Agnostic.com

35 4

Hot Button Question 3

What are your perspectives on capitalism vs. Socialism or other types of like "isms"?

ITGuy75 4 June 12
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

35 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I think capitalism is inherently broken, but we haven't yet come up with something that can viably replace it.

I'd like to think that we have plenty of viable replacements. The problem is they are mutually exclusive in their truest forms. That combined with the fact that people don't normally like change for fear of social ostracization and elite/government retaliation slows, retards and outright stops the process of transition to better systems.

15

Democratic Socialism is working great for most of Europe. They still have capitalism, they just don't let the corporations bleed the people dry. Look at Scandanavia in particular; they are among the happiest and healthiest people in the world. Health care and education aren't profit makers, but rather public services. It works.

Really? When it rains in Washington, they pull their umbrellas out in Stockholm.

It's not as good as it used to be in Sweden. Neoliberalism has infected it. It's still better than a lot of countries though.

10

A system of capitalism moderated by government socialist policies would be preferable to unchecked capitalism with it's bad consequences. If capitalism was moderated it could fund healthcare, education, retirement and other good social causes. That would beat what we currently have in the US.

I second that unfettered capitalism it's always a failure

If you ease the exploitation of domestic workers (which is inevitably the aim of friendlier capitalism) all you do is spread that exploitation internationally. Let’s not perpetuate the system of exploitation to others, and instead find a way to outright end it.

9

I like the idea of democratic socialism; it seems to work rather well for a number of countries. I think Bernie is on the right track.

`Bravo!!

8

They're both flawed seperately. Together they might be better. Regulated capitalism. Socialist programs. Both are needed to succeed

7

Democratic socialism will slow economic expansion for sure, but it will also level out recessions and depression. The real problem is that both systems are stop-gap. Soon most jobs will be automated and things like 4 day weeks and mandatory retirement will be coming to increase the job pool. Jobs in fast food will decline but all jobs will have to provide a living wage. Experiments with universal income are important to understand what we will have to do to provide for everyone.

7

That is a very vague question. Do you mean monetarily? If so, Capitalism helps the rich get richer. Socialism is about equality, not to be confused with Communism.

6

If you don't like "isms," I'll gaily sally forth as a:

  1. Feminist;
  2. Environmentalist;
  3. Democrat;
  4. Volunteer; and
  5. Supporter of: education, equal rights for women, minority, gay and disabled people, women's right to control our bodies, and protecting the environment.

Labeling people creates division. Instead, let's discuss our values.

5

i like our system if only we could get rid of career politicians,crooks and idiots running the government

Marine Level 8 June 12, 2018

Unfortunately, being a crook seems to be prerequisite to being a politician. We need Statesmen, and the closest I can remember to that in my lifetime, was Eisenhower.

@Condor5 being a lawyer is now the prerequisite . the ability to argue black is white and win and then the next day argue the reverse and win !

@markdevenish 9/10 of the time lawyer=crook. Same difference.

4

I like the occasional 'ism'. Within reason, of course.

I'm commited to reasonable'ism'ism.

4

Capitalism is exploitation. It can't be anything else.

The ruling class are only rich because they keep the profits created by the workers who toil in their factories.

Compare a conventional business with a co-operative business (whereby the workers own the factory, control how it's run and receive a share of the profits) and the exploitative nature of capitalism becomes clearer.

Bull shit. Where is the expoitation in a grocery store? That is capitalism.

@jwd45244 The big grocery chains screw the producers down on price to maximise their profits, where possible pay their workers less than a living wage and then expect the taxpayer to subsidise the farmers and provide benefits to the workers so they can continue to survive to maximise the profits of the big chains.

That is where the exploitation is!

@Kimba

Thank you. I appreciate your comment.

Some people's selfishness is disgusting.

3

Democratic Socialism and Capitalism are the best combination we currently have for creating fair and equitable societies.

A resource based economy based on a true hierarchical socialistic democracy could? be better..

They are totally incompatible. One is a system of private control over resources, production, and distribution. The other is labor democratically controlling resources, production, and distribution. One is a system designed to have wealth accumulate at the top through the exploitation of the labor force. The other is designed to end all exploitation of the labor force.

