companies to form. these are all market failures from hostile takeovers,protectionism, bad policy, rapid expansion, illegal activities, competition crushing and general dodginess. capitalism works, corporatism does not. and with the world shrinking companies move production and headquarters about as they please which has and can still cause huge social upheavel and unrest in entire countries.

yes British Leyland,British Rail, the National Coal Board, British Steel, British Telecommunications, Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and British Airways (and for the matter, comprehensive education, PFI, Railtrack and high rise flats) were all huge holes for money to be poured into with bad management written all over them. but that is lousy government, government at the mercy of unions and lack of funds available.

when individuals own firms things work fine (as long as the law is sensible and enforced) like the guy who owns the corner shop, the farm or the factory or one newspaper. the guy who owns the farm, the shop and the factory is when things start to go wrong as legislation (very expensive) can be bought and aggressive expansion and the power of huge reserves of capital are used for market manipulation. A free market is free to be manipulated.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

saltandsauce: Your catalog of evil misses factory agriculture.  These outfits are usually subsidiaries of food companies which, in turn, are often owned by large corporations and banks.

[-Lexus- 2]

Capitalism sucks ass. Ill explain. 

Its unfair for 95% of the population. 95% of the population has to work their ass off for a sucky wage while in the mean time the remaining 5% does next to nothing but does cash in all the profit. And dont say they deserve it because they have such a responsible position or because they worked hard to get there. Because really, they have no idea what the ***** they are doing, why they are doing it and what happens at the bottom of the company. Ive got a friend who works with the company administration. It is so incredibly complicated that there is simply no way that anyone at the top even has the slightest clue of how much money exactly the company is getting. Nobody really knows. 

And even when they ***** up, they get government bailouts. After which they just continue to do what they where doing and heading straight for a certain doom. 

But yes, like I said, unfair. Then there is this American dream myth. Work hard and you get somewhere. Oh really? No matter how hard you work, there is no way youre going to be able to pay for an Ivy league uni. While rich *****s who did nothing but partying are allowed to an Ivy league uni cuz they have a rich dad. In other words, the rich get richer while the poor remain poor. 

Then there is this myth that if the government doesnt interfere the economy will do whats best for itself. Oh how dumb we are. So far, letting the economy do whats best for the 5% (making as much money possible) has NOT been in the best interest of the country. Outsourcing, firing entire departments because that was the only way to make MORE profit, raping the earth for a few extra % profit, thats what happens when you let greedy people take over the business world. The bailouts are the first results of 20 years of ultra capitalism in America. After a few years of extreme profits, the bubble has finally collapsed with the destruction of the global economy as a consequence. Because this isnt over yet, the bailouts merely bought the mighty captains of industry some more time. But in the next decade, it will collapse entirely and everybody will be poorer then ever. 

And look at todays society. All thanks to capitalism. We got teens bored out of their mind, half of the people are suffering from mental disorders like depression, stress is at an all time high, we are culturally dead, science produces absolutely nothing of value, and 95% of the population just works for the sake of working, leaving no time for things like family and hobbies. 

The golden years in the west where back in the 60's and 70's. Everybody said it was capitalism that caused those golden years. Those who have read their history books now better. Back then the government was heavily involved in a lot of aspects of the economy. It was a war economy because the west was afraid of a war with the east, so they planned their economy in a way it could easily be changed into a proper war economy. It never happened but it did show that planned economies work better then total free market economies. 

Ive gotta give credit to capitalism for one thing though. They are masters of deceit. They managed to convince everyone that capitalism is better then anything else, while its not. 

That makes socialism better. Its fairer for everyone, the economy works better under a more socialist system and it makes people happier as well. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

What you are describing is not capitalism but an oligarchy of wealth.  It wasn't always this way.  The invention of the MBA degree by the Harvard Business School with its emphasis on the "bottom line" put paid to the idea of "good corporate citizen".

