Forum Post: socialism vs capitalism
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 4:50 a.m. EST by ltjaxson
(184)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Socialism: The means of production are publicly owned and sold for the benefit of society. Capitalism: The means of production are privately owned and sold for the benefit of profit. Which do you think sound the best? I know which I prefer and it is not the private society that the one percent so thoroughly enjoy!
Well they both sound great and utopia when a theoretical model is described. But in practice they're both flawed and imperfect.
In theory any economic system that is "for" the "We the People" has as it's goal, to distribute most of the goods and services to most of the people most of the time. There are very few examples of societies that have achieved this goal. Every society has it's rich and it's poor. Oil rich nations, such as Saudi Arabia do treat every citizen amazingly, but they import much/all of their labor and treat them very poorly.
I like how the citizens of Iceland just wrote their Constitution. They too have a quasi-capitalistic economy, yet their Constitution states: Article 34. Natural resources Iceland’s natural resources that are not private property shall be the joint and perpetual property of the nation. No one can acquire the natural resources, or rights connected thereto, as property or for permanent use and they may not be sold or pledged.
There is no "right" answer to your question
Of course not, because if there was, we could bottle and sell it (preferably through worker-led industry). Worker-led industry adheres to the means of production privately owned and distributed through a world market - as a co-operative, not a corporation. The employees own the business, not the shareholders...
Of course not, because if there was, we could bottle and sell it (preferably through worker-led industry). Worker-led industry adheres to the means of production privately owned and distributed through a world market - as a co-operative, not a corporation. The employees own the business, not the shareholders...
I love the concept and examples of employee owned business or partially employee owned. Publix supermarkets is a great example.
Businesses started off to be simply places where workers could get together so the whole would equal more than the sum of the parts. The business owner was local and even though he/she may have had the biggest house in town and the nicest car, nobody begrudged because the carpenters who built the house and the car dealer who sold the car were local too. The "fight" gets started when the "fruits of the labor" get spent far away from the "labor"
employee owned businesses are a great mix of capitalism/socialism.
I'd describe myself as socialist in my views but the question itself misses the mark.
Reality doesn't lend itself to black and white solutions. There are many forms of economic systems and they all are flawed, with their pros and cons. Ideologies are really only useful insofar as they create a dialectic from which viable solutions can be reached. A mixed economy really is the best way to go.
Now, it's in terms of priorities that my socialist views come into play. Efficiency is vital and, in the long haul, capitalism is quite good at that. But efficiency isn't nearly as important as people and it is notoriously bad when it comes to providing for their short term needs. You will always have unemployment in a capitalist system, for example, and without safety nets people get hit hard when this happens.
People on the Right rightly point out that raising taxes on the wealthy isn't going to cover our budgeting needs. Although I certainly support a progressive tax system such as the one we currently have and believe in creating higher brackets taxed at up to 90% at the top (and we're talking like $50 million a year or so here) I tend to agree. We're not going to wipe out our budgeting problems by wiping out the upper class. Instead, our only hope is to work to wipe out the lower class -- by lifting them out of poverty and helping them into the middle class. Once they are there they will be able to pay higher tax rates. Raising taxes on them while they are poor, however, whether it is done through sales taxes or through a flat tax, is a recipe for disaster.
Take solutions where you can find them and don't dismiss an idea just because it's "capitalist" or "socialist." Value efficiency, but always people first. Realize that we are all in this together and that's the only way that any society can truly work. I think that if society could be helped to reconsider its national priorities along these lines that a lot will have been accomplished, even if no actual demands have been made or met.
Well said. I merely posted this to show the two in their most basic terms. I beleive in co-operatives and worker-led industry that combines the two by collectively owning and sharing the profits of a private company that operates on a world market. It is about protecting the labor force, not the capital force. We are much closer together than farther apart.
"It is about protecting the labor force, not the capital force."
I think this bears repeating until the cows come home.
The fast road to kill this movement is to make it associated with an "ism."
Please dont use dualities to try and disrupt the cause. Just because there is one doesnt mean it has to be the other.
We are ruled on purpose by dualities... You are Christian or a satinets, you are either for capitalism or you are an evil Red Commy or... a SOCIALIST!!!! OOO a buggy man Taboo!!!
Who the hell cares what we call this change!! It is a change for the better and it is not a dualistic view. This is the problem we all will face and we must come at it with a open mind. Lift the veil of these people for a better tomorrow!
I believe we need a mix of the two. The Scandinavian and European countries do and they have the most successful economies in the world as well as a much better quality of life(in my humble opinion).
