The debate "Capitalism or socialism" was started by
January 27, 2018, 8:48 am.
33 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Ematio posted 7 arguments, Slymcfly posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
WalkerH2026, TheOnionQueen, seavos, Slymcfly, Ematio, AnnaLee, FiddleStorm, chasediedrich1, NPW, wallingson13 and 23 visitors agree.
DrMrDaniel and 9 visitors disagree.
I just believe in freedom of association over equal opportunity
I believe in both of those reasons, although most just believe that it is illegitimate to break the non aggression principle, and that is the defenition of libertarianism.
Equal material wealth and equal access to commodities is basically the same concept of positive rights. I don't believe education is a natural right. If you believe everyone should have the same access to all goods and services it is the same as fixing equal material wealth from birth.
I'm sorry. I'm not against equal opportunity. I did not understand the concept, and I'm not thinking straight right now
you can't compare liberitarianism (a specific belief) to leftism (an entire spectrum with varying beliefs with varying consistencies.)
and I don't believe the Soviet union was ever communist. their single person rule and elite ruling *class* should instantly disqualify them. they were fascist in every way but name. just like dictator Assad is not the president of a "democratic republic"
I'm not talking about equal starting wealth. I'm saying equal access to *public* education, and perhaps some regulations like employers are not allowed to routinely change schedules at the last minute so people can take a second job or classes to improve their situation through their own effort, but cannot do so under uncertain schedules or inadequate education.
there are at least 2 ways to be a liberitarian (or most ideologies).
1. you could believe in minimum government because it will have the best outcomes (for reason of reason), in which case we can continue and I can try to convince you of better reasons, or you convince me.
2. you believe in minimum government because it is morally just regardless of outcomes (for reasons of ideology). in which case, even if I demonstrate that liberitarianism will increase suffering and make our economy weaker, it wouldn't matter.
one can be consistent with ones beliefs but still acknowledge you are not omniscient and be open to new information. on the other hand, insisting on never budging ever may be less consistency and more blind stubborness.
The thing is Nemiroff, you can believe in equal starting material wealth or equal opportunity under the law, not both.
We believe in equal opportunity in terms of the law absolutely, howevet absolute equal opportunity in terms of material wealth at birth is impossible without totalitarianism. It's also regarding humans as nothing but drones to assume all success is determined by material wealth at birth. It sounds a little materialistic if you ask me.
Secondly I agree that ideology isn't a religion however libertarianism is particularly more rooted on principle and more consistent than conservatism and leftism. In my opinion if a libertarian chanhes their ideology, than they didn't fully understand liberty to begin with.
Well I'm not gonna follow it like a Holy book, but I'm gonna be consistent in my reasoning. I don't believe in equal opportunity
not income equality. opportunity equality. meaning, at birth, you have a fair chance to succeed, no gaurantee if you dquander it. obviously great wealth will bring great benefits, but the idea is that everyone will have a certain reasonable chance at the American dream, assuming hard work.
just because you identify with a certain ideology doesn't mean you have to obey it 100% like it's a holy book.
I'm a libertarian, so no
do you believe in opportunity equality?
Also the welfare system
Of course, I'm gonna have to side with Ematio and Lachlin on this one. With Socialism, the people have to cede SO MUCH power to the government, in order to be taken care of, that not only is it LIKELY to end up with a tyrannical government, it has been proven time and time again to be INEVITABLE.
the ones in wealthy neighborhoods are often very good. it's the poor who usually get screwed.
Have you seen public schools lately?
but if the people you are investing in are the American public, and you are the American public, do you plan to not work for yourself? do you think Americans will run off to other parts of the world if we start investing in them?
sorry I think I mixed you and someone else's opinions on Bernie Sanders. if you don't believe Bernie is a socialist I withdraw that.
we are talking about investing in people on a national scale, not by a specific business.
and you are going to have to be more specific on how you choose to interpret socialism. I saw in the thread on Bernie Sanders that you think he is a socialist. if you consider his ideas socialism, then you should absolutely think that public schools and unemployment protections and food banks are socialism as well.
