Socialism vs Capitalism is a stupid Dichotomy

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 141
#61
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Conway
I say virtually as I'm generally aware of some European conversations on a purely trivial note.
"Trivial"? You do know that "Das Kapital" was written in German (Europe)? And before Marx, Capitalism was written on by once again, Louis Blanc and Pierre Joseph Proudhon.

You don't seem
Seem is not an observation; seem is an impression.

to understand the distinction between a word and a term. 
I'm well aware of the distinction between words and terms. And "Capitalism" is a term that isn't used much outside the context of Economics. So whether it's referring to "capitalists" or "laissez-faire" "Capitalism" is a term either way.

How do you know you aren't making the same mistake of applying the term to people who simply meant, having ownership of capital (to the exclusion of others)?
That is the exact context in which Marx refers to Capitalism, not "laissez-faire." Marx believed that Capitalism was a state sanctioned system of wealthy property owners (employers of capital) who exploited the surplus value of commodities produced by laborers. The colloquial application of Capitalism today is a product of Physiocracy and loosely Adam Smith and David Riccardo, despite their not using the term, "Capitalism," directly.



#62
Rishi_D
Rishi_D's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 4
0
0
1
Rishi_D's avatar
Rishi_D
0
0
1
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think that the spectrum of economic systems ranges from capitalism to communism. This is because capitalism advocates for people to own the means of production that they themselves earn whereas communism suggests that everyone own the means of production regardless of who the producer is. Furthermore, I believe that socialism is in between the two because it allows for capitalist monopolies to engage in economic practice while at the same time redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. Either way I think that the scale is important because it shows the differences in how foreign countries operate their respective economies. 
#63
TXHG
TXHG's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 28
0
0
2
TXHG's avatar
TXHG
0
0
2
-->
@Rishi_D
Capitalism doesn't advocates for people to own the means of production that they themselves earn, it means people owning the means of production based on the capital invested in it. E.g. you can have a child who is given a large inheritance. They may own some of the means of production, but they certainly haven't earned it.

The classical Marxist difference between socialism and communism is that socialism still has money or some other form of measure of people's efforts/value which people can use to purchase commodities while in communism most commodities are either post-scarcity or shared equally.

#64
Rishi_D
Rishi_D's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 4
0
0
1
Rishi_D's avatar
Rishi_D
0
0
1
-->
@TXHG
I agree that capitalism means owning the means of production based on the investment but it also grants people private ownership of their commodities. Thus the main goal of capitalism is to make larger sums of profit. Also I do believe that there are subtle differences between socialism and communism as you've pointed out. Socialism gives underprivileged people several safety nets to fall back on using taxpayer dollars or wealth redistribution while also allowing people to keep some portion of their private ownership. On the other hand communism states that one's ownership is everyone's ownership.
#65
TXHG
TXHG's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 28
0
0
2
TXHG's avatar
TXHG
0
0
2
-->
@Rishi_D
Those aren't intrinsic values of Capitalism, Communism or Socialism.

There is also no inherent safety net in socialism. Socialism is based around worker owned means of production and is usually distinguished from communism by socialism being about each according to their merit, e.g. people get back what they contribute in,. if someone doesn't contribute they aren't guaranteed anything. It's worthwhile noting however that while no welfare is guaranteed, the kind of people who would push for a socialist economic set-up would also be the kind of people I'd expect to promote a robust welfare system.

Also just to clarify, by ownership you are only talking about the means of production/private property, right? You don't think that everyone's personal property is communally owned?
#66
Rishi_D
Rishi_D's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 4
0
0
1
Rishi_D's avatar
Rishi_D
0
0
1
-->
@TXHG
I'd argue that the ownership of the means of production is an inherent value to each of the three most common economic systems. 

Also I do agree that socialism doesn't guarantee social welfare programs, but as you said I made the assumption that those who would advocate for socialism would also be in favor of wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor.

To address your question, I was referring to the means of production and the right to own private property. Furthermore I don't think that one's personal property is communally owned by the rest of society because if that was the case then there wouldn't be such a huge income disparity in several countries regardless of economic system. 
#67
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
A middle ground between capitalism and socialism of some sort is the status quo right now in most first-world countries, and self-proclaimed capitalists and socialists both don't like it. 

I think the flaw here is that a lot of capitalist/socialist philosophy is based on procedure, not outcome. Capitalism/socialism is a procedural violation of X. So any degree of it is never acceptable. 


#68
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TXHG
Few people actually argue for pure socialism or pure capitalism, though I'm one of the former and believe Capitalism has inherent flaws that cannot be constrained and must be checked with socialism giving superior outcomes though I don't advocate state control as the best method for governing the means of production and prefer worker co-operatives.
What are the inherent flaws of Capitalism? And did a worker co-operative system not fail as far as macroeconomic implementation?