You are right Eric. Co-operatives and worker-led industry collectively own and distribute the profits within a private sector!
this is exactly the false dillemma, its ironic that you post it here. because our real choices are not between two systems which don't exist and never have and probably never will, thats just what the corporate oligarchy sells the dupes so that some people pick team socialism and others team capitalism and nothing is ever done about team corporate oligarchy. Neither sounds best, its a patent false dillemma, those are not the only two choices.
Yes, you are exactly right. I wanted to show the terms in their most basic forms... Co-operatives and worker-led industry own the means of production privately and distribute them through a world market, and share in the profits collectively. A good mix of both...
Capitalism but with a caveat. Capitalism is perhaps the best economic system ever invented. When it works at its best it can create untold wealth for an entire country. At its worst it can cause economic chaos as is seen today and during the Great Depression. When profit becomes the sole motive in a capitalistic system (where we are today) then great abuses can occur: ecological devastation, wealth concentrated to the 1%, mass unemployment, concentration of power to the big corporations.
What ultimately saves Capitalism from itself is a democracy that can delineate laws, regulations, and oversight that will keep a check on the abuses of Capitalism.
Untold wealth for a country, yes. But you dont make money, you take money. Somebody, somewhere is without for our prosperity. But you are right, if we are going to make this work then the key is regulations. We can start by re-implementing provison Q of the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933 that seperates commercial banks (main street) from investment banks (wall street) so it doesnt lead to 'too big to fail' ever again. We must never allow wall street to take our main street deposits and gamble them away...
Untold wealth for a country, yes. But you dont make money, you take money. Somebody, somewhere is without for our prosperity. But you are right, if we are going to make this work then the key is regulations. We can start by re-implementing provison Q of the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933 that seperates commercial banks (main street) from investment banks (wall street) so it doesnt lead to 'too big to fail' ever again. We must never allow wall street to take our main street deposits and gamble them away...
Reinstating the Glass-Stagal Act of 1933 would be a great step towards preventing future abuses. Damn Senator Phil Gramm from Texas for leading the charge to eliminate the act in 1999.
Larry Summners and Paul Rubin are the real culprits...along with Alan Greenspan. The funniest thing is that 'too big to fail' is the right/center's answer to de-regulation, but it's these people who are trying to limit govt.'s influence and authority to tax????
No ism. Resource based economy coupled with true Democracy.
I hope this movement doesn't become about Socialism vs Capitalism. Neither is a good argument I think.
Good point. You are right to say both have flaws, but I wanted to show people in basic terms what they feared. Co-operatives are privately owned businesses that share the profits collectively...like you said, a good mix
Yeah and when the farmers won't give up their farms and check into the barracks on the collective farms, starve them into submission. It worked for Stalin. It can work for us, too.
If you ask for violation of property rights, guess what? YOU WILL GET WHAT YOU ASK FOR.
I love it when a weenie exposes the certainty of his own unworthiness to live on his own merit.
The benefit of society? Is that why countries that "publicly owned" (i.e. state owned) the means of production did a great job of making pretty much everybody equally poor?
Equally rich, equally poor, whats the difference? Why do you need to have private wealth if all public services are free? Why do you work? To pay health care bills, education, retirement, transportation, etc... Not to mention that unemployment in these countries (ie Denmark, Norway, Sweeden, etc) are continuously the lowest in the world.
And how are you going to finance "all public services are free"? Do you advocate a flat tax of 100%?
The Nordic countries you mentioned all have mixed economies, by the way. Just like we do.
Denmark pays 70 percent tax and does not have a mixed economy like us. They have a private sector that trades openly with other nations, yes. But it does not have the trade deficit and national deficit we do...mainly because we adhere to 'supply-side' economics that puts all the emphasis on supply through the free market (ie more imports than exports, because labour is cheaper) and tax breaks for the top one percent. I dont think we have to tax our citizens at 70 percent to have a productive society. But we do have to adhere to worker-led industry that strips the shareholders of their dividneds and vote, similar to the Scandanavian countries...
Part of our trade deficit comes from the dollar being the world's reserve currency; to acquire dollars, other countries sell to us.
Why should we strip shareholders of their voting power and possible dividend income?
Because all they see is the bottom line. Shareholders will vote to 'downsize' to save their profits, thus creating more unemployment. Shareholders dont work for the business, they dictate its direction. It just an extension of feudalism...the capital controls the work force, where as the work force should control the capital.
Because all they see is the bottom line. Shareholders will vote to 'downsize' to save their profits, thus creating more unemployment. Shareholders dont work for the business, they dictate its direction. It just an extension of feudalism...the capital controls the work force, where as the work force should control the capital.
If it's not profitable for a firm to stay at its current size, it will go bankrupt or be bought out and subsequently downsized anyway. Either way, workers will lose jobs; stripping shareholders of their voting power does not change that.