Historybuff only in the case that I was guarenteed the workers will work for me will it be an investment. Welfare programs are not investments.
And private schooling is not socialism.
so you think the government shouldn't pay for public schools? that's a socialist policy after all.
pure capitalism was the horrors of the early industrial revolution. every first world capitalist nation has many socialist features in it.
the fusion of capitalism and socialism is what has proven to work time and time again.
Capitalism has been proven to work. Socialism has not
how isn't it? if your workers starve to death then you obviously have no workers. if they can't afford to go to school then you have no skilled workers. these are obviously investments on a national scale.
Well I'm suggesting they do whatever they want.
Guys that's still not what investment is XD. Welfare is not the same as investment.
I'm not investing in capital. I'm investing in people. they are both investments.
and by people "leaving to another factory" are you suggesting Americans will abandon their nation if we invest in them???
if you give the boy enough food so that he can go to school rather than having to work to avoid starving, you are investing in a better educated workforce which will pay off many times over.
"Investing" in people buy giving them free food would be equal to making an investment in a factory and giving the entire thing to another company. That makes no sense to call it an investment if there is a 100% guarentee of no return.
Not very good logic. If I give a kid a free orange it is not an investment, but if I give free food to all poor people it is a huge investment. Actually neither are investment because I am not buying capital for future production.
A repeal of minimum mark up laws allows people to sell their property at whatever price they want. Items are sold. below cost because their value decreases after they are produced.
Do you want to keep poor people from buying bargain food?
Yeah, poor neighborhoods have a store or 2. liquor store, bodega, Chinese food, McDonald's. rarely do they have close by supermarkets with fresh food.
and lmao as your single orange example. I think you are the one lacking imagination. Yeah a single orange won't do much, but if you give a child access to fresh food on a regular basis you will have healthier children with more effective studying leading to a healthier, smarter, more effective workforce, lower health costs, longer work years, and less mortality/morbidity.
totally horrible investment. no returns what's so ever. lol (sarcasm)
isn't minimum mark up the issue trump and republicans are attacking China over? the selling of goods below cost...
isn't that the primary method big business uses to kill competition before establishing a monopoly? you are for that?!? lol.
and are these school vouchers going to cover the full tuition or are you going to expect poor families to cover the rest of the thousands of dollars private education costs? leaving the same number of kids in the further impoverished public school system?
I would rather not turn these 2 into tangential arguments.
Or is ****** Democrats would give the kids vouchers to go to school outside of the poor community and not force them into the beauracracy more kids would graduate.
And maybe if ****** Democrats would finally repeal minimum mark-up laws after 90 years and forget their special interests they would have a chance to compete.
And that's not even true, every poor neighborhood has a store or two.
That's not an investment, that's giving free stuff to people. Investing is buying capital that will produce in the future. If I buy a poor kid an orange its not an investment.
education, public transportation, community services like YMCAs or child care.
all things you will say can be handled by private companies, except private companies tend to ignore neighborhoods with no profit potential, the poor. And once a neighborhood is forgotten, opportunity equality goes to shit.
do you believe in opportunity equality?
What's an example of investing in the people?
short term depends on the company.
how about 30 to 40 years later? I can see nation wide effects. in a century, it could be the difference between superpower and 3rd world. how do you think we got here?
the people by far.
So then what is the difference between investing in "the people" and investing in a good or service I think will be extremely profitable.
short term depends on uber... I'm not exactly seeing tesla here.
how about 30 to 40 years later? I can see nation wide effects. another century, it could be the difference between superpower and 3rd world. how do you think we got here?
the people by far.
Here's a hypothetical question: What's the difference between investing in "the people" and investint in Uber around 2012?
Lol that's pretty Orwellian stuff. Who decides what is the "generally good" investment? you?
