The debate "Socialism is not as efficient as capitalism" was started by
June 2, 2016, 7:34 pm.
18 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 12 people are on the disagree side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
The_Debater posted 2 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 21 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 11 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 7 arguments to the disagreers part.
dalton7532, The_Debater, RogueAmerican, SwaggerPoptart, NyKai, NyKai777, absalnc, jberry, JLabang123, Bodaciouslady16, mherzer, moneybagboyz and 6 visitors agree.
MichaelEaborn, CoffeeWhite1, xXimmapersonXDXx, RyanWakefield, cmt11 and 7 visitors disagree.
imagine how different our world would be if such basic necessities, like generators and motors, were controlled by a private patent limiting production and skyrocketing prices.
capitalists didn't invent refining of oil or electricity... scientists did.
and while some scientists choose to milk the public for their inventions (edison), others made their discoveries public domain for the betterment of mankind (Faraday, inventor of the generator, the motor, and a multitude of other discoveries.)
Between the 2 of them Faraday is by the greater figure.
Guess who creates resources? Capitalism. Oil used to be waste until somebody had the idea to use it. And that is the folly of government. The can regulate, but they cant innovate because that is the job of entrepreneurs. But by your same logic, the best time in the world was with the cavemen. They had every resource, but that means nothing when you only can use rocks
"I feel that the way to fix capitalism is to deregulate it as much as possible."
that is psychotic and suicidal.
you really want to allow a single company to dominate every industry, paying people whatever the hell it wants cause there are no options and people need to eat.
how exactly will we sustain our economy while all our natural resources are abused, and at the end of it all when the people are impoverished and the land is barren, they'll move on to other nations because they have no tie to this land.
how can you not think of the consequences of such a system? it's really like we haven't been talking this entire time.
please, explain to me how a deregulated economy will work in the current environment.
At the same time though Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought the terrible mortgages and needed a bailout. Government again compounded this problem.
in Canada there was no banking crash. our banking regulations prevented them from making the same rediculous bets that your banks did. they lobbied hard to have the regulations changed so they could. our revisions protected us from the unadulterated greed that brought the American economy to its knees.
Some evil, but that is the problem of every economic system. Arguments could be made that government mandates over these housing loans impelled them to create a bigger risk since many people couldnt pay for them. But the end result has pushed to problem under the rug for a later date. In the future, we will all be dead though.
so the way to fix the banking system, which collapsed because they were free to make insanely risky bets, is to let them do whatever they want. which is exactly what caused the crash in the first place. that doesn't make any sense. unregulated capitolism is called avarice. and as I'm sure you are aware, that is the root of all evil.
I feel that the way to fix capitalism is to deregulate it as much as possible. It was a system established with a free market. It will be weakened by increased regulation. But yet again, things must be regulated for the general welfare. Slavery hurt the south, but it needed to change. Business was hurt by mandatory work conditions, but they needed to be in place.
either way, do you feel a capitalism system would not be improved by some socialist philosophy such as unions and regulations, while keeping the core system capitalist?
or do you feel that our current capitalist system does not need or cannot be improved?
To the first post: obviously. Fascism implies private ownership. Socialism is central planning through a market system determined by the government. That means businesses are rooted in government. Land is the government's. Resources are the government. Your labor is the governments since you are a factor of production. I have no say within the government since they control everything. Im talking about Communism which moves onto society. Strictly socialism. Government ignores price communication, and sets arbitrary prices.
I will apologize for the inaccuracies of my prior post. Yes that is true that one may vote away his rights, but I plainly meant the spirit of democracy. I again apologize for my lack of clarity.
Furthermore, regulation is not socialism. A fascist can regulate in the same manner as a socialist. Is fascism then socialism? A monarch can alter a mercantilist economy by regulation. Is mercantilism socialism? The answer to all of these is no. Socialism is the central planning and public ownership of property. Regulations can lead to fascism as well in order to control private business. Are these regulations automatically socialist? Again no because private business still exists.
and a fascist / dictatorial regime (whether it claims to be democracy or communism) does not need explicit public ownership. if the gestapo or the kgb or assad's thugs knock on your door wanting your property, your service, or your life, they take it.
democracy simply means people get to elect their leaders. one can easily still have democracy without private property, especially if the people vote for it.
however no private property is not the only thing communist tries to achieve. the elimination of money as well. as I said, it's an idealistic system that simply will not work on any non tiny scale.
socialism is not communism. it mostly agrees with communism's values (of protecting workers from greedy employers who will seak to devalue their labor due to their lack of say in anything), but not with the extreme and unnecessary way it suggests accomplishing that goal.
socialism believes that one can protect employees without eliminating ownership through sensible regulation. which has work well when applied properly. no central planning involved.