Nothing stops workers from being shareholders themselves.
The discrepancy of wages between CEOs and shareholders and workers are staggering. The average CEO makes 350 times more than the average worker in the US. If those numbers were lowered and voted on by the employees, you would see les unemployment. I find it hard to argue against that.
Low wages stop employees from being shareholders...
To increase employment, simply eliminate the minimum wage. How "low" are the "low wages" you have in mind?
How would eliminating minimum wage increase employment? By allowing two people to work for the wage of one? You cannot honestly say that is a good thing, or progressive...
Minimum wage is a price floor; employers can't pay below it. Draw a downward-sloping demand curve and an upward-sloping supply curve; the two lines intersect at one point. An effective minimum wage is set above the intersection so that the quantity of labor supplied exceeds the quantity of labor demanded. The difference is unemployment.
Two people working for the "wage of one" is better than neither working at all.
Maybe, but eliminating profits for those who benefit regardless is the point! If two people working for one didnt include the discrepancy between the boss and worker, then yes. But that isnt the case. The top tax bracket is loosing wealth at a much slower rate than the bottom!
Maybe, but eliminating profits for those who benefit regardless is the point! If two people working for one didnt include the discrepancy between the boss and worker, then yes. But that isnt the case. The top tax bracket is loosing wealth at a much slower rate than the bottom!
Who benefits regardless? Owning stock opens you up to losses, not just gains. Your losses are limited to your initial investment, yes, but that hardly means stockholders "benefit regardless."
Denmark pays 70 percent tax and does not have a mixed economy like us. They have a private sector that trades openly with other nations, yes. But it does not have the trade deficit and national deficit we do...mainly because we adhere to 'supply-side' economics that puts all the emphasis on supply through the free market (ie more imports than exports, because labour is cheaper) and tax breaks for the top one percent. I dont think we have to tax our citizens at 70 percent to have a productive society. But we do have to adhere to worker-led industry that strips the shareholders of their dividneds and vote, similar to the Scandanavian countries...
Although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to support a Presidential Candidate Committee at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Right on! Worker-led industry takes the capital out of the shareholders hands and gives in to the people who are employed at the place of business.
I hope you will join the Presidential Candidate Committee at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/. Only your voice and your choice can make it happen, and fortunately, it only your voice and your choice that are needed.
The problem is that the 'socialism' being put forward is not controlled by the people, or in a vertical integration model, but in a hiearchial model, that allows those who, today, 'privately' control the wealth to continue to control this wealth with no competition under the guise of 'socialism'. True socialism and true free market capitalism are actuatlly compatible. In a free market people are motivated to participate in society because they choose to because it benefits them individually. If a person wish to opt out of the social free market, they retain that right, but at a cost of lost of social benefit. In a free market a person is allowed to trade their work for the work of others based on the market, or social, value of that service. It also retains democratic principles in that goods and services are produced based off of the social, or free- market demands. This argument of socialism vs capitalism is really nonsense. The global banking cartels utilize this false paradigm to acheive a fifty/fifty split in the 99% allowing them to do business as usual. The movement, if it is to be successful, should realize that we, the people, are arguing for the same thing, a vertical integration model, where all people are equal to conduct business, assemble, organize, speak, and pray as we see fit in our individual pursuit of happiness. The current hiearchial model, where.we all work for the wealth of the 1% based off of bogus debt, is what needs to be changed rather than arguing over a nonsensical argument like the whichbis better socialism or capitalism, which we truly have neither.
Good point - however, free market is nothing more than an term for exploiting the work force. Supply-side economics is offering more production (supply) at a cheaper cost to the consumer, but all that does is allow companies to move their operations to countries with less regulations and cheaper labor. Free market is the problem because it still allows the capital to control the work force, rather than the work force to control the capital. Debt IS the real issue because we live in a free market that is based un consumption. Worker-led industry and fair pay for fair work allows the means of production to be jointly owned within a private sector, thus allowing democracy to work with voting rights for workers, not stock holders. Nobody is going to vote to send his job overseas, thus ending a 'free market.' A form of protectionism? May be, but better than allowing jobs to be sent to countries with cheaper labor and letting the rule of feudalism continue...