Not in terms of material wealth or outcome. I don't think any govenrment can create pure material equality of opportunity. Also the socialist view of material equality of opportunity is very materialistic, as if every good investement or decision was because of inherited wealth. I could make up any hypothetical situation.
it isn't about positive or negative rights. investing in the people is always the right move.
do you believe in opportunity equality?
I'd assume every socialist believes in some form of positive rights, or in other words the right to the labor of another person.
This is incompatible with the constitution in my opinion.
Otherwise though, I guess they could argue the general welfare clause lets congress do literally anything.
your talking about communism. socialism is a spectrum that does include regulation of commerce.
The constitution does not permit socialism, and regulation of commerce is not socialism. I was speaking of direct democracy in general, I understand how a representative democracy works.
I was disagreeing with you regarding your incorrect definition of pure democracy stating that there is something that we can't do. we do have a constitution and it does give our federal government broad powers including the power to regulate commerce.
I have no clue where you got me supporting any of those issues.
I never said any of that, what are you talking about? I didn't mention socialist policies or their constitutionality.
I'm not sure in what way you twisted my words, but at least work me through the logic before just declaring a conclusion with completely new words.
Agreed, so given that true socialist policies are unconstitutional is "democratic socialism" reasonable in america?
democratic in the pure sense literally does mean you could do whatever by pure popular vote. that's why pure democracies don't exist and we have a representative democracy in the form of a democratic republic. note that the republic is the key word and democratic is the modifier. we aren't even a democracy at the core. we are a republic with some sprinkle of democracy in the way we choose our representatives.
so no, popular vote decides no policies in our nation, right wing or left. it only decides our leaders who then choose the policies republic style. And yes a direct democracy can vote to take money from anyone or to vote in a permanent tyrant that destroys the system that elected him. a democracy can do anything good or bad.
Given that redistribution of wealth is acceptable by popular vote, are right wing taxpayer funded projects acceptable by popular vote?
No, that's a specific policy.
so the difference between trump and a socialist is nothing?
Nothing, that's a bad policy.
trump wants to confiscate land from people by force to build a useless wall. what exactly is the difference?
is trump a socialist?
So you "democratic socialism" is still an infringement on natural rights by force. Socialism will allow the state to take your proroperty by force and democratic socialism will take your property by force after a popular vote.
MajorGeneralX I don't think you understand the concepts of Democracy. "Democratic" doesn't allow the government to do anything just because the majority voted for it, thats why we have a constitution and limited government. The people can't vote to infringe on natural rights and claim it was moral because it was democratic.
wouldn't pure communist socialism be a full participation direct democracy anyway?
I think he meant to say social capitalism.
Bernie Sanders? He believes in Democracy yet he's a socialist in his views.
thank you, finally someone realized that just cause you call yourself communist doesn't make it true. words are cheap, actions are king.
however your Israel example is very limited. the nation itself is about as socialist as America but they do have small socialist communities known as kibbutz. I am not surprised it would function on such a small city level, democracy functioned on that level for thousands of years, but it was still a nation level failure until just 200 years ago.
socialism is way better than capitalism.
Now these countries were never socialist but instead totaltarians. ---> USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea , Laos , etc.
Socialism cant even exist . Its too ideal. Although there's an existance of modern day socialism in Israeli that provides us with some hope and relief from unequal wealth based capitalistic society.
why do you say a big government could never be transparent? there is no contradiction, although I'm sure there are obstacles. new concepts and methods are invented all the time, like divided government which was a major breakthrough.
you really can't imagine what companies may do unrestricted? instead of going into some hypothetical about what could happen if we get even more lax, there's an industry that's barely regulated, herbal supplements. the fda can only examine them after a complaint or incident.
if we remove current standards, walking past construction sites may become fatal, food quality and ingredients may become a matter of faith, and for workers, the early industrial revolution may hold some clues. it wasn't pretty.
