Political & Elections

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

Socialism vs. Capitalism: The Showdown

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

There are enough resources to provide for all human beings, but through eliminating poverty, we would also have to eliminate great affluence (billionaires), to allow for the needs of all to be met.

And what system has best utilized resources so successfully as to create, as you speculate (though inaccurately, but I'll concede the point), enough wealth for all human beings to live beyond poverty? Why would we now abandon this system, and alternate to one in which has only proven itself to destroy wealth?

The rhetoric is great: justice, equality, classlessness etc.; but when I succumb to the reality that socialism is unable to produce at a level required by an ever-growing world population, I tend to chuck that all in the toilet. Ethics may matter, but if a system's ethics plagues the population with poverty, I doubt it's so ethical after all.

busdriver11 · Guru

Interesting take, Billy, but I think I like romani's version better, I actually agree with some of her ideas. Unfortunately the version you put out seems to me that it would either require mass brainwashing or drugs, to control all of human nature, including the desire to excel, and the lack of motivation to take care of oneself if everything is taken care of for you. And very little freedom, with complete government control. Might work if you have an all powerful God, micromanaging what people think and do constantly, but would be pretty ugly if you require an all powerful government....people with unlimited power to control the masses. Which seems along the same line of the billionaires and huge corporations, that you don't like.

Free will, it's a bitch!!

Hey, I couldn't say that on cc.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

Yes, I'd like a personal definition of socialism from the OP as well. I was assuming it was the standard "state owns the means of production", but possibly wrongly so.

Roman, what are "socialist principles"?

I believe that the government's first responsibility is to protect and ensure a decent quality of life for all of its citizens.

What if I don't want the government to attempt to "ensure a decent quality of life" for myself? Are you not enforcing your personal convictions upon me? Capitalism, however, is not enforced. It is the natural result of individuals each attempting to meet their own goals through peaceful cooperation. Socialist organization is free to exist in a capitalist society (one of the most successful grouping methods in history, the family, is a socialistic one), but is capitalism free to exist for those who prefer it in a socialist society?

Edit: Never mind. OP has responded.

-- Edited by ImSoAnarchist on Wednesday 17th of November 2010 06:45:07 PM

Billy · Senior Member

So far, I am the only one who has selected "Socialism/Communism".

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

PS: Anyone want to own up to voting for pure socialism? I thought I was alone in the "yay socialism" club :p. (I voted for mix)

Billy · Senior Member

Socialism would be a system where the duty of government would be to provide for the rights of the people, chiefly life, liberty, justice, and equality.

The right to life must entail the rights to all things necessary for the continuation of life, including food, water, shelter, safety, and health. It is the duty of government to provide for these things. There are enough resources to provide for all human beings, but through eliminating poverty, we would also have to eliminate great affluence (billionaires), to allow for the needs of all to be met. This isn't to say that there shouldn't be rewards for exceptional performance, but that no one ought to have so much that it prevents others from having enough, as is now the case in a pyramid-like capitalistic system. Ultimate liberty, where it does not infringe upon the rights of others. As everyone has the right to life and the things necessary for life, having so much wealth that it prevents others from having enough is a violation of rights.

The right to liberty is necessary for a democratic society. However, a democratic government is often in vain when coupled with an economic oligarchy of the rich. Thus, a democratic economy is necessary for personal liberty from the sway of the powerful. An economy where every worker has control over the means of production and where economic goals are set to benefit all people, not just the rich, holds promise.

Justice entails both the prevention of wrongdoing, the punishment of wrongdoing, and, in another sense, social justice. There is no justice in a society where one is given far fewer opportunities than another because of birth, and there is no justice when economic, government, legal, and social systems heavily favor the wealthy.

Equality is necessary to facilitate justice. Everyone needs to have equal opportunity. Everyone needs to be treated equally in a democratic government and economy. There can be differences between people, but everyone ought to have the same opportunities, as well as food, water, a home, safety, and adequate medical care.