I agree that the current form of 'free market' does exactly what you say. But, I would argue, that the current form of 'free market' is a distortion of what a true free market means. We have been led to believe that free markets mean colonial style exploration of communities. In actuality, this is notba free market, but a command and control economy, where all wealth trickles out and only is lent out to the public in the form of debt. This, too, is a form of colonial exploration of communities. In a free market, labour is treated as a good to be traded between peoples. This allows the market, not corporations or global banking cartels, to set the value of work based on its social value (which is a true 'socialist' ideal- where societies needs direct individual behavior). This is what Adam Smith meant by the invisible hand. What the global banking cartels have done is recognized the power of the invisible hand, or the collective power of the individuals, and, through their debt/servitude policies, tried to manipulate that power intovserving their wealth creation. By dividing the people's power into two camps (left/right), they have divided the people and we have become their alternative power supply. Only by recognizing that we, the people, desire the same freedoms and social securities, and turning their alternative power supply into our direct power, will we be able to overcome the global banking cartels New World Order and tyranny. Hence the creed: a people united will never be divide. :)
Spot on! Free market is exactly as you describe it as a distortion. Worker-led industry allows for a free market, while paying its labor force the correct and social value of its goods. However, the market is vulnerable to outside influences and therefore will always be exploited and allows the capital to control the work force instead of the work force controlling the capital. You make an excellent point that basically says that we need to extract the good form both theories to merge into one. Unfortunately, the connetations of both theories have been tainted by the conquer and divide mentality of the 'emperors'.
no, it's nothing more than a term for describing the act of free individuals engaging in voluntary trade without being influenced by coercion. Every other system revolves around force.
There is no part of our economy that isnt planned. Free market is just a term that went wrong. The people in china working 14 hour days for less pay than you make in an hour would testify against the market being 'free'.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150343790359248&set=a.10150264906064248.348293.511989247&type=1&theater
corporate oligarchies game of mindfook chess. neither system exists or has ever existed. your supposed to pick one side or the other. if you do you just become a zombie for the corporate oligarchy. A free market system inside of democracy is a great idea.
to get serious requires a few things they don't have. like chat admins who aren't ego serving propaganda tools, a wiki, 1001 sub forums, an actual game plan, a straight up political platform... you know.. basic organizational things sane people do BEFORE protesting.. like figure out a diplomacy and logic centered metaprocess to give their chatadmins so that they don't really just drive out even more people than the trolls. Adminatrolla. trollaAdmin. Whats the difference to somebody whos got the truth facing a propaganda tool abusing admin powers to push their agenda? how can you prevent such a thing? Metaprocess. did i mention metaprocess? and science diplomacy science psychology science sociology and all those textbooks to read B4 protesting?
you can't have capitalism without a free(SLAVE) market. but you can have a free market without capitalism. And thats strangely the only way it CAN work.
Marketing 101 was fascinating. I admit thats a lot less than a bachelors but its sure more than enough to see whats really going on given the other things I know. Capitalism is not the problem since it does not exist. corporate oligarchy is the problem. capitalism has never been tried. I am a democracy guy. in order for real democracy to function a free market system is required. Thats not capitalism. thats a free market system. there is a subtle difference there which most people would miss. I will again repeat. Neither capitalism nor marxism nor communism nor socialism has ever existed. All of those governments were oligarchy pretending to be something as a con scam. Telling that simple truth gets one banned out of the Chat by either a capitalist or a socialist whos pissed you just said their pet ideology isn't real. It isn't. anybody who thinks that it is is accidentally playing for team corporate oligarchy as a tool. the ONLY system worth talking about is DEMOCRACY. how democracy HANDLES a FREE MARKET system is dynamic and interesting and NOT capitalism.
o. yes. no. yes. what? making change is not reliant on changing the money system one tenth as much as it is on changing the informational ecology. Going to a gold standard as an idea is a proof of ignorance, not a solution. Really the end game is we evolve out of money. To do that we evolve first new currencies and new economic strategies. this leads to economic singularity in about 50 years. If everyone is a millionaire how much you get depends on exactly the material valuation of that money. Which is to say that by the time money becomes obsolete everyone will live like the current millionaire. Tangible items to other tangible items? the real economy is about ideas, change the ideas and everything changes. the problem with the tangible economy is it does not change; its a static reality. you can't make a meaningful gold standard with only enough gold to represent on millionth of the economy. You can make a purely imaginal money system work; but it has to be subject to moral and ethical laws. This is about pinning down those moral and ethical laws and implementing them in new currencies; not trying to imagine a control freak impossible non solution because of the simplicity with which you go about thinking over the problem.
once again. there has never been a socialist or capitalist economy. in all instances such nations were oligarchies. using a mask and a con scam and telling their dupes and pwns that they were something other than oligarchy. the big hump to get over is that the USA oligarchy and the Soviet oligarchy are in on this lie against the rest of us TOGETHER. Neither of them was ever anything other than an oligarchy. both claimed some other system in order to have US fight over the ideals of THAT system while they secretly shafted us all playing a completely different game.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-playing-the-devils-games/
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150343790359248&set=a.10150264906064248.348293.511989247&type=1&theater