companies have one goal in life. to make money, at the most efficient method possible. government doesn't need profit, it has taxes. therefore it can focus on other priorities. And yes it may not run the smoothest, but remember it covers coast to coast with a full 300mil+ customer base and a Congress that keeps cutting it's branch's budget. if you do an honest comparison, it's amazing it functions the way it is! and the private sector is full of failures. tons of corpses of business on which the current winners stand. someone always wins, eventually, but some people may not want to risk their government to trial and error.
marxists want all the power on the hands of the state. you want a system that will put all the power in the hands of very small group of very rich people. you just don't seem to be able to accept that that is what pure capitolism is. what you want isn't the opposite of tyranny, it's just a different form of tyranny. the tyranny of the rich over the poor.
If I'm a member of the community that ownes a large share of a corporaton (you still haven't answered my question about investements) I'm still a member of the community. Everyone is incentivized by profit, sorry if that's spooky. Without government what cab a business do to you other than you voluntarily buying their products?
Ok no were not the same as Marxists both freedom and tyranny cannot be extremism. You've just been exposed to I increasing statism your whole life.
you are basically the mirror image of Marxist. they believe in total control of the means of production by the government. that is a terrible idea. you seem to be advocating for no government control over business. which is equally a terrible idea.
corporations at one point were members of the community, they aren't any more. they are now huge multinationals that don't give a shit about people. they only care about profit. if that means they have to kill a few people, poison the environment, undermine national security, it doesn't matter. profit is all that matters.
the government and regulations are needed to keep them in check. to protect the people and the nation from unrestrained avarice.
I think the unrealistic approach is a bigger government with more transparacy. A big government will never be transparant or efficient.
Lol libertarians hate the because they believe in neither social nor economic freedom. We disagree on social justice collectivist thought, free choice in many regards, inflationary monetary policy, keynsian economics... the list goes on.
Bill de blasio is also a Marxist who openly endorsed all NYC land being allocated by government.
sorry for the blunt opinion on liberitarianism, but you did take a few swipes at "lefties".
I'm sure we are both defenders of speech, and as long as you aren't trying to hurt there is no need to sugar coat imo.
more and more powerful government with more and more transparency and civilian oversight. a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
I agree with you about the right but I feel you are misreading the left. i like liberitarians. as much as I feel they support a broken naive philosophy, much like communists, they actually have valued, integrity, and are not massive amnesiac hypocrits like much of the right. I'm really surprised more liberitarians don't vote left because in my opinion a market guided by general industry wide rules is much more free than a market full of cherry picked winners and losers no matter how deregulated. I completely agree with your crony capitalism assessment.
I don't think you have the right view of the effect left wing policies make. for a quick contrast, the new York mayor told Amazon (who everyone is trying to bribe to bring them to their town) "we have the best work force, we aren't giving you a penny extra".
you mentioned something I should of mentioned where we agree. It's not only Leftist big government regulations keeping corporstions powerful. Many modern conservatives support corporate welfare and cronyism as well.
For instance my Republican governor Scott Walker just bought FoxCon to open like 15 minutes from my house for 3 billion of WI taxpayer money. Not cool.
But I won't pretend that corporstions don't support and lobby regulations in order to push down competition, which required big government. The biggedt supporter of a $15 minimum wage was Wal-Mart! do you think they wanted this because they just so happened to be altruistic?
This is the Progressive Paradox. You are againdt corporate spending on government but are for a more and more powerful government. But as the government becomes more powerful there will be more power the corporations will want to buy!
the problem with liberitarian (pure) capitalism is that it worked great... back when companies were mom and pop shops and depended on their communities.
it is not regulations that protect and make wealthy companies stay wealthy, it's capitalism. capitalism requires competition but the individual companies/capitalists seek to destroy their competition, often thru mergers and acquisitions which "lefty" governments are more likely to block and prevent. now you have megacorps like Wal-Mart moving into towns, making every other business close (it wasn't the regulations that put mom and pop out of business, it was capitalism). Wal-Mart becomes the main employer, pays shit wages (since few employers are left to compete for the employees) and then when the town goes 3rd world, they close shop and move elsewhere.
this is not a hypothetical, this is really happening across the nation. liberitarianism is just a broken ideal now.