Look at the USSR. That was an attempt to mix capitalism and socialism out of necessity, and that ended horribly.

@Prescott I think you're confusing Socialism with Communism, which is a common misconception among Americans due to Cold War propaganda.

@Kohelath no, there is no meaningful distinction between the two. This imagined difference is a relic of the Cold War and the many red scares. Lenin, Marx, Engels and many other leftist theorists wrote extensively on this and the two terms are interchangeable. It’s the post WW2 world that feels like a distinction needs to be made to separate the two. Communist became the name of the groups trying to usher in communism, but before that they called themselves socialists.

I don’t think socialists should be scared of the “C” word. It’s the goal of every subsect of socialism, so embrace it. That’s my point.

@Prescott Socialism has a number of definitions. I'm talking about #2

socialism
ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: socialism

  1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
    synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
    communism, Bolshevism;
    radicalism, militancy;
    progressivism, social democracy;
    labourism;
    Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism
    antonyms: conservatism

  2. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
    synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
    communism, Bolshevism;
    radicalism, militancy;
    progressivism, social democracy;
    labourism;
    Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism
    antonyms: conservatism

  3. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

@Kohelath the one that says communism is a synonym? I’m very well versed in socialism/communism. I know what it is, and I could probably even breakdown more subsects if leftist tendencies than you realize exists. Even in the somewhat adequate definitions you produced the point is conceded that the two are the same thing.

@Prescott there is quite a real difference between a socialistic policy (such as public reading) enacted by a democratic socialist government with a capitalist financial system, & communism. Perhaps you're letting your fantastic array of knowledge get in the way.

@Kohelath I see the confusion here. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what democratic socialism is. You seem to fall into the camp of “public services = socialism” and the more public services we have the more socialister we are. You cannot mix socialism and capitalism. One is private ownership of production, the other is public ownership of production. Trying to mix that is like being half pregnant.

It would seem that you don’t understand what democratic socialism is. It’s not some idealistic mixture of incompatible systems, it’s a specific subsection of leftist thought. Democratic socialism is merely a tendency that wants no more private control over production and resources, wants democratic control in the workplace by the workers, and wants to abolish class distinctions. The only way that democratic socialists differ from other branches of socialism is that DS seeks to usher in socialism by using the existing political system.

@Prescott I think that what I mean has been made clear enough.

"Some countries have adopted aspects of socialism. The United Kingdom provides basic needs like healthcare to everyone regardless of their time or effort at work. In the U.S., welfare and the public education system are a form of socialism."

Read more: The Difference Between Communism and Socialism - Video | Investopedia [investopedia.com]
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

@Kohelath exactly, you subscribe to the ignorant idea that gov programs are socialist. Got it.

@Prescott "aspects of Socialism" are not equivalent to Socialism. You're conflating what I'm saying. Go in peace.

@Kohelath I’m not conflating anything. Other than democratic control over the means of production, the abolition of class distinctions, and the abolition of the state there are no aspects of socialism. This is nothing more than the tired ignorant trope that gov programs = socialism which couldn’t be more wrong.

3

Ideally, if we could take all the best aspects from all the 'isms', we might be
able to create something positive, something to help everyone.
Unfortunately, we are wholly incapable of doing anything like that whatsoever.
We can dream of everything. Our problem is we really suck at the whole
practical application part.

3

Human nature (currently) tends to corrupt any economic system. Capitalism rewards hard work and innovation, but neglects inevitable problems such as poverty and disease. Socialism is supposed to help everyone, regardless of their situation, but does not penalize laziness. That is obviously an oversimplification of the issue, so please do not over analyze my post!

Humanity has always corrupted everything they've ever put their hands on. There's nothing "current" about it.
It's just more of the same.

It doesn’t neglect poverty, it necessitates poverty.

Why do we need to penalize "laziness"? Bill Gates is famous for preferring "lazy" employees as they find the most economical way to get things done.