#69
TXHG
TXHG's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 28
0
0
2
TXHG's avatar
TXHG
0
0
2
-->
@Athias
What are the inherent flaws of Capitalism?
The profit motive for Capitalists causing a number of harmful (minimising worker salary) or inefficient behaviours (Massive amounts on marketing to buy a drug X that is fundamentally no different from drug Y), the alientation of workers from their labour, the concentration of wealth also being a de facto concentration of political power which runs counter to democratic tendencies, etc.

And did a worker co-operative system not fail as far as macroeconomic implementation?
What are you referring to? I'd guess the USSR if I had to hazard a guess just because that's the usual go-to example, but that doesn't really fit.
#70
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
@TXHG
Attempts at social adjustment don't fail...They just eventually revert to natural order.

So one might consider that Certain Far Eastern examples buck this trend....But these are just examples of natural order with an big stick, rather than just a financial carrot.
#71
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TXHG
The profit motive for Capitalists causing a number of harmful (minimising worker salary) or inefficient behaviours (Massive amounts on marketing to buy a drug X that is fundamentally no different from drug Y),
First, how are you measuring the minimization of worker salary? Comparatively or Absolutely? Second, how is spending "massive" amounts on marketing a drug that is fundamentally no different from drug Y harmful?

the alientation of workers from their labour,
How is this harmful if a worker chooses to alienate his labor?

the concentration of wealth also being a de facto concentration of political power which runs counter to democratic tendencies, etc.
What does this have to do with Capitalism as an "inherent flaw"?

What are you referring to? I'd guess the USSR if I had to hazard a guess just because that's the usual go-to example, but that doesn't really fit.
No, not the U.S.S.R. The syndicalist movements started earlier (notably in France, Spain, and Italy) and failed spectacularly during early-to-mid 20th century.

#72
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
I could list them out, but I think this source does it much better than I could explain it currently: (GEH)
I think that web site may have left out over-population of Earth.

Capitalism treats Earth as if humans they are superior to the ecological environment that sustains them with i.e. progress forward with no holes barred from expanding upon.

Incentive = spirit-of-motivation to initiate creative ideas and act upon them,  and that that requires a change of spiritual initiative ergo cultural pathways forward.

A financial benifit is not unreasneble but to the point of rich vs poor vs middle class we see, makes for abuse of the planet, even as the rich make attempts to mitigate the abuses of humanity on ecological systems.

Would a slower or faster growth rate of technology --progress-- be better or worst for humanity? At this point there can only be a hope their is some discovery or technology that will spare humanity from their self-extinction on Earth. 


#73
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Why do people continuously insist: "Either Capitalism or Socialism", clearly both economic systems have their faults.
IT'S A FALSE CHOICE.

The word, "capitalism" is often conflated with "commerce".

Then people say, "you can't be against capitalism because you have money in your pocket" (this is a combination of the "strawman" and "red-herring" logical fallacies).

What capitalism actually distills to is FEUDAL HIERARCHY.

A capitalist believes a business OWNER should be treated like a GOD-KING.

A socialist on the other-hand, believes EMPLOYEES SHOULD GET A VOTE.

Socialism is basically DEMOCRACY FOR CORPORATIONS.

EMPLOYEE-OWNED BUSINESSES ARE SHOCKINGLY COMPATIBLE WITH INDIVIDUAL-OWNED BUSINESSES.

This means that SOCIALISM is compatible with CAPITALISM.
#74
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sum1hugme
Capitalism vs socialism is definitely a spectrum. And people's stance towards each will vary depending on the issue. (Like, should healthcare be socialized or privatized? What about roads?) But a totality of either on every single issue is patent extremism. 
Free healthcare is not "SOCIALISM".

(IFF) the EMPLOYEES do not have any OWNERSHIP-STAKE in the medical corporations (THEN) the medical corporations are still 100% CAPITALIST.
#75
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Conway
A market economy is the natural result of autonomy, property, and specialization.
Employee Ownership (socialism) is not incompatible with autonomy, property, and specialization.
#76
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Capitalism treats Earth as if humans they are superior to the ecological environment that sustains them with i.e. progress forward with no holes barred from expanding upon.
Capitalism does no such thing.

Capitalism simply denotes individual OWNERSHIP.

Socialism simply denotes EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP.

Socialism is DEMOCRACY for CORPORATIONS.
#77
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Is this you saying that we should only have a free market system? Because if that's the case I can tell you that I disagree very much
FREE-MARKET =/= CAPITALISM
#78
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
What are the faults with Capitalism?
The same faults as FEUDAL HIERARCHY.