Totalitarianism under the name of Communism in the USSR or China is just that, totalitarianism. Communism was a word associated with caring for the poor, so it was used as propaganda to trick the poor into going along with the regime. Lenin may have been Communist, but Stalin certainly was not. Marx would have hated Stalin.

You see, Communism must be a world system. A classless, stateless society with a democratic government, equality for all (men and women, a controversial position for early socialists/communists to advance), and all of humanity ensuring the rights of their fellows. When a government in one country takes power and calls itself communist, that isn't accurate.

Socialism is the final stepping stone to Communism, and the two are intertwined, though not the same thing.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I think that's true. I'm not a pure socialist by any means. I want a system like that in Costa Rica. They're very much a socialistic democracy. I do believe in capitalism- but very modified capitalism that protects people. As much as our capitalistic system exploits 3rd world countries, we're going to be the next ones screwed over as we will not work for pennies a day. We are seeing the effects of this already.

Ideally, my views on the economy (and really, politics in general) boil down to this: I believe that the government's first responsibility is to protect and ensure a decent quality of life for all of its citizens. Now, obviously, this only goes to a certain extent. We shouldn't reward laziness as a lot of welfare programs do now. (OBVIOUSLY not all of those on welfare are lazy or whatever, but it is ridiculous that rewards irresponsible behaviors like having more unwanted children.)

Anyway, my views are kind of complicated. I think that the government needs to deregulate many things such as our "war on drugs" and other things that are a complete waste of money. We need to reinvest that money into educational and other programs that teach people to be more self-sufficient. However, I believe in imposing stricter fines and regulations to those who want to "outsource" our jobs. This is doing more harm to the economy (losing our jobs) than good (providing cheaper products).

I wasn't raised with a typical American mindset of you need to slaughter everyone to get to the top (exaggeration, but you get my point). My mom was raised by Gypsy communists (who were also in the military, don't ask) and I kind of inherited that mindset. It's hard to explain a mindset, you know? But I was always raised to believe that people need to be given an equal playing field, and then it is up to the person to decide what to do from there. Be responsible for your own decisions, but know that every single decision you make WILL affect someone else. I was raised to always think about others first and myself second, which is probably why I am more sympathetic to Socialist principles.

I don't think capitalism nor socialism has all the answers... but I don't feel like the current economy that we have here is doing all that well. It's ridiculous that we're wasting billions of dollars every year on "wars" (Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on drugs, etc) when our students are falling further and further behind. It is ridiculous that the majority of the country is suffering while those at the very top are getting richer and richer by exploitation.

Hmm... that was quite a mouthful and still didn't even scratch the surface lol.

ETA:
The places you listed are totalitarian. Socialism is an economic system... it is their political system that is oppressing them. I like Socialistic democracy or a Socialistic republic.

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Wednesday 17th of November 2010 06:33:32 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

Or more interestingly enough, tell us what your view of ideal socialism is. I know you've said you're a socialist, which I certainly respect admitting more than people who talk around it. The question is, what is your version of it? Because I don't think we all think the same thing when we think of socialism. The first thing that comes to my mind is the complete lack of free speech (ie Venezuela, USSR, Cuba), and obviously we all insist upon that.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Combination of the two. Neither of them has ever existed in pure form so the concept of that (as in, some elements are not mixed) is a fallacy.

From a economic standpoint, yeah capitalism is probably best. But from a humanistic standpoint- I'm just not entirely comfortable with "pure" capitalism.

Meh.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

The calculation argument. Until someone can explain to me how economic calculation can take place in the absence of market prices, I'll forever doubt socialism.

Good thread topic, though.

Billy · Senior Member

Because I had to.

I think socialism gets an unfair reputation because of the Soviet Union.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was as socialist as it was made of republics, yet "republic" hasn't been defamed.

So, anyone else out there favor the poor above the rich?

Or, more interestingly, anyone want to tell me why they think I'm wrong?