Once before, during the Industrial Revolution in the U.K. this situation prevailed.  Then the poor revolted and formed labour unions who worked honestly to get a better share of things.  However, over the last hundred or so years, the union leaders have joined the oligarchs, and are now members of the upper crust.  They keep their members quiet by insisting on more and more benefits and higher pay.  This extra money in the hands of the workers has fueled a demand for minor luxuries like television and swimming pools in the back yard.  This also caused an inflationary spiral and prices went up because costs went up because price/cost of labour went up, and round and round.  This ever upwards trend will break the machine and end in a crash notwithstanding all the "money" that governments may try to throw at it to prop it up.

When I was a kid, eggs cost 12 cents a dozen, bread was about 5 cents a loaf, and my father made $90. a month as a private soldier of which half came to my mother who also worked for about $20 a week just to keep things going.  Bread and milk were delivered door to door, and nobody complained about fuel for the delivery vans, which were horse-drawn.  Now it is too expensive to run door-to-door services for daily groceries, so each individual has to make his way to the store to get it.  I wonder which costs more?  Add up all the fuel for each person to go to a selling point, and see.  Now eggs are around $3 per dozen and bread is well over $1.50 a loaf.  *sigh*

We didn't have much right after the world war (II for those who think there were two) and times were 'tough'.  But there were few instances of kids dying because they were obese, fewer heart attacks, strokes (old folks have to die of something), and immunity diseases like asthma.  No one was allergic to peanuts.  Kids routinely went out to play, and very few hung around the house, because there  was no entertainment to speak of.  The moral climate was probably no better, but no girl dared get pregnant out of wedlock because there was a real stigma attached to it.  I suspect there was less diddling because of the rather Victorian social outlook of the time.  That white wedding dress was supposed to mean something.

So tell me, how are things better now?

Corporations were rather avuncular in those days too.  They hardly ever downsized or threw the baby out with the bath water.  The corporate motto the seem to be "Doing well while doing good".  Employees were loyal.  Look around today.  Wholesale layoffs and firings, worship of profits (Mammon), and too many executive layers to count.  Why does the CEO need sixteen 'assistant to's (often called vice-presidents or other euphemistic titles for gofer)?  Why does the board of directors need to meet in an off site boardroom because the in house one isn't big enough any more?  Do fat cats have kittens?  Sure they do.  But this is not capitalism, it is a corporate oligarchy.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I'm not sure what you meant by this statement, since it can easily be misconstrued.  Before I say anything, I would like to see an example to show why you think this, due to the caveats involved.

I would say that the American academic landscape is poor when it comes to our own.  Many people seem to ignore, or are ignorant of, the simple fact that MOST of our greatest scientists are not native born, and are, in fact, a result of the excellent educational system present in many other Western countries.  Most people do not realize that the American educational system ACTIVELY recruits scientists from abroad.  We do this because our own system is broken.  We may not realize it, but we are dependent on foreign knowledge to move our research forward.  So, while I can appreciate that there are issues, I do not nderstand how it can be said that our scientific research is stagnant.

 Barbarossa

quote>

No, what I meant is that capitalism has found its way into science as well. We used to invent a lot of things because it was interesting. Because people where just curious about their surroundings. However, since it has become quite expensive to just lock yourself in a lab and just start to research more fundamental questions, most science is spent on studies paid by the corporate world. And the corporate world is just interested in one thing: profit. 

So, if science doesnt produce results on the short term, it gets dropped because its expensive and it gives them nothing back. We could have had cars riding on cleaner, more efficient, cheaper fuels about a decade ago if it wasnt for the big oil companies to stop funding this kind of research because it did not produce results quick enough. 

Scientists these days spend a lot of their times doing silly projects for some company who then promises them to fund some other more research. So it takes much longer to produce groundbreaking new scientific discoveries because a lot of scientists are just corporate whores and cant devote their time to the actual art of science. 

Have you ever heard of Einstein or madame Curry being forced to do silly research studies about fast food and its relationship to cancer for some big corporation in order to get enough money to continue their research?