CAPITALISM = FEUDAL HIERARCHY

OWNER = GOD-KING

SOCIALISM = DEMOCRACY

SOCIALISM = EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP
#79
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Instead I would just propose an idea, could there not be a mix of the two? Either keeping some elements of both, or mixing them to a point of making something new? Is that not attainable?
You'd first have to understand Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism is the production and dissemination of goods and services by private [INDIVIDUAL GOD-KINGS] entities. Socialism is the regulation of production and dissemination of the aforementioned by a collective [EMPLOYEE OWNERS] (typically a State [REGULATION BY THE STATE IS CALLED "STATE CAPITALISM" WHICH IS WHAT CHINA CURRENTLY HAS].) Next, you'd have to elucidate the ends any economic system is to meet, and determine which of the two, and how each of those two, would meet those ends. Last, you'd have to determine the deficiencies, if any, of either economic system and determine how adopting some mechanisms from the other could sustain the adopted mechanisms of the system currently in use. As it happens, Capitalism and Socialism are [NOT] diametrically opposed.
#80
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Contemporary capitalism is under growing fire, with a rising chorus of critics making four main points: first, that the current incarnation of capitalism produces too much inequality; second, that it is too unstable and prone to crisis; third, that capitalism in its current form is at odds with the planet's ecology; and fourth, that capital has hijacked government, subverting democracy and winning too many special favors. "
Socialism itself does not necessarily "solve" all of these "problems".
#81
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL

A market economy is the natural result of autonomy, property, and specialization.
Employee Ownership (socialism) is not incompatible with autonomy, property, and specialization.
Why would you consider it worthwhile to politicize private business arrangements?  I don't understand the unnecessary reference to socialism.

#82
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Conway
Why did you consider it worthwhile to politicize private business arrangements?  I don't understand the unnecessary reference to socialism.
Socialism is NOT an inherently "political concept".

You're conflating "capitalism" and "autonomy, property, and specialization".

I'm simply pointing out that socialism is not in conflict with your precious "autonomy, property, and specialization".
#83
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
You're conflating "capitalism" and "autonomy, property, and specialization".
The entire context of that first post is philosophical independence from a socialism/capitalism dichotomy.

#84
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Conway
The entire context of that first post is independent of a socialism/capitalism dichotomy.
Please explain.
#85
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
As for socialism? I think people are much more familar with it's failings, I'll go with one of the most apparent: Its lack of incentives. 
Employee Ownership and or even simple profit sharing is a quite effective productivity incentive.
#86
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Capitalism does no such thing. some
Yes free market capitalism is free to do what ever it pleases ---except for government regulations, that change on a whim with whoever  is power---- to ecological systems that sutain humans s being exploited by corporations that have no soul, only profit policys.

And so it goes with lack of moral and intellectual integrity that allows human-kinds greed and freedom to over-populate Earth, of the systems of operations we currently use, to proliferate as if there is no end to what can humans can accomplish on Earth.

Socialism has always played 2nd fiddle to capatilism ergo their drive to compete and show its way is better has not nor every will do, because of the latter I mentioned above.

1} incentive can be accomplish via various ways that do not  continue to rip-off Earths resources unfettered, and over-populate the Earth

.......1a} some financial disparity if find, as long as that all that are able to work contribute in significantly meaningfull ways to the support of self and greater whole,

.......1b}  ownership is ok also, but again with some limitations on so as dispartiy is minimalize to some degree as agreed upon by 51% of peole, or 60% or 80% etc,

........1c} incentive can also be a game with prizes such as ego recognition by the greater humanity and that includes local and those who specialize in the area the some one makes significant discoveries, inventions ideas etc,

.........1d} the process to aquire further resource to further ones freedom to create is limited and regulated and perhaps even voted on with various ways veto power or override power that enable or not some one to aqurie finances or tools or space to move further with their creative endeavors,

 ........1e} as far as creative endeavors go, we always start with the basics for and go from there, i.e. if hot water is not a basic then how to get hot water, or power to do this or that or another, i.e. we do not need another kind of rocket ship then another then another etc, an same goes for a steel, shovels etc before the basic needs are covered first.

Here is another example how many kinds of plastic toy do we need to continually invent and mass-produce only to eventually add to a large pool of plastic in the ocean?

Those who recognize limits and that humanity is way over its ecological limits, are ignorant, in denial or worse ex just plain greedy and narrcistic.
Topic's author
#87
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
FREE-MARKET =/= CAPITALISM
Maybe not quite but they are undeniably linked, and used typically in the forms of modern capitalism



Socialism itself does not necessarily "solve" all of these "problems".
I never claimed they did, and you haven't explained why you don't see them as problems. As I've said over and over, economics aren't my strong suit, so I have no idea what implications you're alluding to or whether you on or off base with them.


Employee Ownership and or even simple profit sharing is a quite effective productivity incentive.
Evidently not
#88
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Here is another example how many kinds of plastic toy do we need to continually invent and mass-produce only to eventually add to a large pool of plastic in the ocean?
Socialism (EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP) doesn't "solve" this "problem".
#89
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
FREE-MARKET =/= CAPITALISM
Maybe not quite but they are undeniably linked, and used typically in the forms of modern capitalism
There is no aspect of socialism (EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP) that makes socialism incompatible with a FREE-MARKET.
#90
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Socialism itself does not necessarily "solve" all of these "problems".
I never claimed they did, and you haven't explained why you don't see them as problems. As I've said over and over, economics aren't my strong suit, so I have no idea what implications you're alluding to or whether you on or off base with them.
(IFF) you're associating these "problems" with "CAPITALISM" (THEN) You're barking up the wrong tree.