You really have a thing for making really specific hypothetical situations to debunk liberty.
Leftists are always like: But.. but what if a man inherits ten million invests it all, make 5 million more each year, finds 100 more in a rain gutter, buys a computer business that is profitable, and so on and so on and ends up with a lot of money!! now ive debunked capitalism!
ok maybe he inherited money, many rich people don't. Many make bad investments, many make good. Good investments and saving by the rich allow people like us to vet loans and start businesses of our own.
there are more regulations that toxic waste specifically
if you give your money you inherited to an investment firm then go on vacation, then for all intents and purposes the wealth itself is generating more wealth. this is why rich families usually stay rich, unless they have really stupid members who waste it all.
somehow I doubt regulations on dumping toxic waste affects my local businesses.
Lol yes a good infestment makes more money if it is a good investment. But an infestment isn't a machine that flips cash. What do you think happens with the money they invest? I want to hear you say it.
Regulations generally hurt smaller businesses more than large corporations, so laege corporations will take the hit as long as their competitiors go out of business. This requires big government.
no, most of the reason the rich stay rich is because money makes more money. if you inherit a large chunk of money and invest it, chances are you will stay rich. even if you never work a day in your life. if you're born poor, you can work hard every day of your life and still be poor.
regulations are just rules to keep the rich and businesses from doing certain things (like dumping toxic waste to save money). regulations are needed to protect real people from corporate greed.
Because it is an economic system, and the rich don't get richer at the expense of the poor. The rich are also mostly different people every five years or so. Pure capitalism also has extreme volatility.
Much of the insurance that rich stay rich is regulations and government monopolies that keep large corporations in power. This is why many of the wealthiest people are Leftists.
you seem to be solely describing capitolism as an economic system. how do you maintain a society in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? at some point the poor tear down the system because it exploits them.
a good policy combines the economic principles of a free market with social policy that prevents the rich from owning everything and keeps the poor still able to live.
lol yeah that terrible problem when you can't take stuff from people that have for than you. In defense of voluntarism research the fraternal societies that existed mostly around 18th century Britain and some in the US that worked great.
I think your viewpoint problem is looking for an "end goal" of capitalism and economics. Freedom has no "end goal" or central plan, just voluntary exchange. This is why Austrian Economists names socialists economic planners. Capitalism is just the freedom to own property and voluntarily exchange it in ways that mutually add value.
Your describing only communism, the most extreme forms of socialism. most forms of socialism embrace free markets with broad nonspecific regulations (unlike Republican company specific tax incentives and subsidies which do pick winner and losers)
socialism cannot be something that can be opted out of on an individual basis. if the rich can opt out then that defeats the whole system. the point of socialism is to help everyone regardless of their wealth or status.
the goal of free capitolism is to make it a free for all where the rich get the best of everything and if you're poor, too bad.
a mixture of the two systems is necessary. if too much wealth and power gets concentrated in too few hands then you get tyranny. if capitolism is completely restricted then you something like the Soviet Union and the system collapses. we need to combine them.
The socialism in a free market society must be voluntary.
The difference is that socialists in a free market society can practice their beliefs voluntarily, but free market capitalists cabnot practice their beliefs in a socialist society.
capitalism is a great economic system, but it lacks any form of ideology besides the goal of attaining more and more money.
socialism is a terrible economic system, but has an admirable ideology, especially as a compliment to the coldness of capitalism.
capitalism should be the system, while socialism should guide that system.
it isn't an either / or scenario. elements of both work very well together. while extreme socialism and extreme capitolism are both disastrous.