Im not saying anything about Communism. Fascism is central planning with private ownership. Socialism is central planning with public ownership. How do you democratically remove personal property and still call it democracy
in short, there are numerous political systems that involve central planning, you can't just label something communist just cause it has a single thing in common with it.
fascism is central planning as well.
the difference is whether the people have a say in that planning.
in socialism the people have a say, in fascism they dont. Russia was a fascist dictatorship, just like Cuba and China.
currently socialism is like early democracy, and idealistic form of government that doesn't work on any scale above a city. (Athens being the best example for thousands of years, and kibbutz being the best example of pure socialism currently)
it took the founding fathers to make democracy a practical system. communism is still waiting for its founding fathers to make it realistic.
Was the USSR not centrally planned? I never advocated for you're point
are you saying that Syria is a democratic Republic just like the United states?
But it was a Socialist nation. And that emergence of power didnt vault them to combination of economic security and growth seen by the US. At first, a centrally planned economy may grow, but it is unsustainable because it supercedes economic indicators since it is arbitrary.
central planning took the Soviet Union from a regional power based only off size and population, into a superpower within 2 5 year plans.
however the Soviet Union was about as much communist as Syria is a democracy.
just someone calls themselves something doesn't make it true...
the Soviet Union was a very extreme case and was paired with political tyranny. that does not prove that socialism isn't viable.
if we look at USSR, one thing for sure, socialism isnt much sucessesful.
"environment" was supposed to be "business environment"
it's not supposed to aid a business, it's supposed to aid the business environment, such as ensuring healthy competition.
do you think competition helps an individual company? no, it hurts profit. but it helps the environment, economy, and society as a whole to have healthy competition.
But may I ask how regulating a business and restricting it is supposed to aid it?
The reason our economy boomed after the 30s was our ww2 war economy
yeah, intervention and regulation. that's what we were doing since the 20s when we were great. ever since we stopped our economy started tanking.
there is no control or ownership, just reprioritization.
"communism is government control. socialism is government intervention and regulation"
I really dont know. And also I'm saying socialism is central planning. The other was said by you.
you know what I meant by education and you know what I meant by policies for opportunity equality. don't play dumb.
and your right, it's not socialism, but it's what you keep accusing of being socialism.
As I've said that's not socialism. And to the point of advancing opportunity--the Constituion.
We have affordable education--public schools.
yes, which is why the core of the society I suggest is capitalism, but socialist policies and priorities should be added to it to improve it.
you said capitalism isn't perfect, so why not try to improve it?
where did I say equality? your just pointing our random cliche arguments.
can we get back on topic. regulation can be oppressing, and it can be necessary, even you admitted that some is needed. I never said my sweetspot, so why are you assuming the most extreme scenario? that is just ridiculous.
I don't want equality. I want income to be relative to rent within reasonable travel distance. I don't think everyone should live equally in the Hamptons. but there is no reason the slums you live in should cost you half your income!!!
how can you seek any opportunity in that scenario? it's not like yall are suggesting free or affordable education...
republican opportunity equality was a joke. name one measure meant to advance it?
Nobody capitalism is perfect. It has faults, but not as many as others. The problem here is you want equality, not equal opportunity. Our idea of fairness is what we come home with. Capitalism in those terms is horrid since that just doesnt happen
Yes good old democratic socialists. Most of your income taxes, and you are regulated into submission. As I said private business molded into government desires. That is why I believe a discussion of Fascism is imperative.
But would it be a fair conclusion to assume that socialism is only possible within an idealist society since nobody can accomplish it.
communism is impractical. it's naive and stupid, I've said that many times.
but that doesn't make capitalism automatically perfect, and in fact at its current scale, it's falling apart, transforming slowly into feudalism.
we need to make capitalism as the core, but cover it with socialist principles and priorities (the people). that would be the ideal system.
So he becomes a subject to the majority. The same weakness seen by democracy.
in communism, no. but he will have a vote in what crops should be grown in that region, but must then follow the consensus decision.
in socialism... depends on the extreme. there are many democratic socialist systems in Europe where you can do whatever you want, but not only are you taken care off, but every adult is in the army as well. 100%. a true union.
The US is far too large and diverse for such unity, but we have variety and that is our advantage. in our case the point of socialism is too limit the freedom of the free market, not eliminate it. harness it.
there aren't really any good examples of socialist states because no one has ever really tried to make one. someone grabs for absolute power and the system that was supposed to be about the people becomes about the power of the central government. China is a good example. it has never been a socialist country because the people have never had a say in what the country does.
