Socialism vs capitalism

[sanctus]

Discussing the worldbank:hypocrisy of capitalism thread, an argument arised which I believe merits a thread on its own.

 

Tormod (and I think alexander as well) said that, when I talked about social capitalism, it's an oxymoron, i.e. a contradiction in terms: a country is either socialist or capitalist.

 

Well I do not agree on that.

I define capitalist system as a system where only profit counts. In the following I concentrate my argumantation on a system that wants long term profit, as I agree that court term social capitalism is an oxymoron.

I define a social system a system that cares about the well-being of the individuals fo the system.

 

Now, let's take a system that understood that if the individuals are well, they will like to be in that system and therefore every year there is a granted profit, as the individuals will not want to change system. So inthis system the long term profit would be better, than in a purely capitalist system, as the fluctuations in productions are smaller and there is a garantie which makes the individuals happy to stay in that system. Such a system I call a social capitalist system: social because it cares of the well-being of the individuals, capitalist, because it does it only for better profit.

 

An example that my theory is not unfounded:

In the beginnig the chainworkers of the Ford industry did every day the same, what implied that the got sick of it and started to not feel well anymore and produce less. So the chain working was revolutionned and the workers didn't do any more year in year out the same thing, but there was a turnus. The result was the workers felt better and long term profit increased.

 

 

Eventually, you might argue that a social capitalism is utopic, well....

[TINNY]

Sanctus,

How do you ensure the well being of the individual? Historical evidence shows that a totally materialistic outlook, meaning the equal possession of wealth among individuals, does not equate to social and individual well-being.

When you get profit, another individual is bound to be deprived of that profit. So how can you protect the well being of the one who does not get profit?

[sanctus]

Sanctus,

How do you ensure the well being of the individual? Historical evidence shows that a totally materialistic outlook, meaning the equal possession of wealth among individuals, does not equate to social and individual well-being.

Show me a historical evidence where there has been an equal possession of wealth among individuals? Comunism doesn't count.

[Tormod]

Show me a historical evidence where there has been an equal possession of wealth among individuals? Comunism doesn't count.

 

I think what Tinny means is that the only way people will ever be equal lies within the spiritual realm, as opposed to the materialistic realm.

 

I think this topic is very good and will respond later. I'm sick today (some kind of flu has been sweeping through my workplace, hope it's not what I've got because it is nasty) so I may not be able to follow up everything...(do I ever)...:wink:

[TINNY]

I think what Tinny means is that the only way people will ever be equal lies within the spiritual realm, as opposed to the materialistic realm.

Have to admit, yes, that's what I had in mind. So, Tormod, I guess I'm getting too predictable for you nowadays.

 

You know what, I have a feeling that all forms of government has problems because it restricts human freedom. The ones restricted will protest. The only solution is no government. But change has to be step-by-step. We should minimalize control and give more freedom to people a little at a time. When the time is right, there shouldn't be any governance. Somehow, I have this kind of a priori thought that humans are naturally good and so when human freedom is fully manifested, all good and right will prevail. I had this idea a while ago and I'll work on it a bit during this school break. I'll let you know once I get it right. :wink:

[Freethinker]

It is not possible to not have a government. One will automatically appear in any vacuum where there is none. Some one/ group will find a way to take over power. Either becuawe it is their personal desire or because the masses want something done on a scale beyond the individual's ability.

 

Trade regulations, personal protections, transportation, communications, ... all of these things, things we can not do without, need some form of cooperation between groups in order for them to work.

 

As to the specific topic. The US and many other countries today, esp the industrialized ones, are some form of Socialist Democracy. They contain some combination of individual voting and Government programs that provide various support functions for citizens. Nor do I see any mutual exclusivity between Democracy and Socialism.

 

Perhaps there is an assumption that Democracy means Capitalistic Democracy. A Democracy merely indicates that the individual citizen votes on issues. Socialism just means that people work to produce, not for pay, and recieve what ever they need without having to buy it.

[TINNY]

It is not possible to not have a government. One will automatically appear in any vacuum where there is none. Some one/ group will find a way to take over power. Either becuawe it is their personal desire or because the masses want something done on a scale beyond the individual's ability.

That's why i mentioned that it has to go through small steps. Hmm.. I'll have to find some way to define governance to exclude trade regulations etc. But hey, cooperation between groups is not governing. It's just an expression of human goodness.

[lindagarrette]

Perhaps there is an assumption that Democracy means Capitalistic Democracy. A Democracy merely indicates that the individual citizen votes on issues. Socialism just means that people work to produce, not for pay, and recieve what ever they need without having to buy it.