Give me one example of a truly liberal socialist state and I will yield. If not it is impractical. Also if the people run it, does farmer Joe get to decide what he plants in his fields?
your belief that people have no say in a socialist government is flawed. it is the exact opposite.
in socialism the people are the public and they decided through the government.
China is about as much a socialist nation as Syria is a democratic republic.
did you know they hold regular elections and "president" assad always wins with 99% of the vote.
do you believe everything someone tells you? do you not see a dictatorship when you see one?
Now dont tell me you take for granted the fact that in our liberal system the people decide public good, or does that explain your eagerness to replace it.
Well the good thing about unfettered government is that they decide the public good which is the point of socialism and fascism.
is the Syrian military there for the public good while it bombs and gases the public?
In terms of referencing, I don't worry about a distinction. If you are taking the two terms literally, then yet it is good for the people. However, in such a system in which public good is dictated by government, the term is highly subjective. A military is installed for public good.
and if the people revolt, they'll barrel bomb them or make them dissappear.
public good huh
we aren't talking about ourselves, but random nations under various systems, and how they will choose to understand those terms.
not every nation may decide that what's good for the public is what's good for the nation. there have been many nations that have abused their public for the "national good." Soviet Union, Syria, N. Korea.
from their perspectives, building up a military may be more important than feeding their people. They will say it is for the National good, do you believe that those actions are equally in the publics good?
Might I add, to you take for granted what socialism has done. It has destroyed. Just look at the Chinese agricultural reform. Massive amounts of people died.
You know as well as I what public good refers to.
national good is the same as public good in a democracy or socialism.
do you think public good is the same as national good in N. Korea? they build up military while people starve.
you take it for granted living here, but do you really not see the difference?
When ironies begin to compound is your misrepresentation of socialism. To deviate away from government controlling the means of production is fallacy. I was accused of addressing Communism which is not at all what was being assessed. Socialism is purely economic, and my argument hinged upon that notion. Communism encompasses a society of equality, and this reaches far beyond any economic topic.
I feel it is impossible to argue at this point. If i address a point in a digression, it invalidates the rest of an argument. Your focus on misrepresenting the wording of my argument--such a focus on perverting minutiae in hopes that I will fall out of an argument is seeningly desperate. Public good is known as a nation as a whole--for all the people. Is a Fascist system focused on building a leaders wealth, or the power of a nation. It may be argued, and rightly so that the power is put into the hands of a leader (or party), but they control private business for the purpose of doing what is best for the nation (which for all intents and purposes is the public).
"Fascism is critical to what has been addressed. The economic purpose of fascism is to intervene with private business (The US--just look at GM) for public good."
since the rest of your post hinges on this premise...
you misunderstand fascism as well.
fascism intervenes, yes, but not for the public good, but for the National good. the public is not the nation as it is here. the public has no say in fascism.
Now to address your point of mass poverty. In the US at least, that line is completely arbitrary. In the face of many nations, our poverty isnt that bad. Now we also dont have a mass proletariat with a tiny bit of bourgeoisie. Many Americans are within the middle class, and it is sustainable with comfort.
Also money in savings accounts. That isnt where all money is. A lot of savings are investments. Not to mention these savings accounts are used as loans to other businesses or people trying to by homes. That to me looks beneficial.
Fascism is critical to what has been addressed. The economic purpose of fascism is to intervene with private business (The US--just look at GM) for public good. That is what the US is bringing in, not socialism. Medicare is sponsored by private health insurers. Medicaid the same. Now with added government intervention, they are being pummeled. Part C is killing United. Imagine what would happen if it was run by the government. It all points to the follies of government sponsorship since policy destroys the industry.
fascism is the farthest thing to socialism or communism. in fascism, society works to benefit the nation. in socialism the nation works to benefit society.
I'm not sure why you brought fascism into the conversation. Noone is suggesting that system.
everyone advocates for themselves, but we pass what is best for society. you make it sound like having a nation full of impoverished people with no money to contribute to the economy or time to better there situation is a good thing!
is there some national benefit to having huge sums of money sitting in savings accounts instead of circulating around the economy?
I don't prefer fascism though. Im not opposed to some regulations in regards to safety (triangle fire), but rather the overarching regulations imposed by government. But tell me this: is a worker worried about the good of the business and society, or his wage. Reality is nobody cares for others but that doesn't prevent the aid to each other.
we need a fusion system that picks the best parts of both and creates something completely new. social capitalism.
you dont. private ownership is a good thing, it just needs to be regulated sufficently so that it works for the benefit of its owners AND the rest of society. Instead of just letting owners milk the system and treat the citizens as nothing more than human capital.