Democracy is a political system majority rule. Capitalism is an economic system of profit maximiztion (survival of the fittest). They are not philosophically related although it would be difficult to imagine capitalism operating effectively within a socialist system since political forces could not allow profit maximization while protecting the victimized.

[sanctus]

Democracy is a political system majority rule. Capitalism is an economic system of profit maximiztion (survival of the fittest). They are not philosophically related although it would be difficult to imagine capitalism operating effectively within a socialist system since political forces could not allow profit maximization while protecting the victimized.

 

If it0s difficult to imagine it doesn't mean that it's not possible. As I wrote in the first post of this thread, if there is a system that wants long term profit (i.e a long term capitalist system), they have to figure out that a social system is the one that best assures long term profit.

[lindagarrette]

How long is "long term?":rolleyes:

[sanctus]

Anything, that doesn't want much profit right away (preferrably yesterday :wink:). Long enough that if people get sick it influences the profit, that if people don't like it it influences profit.

[lindagarrette]

Economically speaking, in the long term, profit flattens to zero. No one gains, no one loses. The price of a thing is exactly equal to the cost to provide. If that were to happen for all services and commodities, there would be no need for currency or capital. No capitalism.

[sanctus]

Now you made your statement prove it to be so. I would say that if it were like you say, then there would be no rich people, for example.

[Beelzebub]

neither socialism nor capitalism work.

Socialism doesn't work because, if the individual doesn't lose by slacking and doesn't gain by trying, he will slack. Therefore the economy will fail.

 

Capitalism works in a way but it is immoral and uncivilized. a capitalist society is an oxymoron. law and government are antagonistical to freedom and competition. but this isn't necessarily bad.

[infamous]

neither socialism nor capitalism work.

.

Beelzebub you devil you, how would you describe work. If Your looking for productivity capitalism works very well. If your looking for Big Brother to take care of you from the cradle to the grave, socialism also works as long as the social structure remains productive enough to supply the needs of it's citizenry. My thought would be that they both have their shortcomings but, I'll still choose capitalism over socialism any day. More opportunity if one chooses to exercize a degree of initiative.

[UncleAl]

I define a social system a system that cares about the well-being of the individuals fo the system.

Life is a stool wth three legs: Authority, responsibility, and liability. You must have all three or it topples. Any system that wields authority with diminished responsibility or liabilty will be abusive. Any fool who touches a hot stove and expects not to be burned to or be compensated for his stupidity deserves to maximally suffer - or he will do it again. Think of it as evolution in action.

 

Government cannot award people what it first has not stolen from them. What one undeserving man receives without effort is confiscated from a worthy other who labors. The money I make belongs to me and my family, not to a government stooge who takes a cut and dumps the rest on slum bunnies for squirting out babies.

 

We'll make it simple for the hard of thinking. You must buy a gift. There are three cases:

 

1) You use your own money and buy for yourself You care what it costs and what you buy. That is called "personal responsibility" and it is the only system that works.

 

2) You use your own money and it is a gift for another person. You care what it costs but you don't much care what you buy. if time is short and there is a pair of geen and yellow socks, you'll do it. That is called "service economy" and you must always be on guard for advertised garbage.

 

3) You are on an expense account and it is a gift for another person. Who cares what it costs or what it is? That is government subsidy. It is always an expensive disaster.

 

The State cares about itself. Anything it does to you is impose control, garner further revenues, or exact amusement. Anybody who receives a Welfare check is a purchased soul - displease the State and your next check might get "lost" in the mail. An advocate makes virtue of failure. The worse the cure the better the treatment - and the more that is required. Hunger is due to weather, famine is due to politics.

[Beelzebub]

society is what sets humans apart form the natural order of things. and the natural order of things is capitalist. so of course capitalism seems right. the weak lose and the strong win. but is this fair? no

life isn't fair. nature isn't fair. but socialism is fairer than capitalism in the sense that everyone is equal. in nature no one is equal that is why humans are least prone to evolution. because of collectivity not individualism. in a completely capitalist society the weak will suffer. not just the lazy. but the dumb, the weak, the needy.

pure competition (capitalism) causes evolution.

capitalism is natural but that doesn't mean its right or fair. capitalism can be cruel and barbaric.

think of Nineteen-Eighty-Four. the problem was not socialism it was totalitarianism. everyone was united and lived a good life other than the fact that they were exploited by the government. Socialism doesn't mean any lack of democracy. IN fact it means that democracy has more power because it means the people control the government which controls everything. the people control everything.

 

also...

 

in my opinion, the best balance between the two (capitalism and socialism) would be socialism where everything is owned by the government so people can't make money just by owning things. they have to work.

but no equal pay. almost equal pay based on ability and need.