How do you then move from private business to public ownership?
Noone wants to usurp private ownership of business
and please don't mix up economics with foreign policy.
Yes communism had the propensity to be outstanding; however, people can only live in poverty so long.
They may begin, but they are not. They dont have an aim to usurp the private ownership of business. As I said many of these policies turn to fascism.
those regulations controlling private business is where socialism begins. if you want just capitalism then the government wouldn't control businesses at all. they would be allowed to pollute and abuse workers all they want.
That's rather ironic. I am using the definition socialism correctly. The idea of welfare has been perverted to be socialism to make it more acceptable. Beyond this anyway, the US better reflects fascist interventionism and protectionism. Government doesnt control any industry, but instead regulates private industry.
and heck, I'll argue communism is more efficient at making profit too. the thing is capitalism has one 1 priority, profit. communism can choose what the priority is: profit, standards of living, preservation, R&D, etc.
what can communism do when it prioritizes profit at any cost?
it can turn a practically third world Russia into an economic and military powerhouse in 2 5 year plans.
efficient at what?
when you drive, being efficient on time and efficient on gas require 2 completely opposite strategies.
capitalism is the most efficient at making private profit, but that's it. it's not even good at that in the long term anymore. shareholders pressure companies to constantly grow until the bubble bursts and they cash out. why do you think we have had nonstop bubbles since the 90s (the era of deregulation and America's economic downfall)
pure capitalism only works in small scale mom and pop stores which were dependant on the health of their local communities for their survival. remove their dependence on their communities (as is the case with national and international companies) and they cease helping the people/community/nation, begin to harm them.
small scale capitalism is perfect, even in a pure form, but the current model of large scale capitalism is only efficient at one thing, making personal profit for some individuals. Management of resources, including human resources are inconsequential to their bottom line, and therefore not their priority. heck, since we created the shareholder economy, long term company health and profitability isn't even and concern. grow now, grow fast, cash out and let it crash. that is the wall Street capitalist model. it is stupid beyond belief.
communism is the idea that all individuals are equal, that everyone ownes everything and everyone is paid the same amount. No one has ever reached communism, only extreme socialism so I think that it's you Nemiroff who does not understand socialism.
socialism is a broad category.
rogue american, you are only talking about communism, the most extreme form of socialism.
communism is government control. socialism is government intervention and regulation.
you are against communism, I don't think you understand what socialism is... it's what we have been using for nearly a century.
I completly agree with historybuff that socialism is an important aspect of a modern sociaty, giving us social security, the NHS and approproate working conditions.
However, we need to be carefull not to deviate from the point of the question. The statement is: Sodialism is as efficient as capitalism. Therefore, we must think of economic efficiency rather than the social aspect. Economically speaking I agree with RogueAmerican, a Capitalist economy is much more efficient as it encourages competition between companies and the buissnesses are as cost effective as possible due to low interference from the Government. After all, we only have to remember back to the Sovirt Union to see an example of the faults of a socialist economy. The USSR collapsed because it's socialist economy coulden't support it's outgoings where as China, while still maintaining a communist state, allowed its economy to become a free market, (more capitalist than socialist). Therefore China has survived and the USSR has not. This is not down to the oppressive communist leadership, but how the economy was managed in those states.
Nobody argues that regulations arent needed, but I wouldn't define that extent of intervention as socialism. Its red tape, not control of the means of production. Ot could be manipulated, but we arent there. The welfare program I feel is by its very nature though, inefficient. It hinders economic growth for the bottom levels of society.
if you think that there should be limits on corporate greed then you believe in socialism. if believe people shouldnt be allowed to be forced to work 80 hours a week in unsafe work environments then you believe in socialism. if you believe that poor people shouldn't be allowed to starve to death because they can't find a job, that too is socialism. a purely capitalist society would collapse. a modern state can't exist without socialism.
I dont really think socialism is beneficial to am economy. If anything it should veer off of capitalism for fascist policy on order to preserve the private interest in various areas when necessary (government contracting). Beyond that there should be some regulation for safety and such, but I wouldn't venture to the inefficiency of government.
that is the extreme end of socialism. just as the extreme end of capitalism is when a small handful control of men own everything and squeeze the poor for everything they can. both are bad. a mixture of the two is better.
Yes, however one suggests the government controls the means of production. Very few "capitalist" nations have that.
you say that as if they are two completely separate ideas. every state has a mixture of the two. it's like saying oxygen is better than nitrogen in the air we breathe. if you have too much of either you die. a modern state can't live without some of both.