"Lazy" is a particularly nasty hold over from puritanical bullshit. Is a writer "lazy" because they'd rather write than mow the lawn? Does it make them less lazy objectively if their writing earns them enough money to pay someone else to mow?

People will seek out and pursue their own avocations given enough time and education. We should be supporting people in pursuing those avocations rather than judging people. We have plenty of resources and most work can be automated these days. Instead of judging others we should be finding ways to support everyone.

Manual laborors should be as respected and mental laborors and all should have enough to live on. I'm sick to death of this hierarchical" I'm better than you because "blank". How about we move toward a more supportive, creative society and value everyone for what they do instead of being judgey assholes?

'Penalising laziness' is a distressingly vague term. A lot of people think folks with disabilities are 'lazy.'

You have this backwards. Socialism is a worker's movement. It's centered around a large, global work force to counter huge concentrations of privately owned capital.

Capitalism rewards laziness. Someone else has to have capital for you to borrow or earn. You have to work to get it, and they just have to own it.

Think of it like the bank. You borrow from the bank to start a business. They charge you interest. They literally get paid for just having money. That's laziness built into the system.

Capitalism does not necessarily reward hard work and innovation. Most of those that are poor or middle class work their asses off for a smaller and smaller slice of the pie while the owners sit back and reap the rewards of the hard workers. Socialism doesn't necessarily mean that you don't work either. You just get a fair proportion for your work.

[en.wikipedia.org]

"Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws."

@Piece2YourPuzzle As an English teacher, I tell students to not use wikipedia as a primary soursce. 🙂

Do people not read the fact that I acknowledged "oversimplification" or the part about not overanalyzing?

@Piece2YourPuzzle, @memorylikeasieve I did not define laziness, and frankly, and bewildered that I would have to. If someone is ill, disabled, suffering depression or some other legitimate issue that would prevent them from contributing to society, they are not lazy, I am referring to the aspect of society where select individuals choose to not participate by contributing to the greater good. If they want to create literature or art, that counts. Unfortunately, there are those individuals who want to sit on their ass, watch Jerry Springer, and drink beer or use drugs, instead of working. Those people are a burden on everyone else. In a "perfect" world, EVERYONE would have a job and do what they can to help. The catch is what is that job and how are they compensated? Who decides what job an individual is assigned? Do a janitor and a heart surgeon deserve the same ? Can that janitor ever attain a better position? Which "ism" offers the solution? Do any? Damn, I feel like I need to write an essay just to put a minor dent in this issue.

@WhiteShark1964 Using Wikipedia as a source for what I did isn't detrimental to what I was getting across. It's a well known quote from Karl Marx in an informal conversation. Maybe you will accept the quote from here: [philpapers.org]

Or maybe you can ask a history or political science teacher to lend you a textbook 🙂

@WhiteShark1964 You can't open up a conversation and then put limitations on the responses. It's not like you opened up a conversation about socialism and I started talking about basketball. Socialism does punish laziness actually. Maybe you didn't read the links I posted. Answers to some of your questions are in them.

No. Humanity is born with a drive to survive. When you introduce systems that corrupt intrinsic motivations that is when your corrupted motivations further corrupt the system itself. NOT the other way around.

3

I believe there is no perfect political "ism". The best society will be a mix of several that works for the people living today and in the future. The US is a democratic republic, with socialist programs and an oligarchical influence. It's close, but obviously not ideal as corruption still seeps in.

Eye roll.

I guess the tent cities must be the socialist part.

@Ellatynemouth yeah probably, also social security, roads, schools, parks, police, fire, the CIA & FBI along with the entire military, the EPA, basic sanitation, the post office, Medicare & Medicaid, congress has entirely socialized healthcare but the rest of us don't, the jails that are going more and more privatized getting statistically worse while starting to turn into profiteering revolving doors for inmates, PBS, Welfare, and food/housing assistance, oh and corporate bailouts. Eye roll while driving over a bridge for added irony.

@mattersauce

All the homeless people and tent cities. And the poverty and inequality do not make the US a socialist country. Look to Sweden for something closer.

The US is a shit hole for many. Especially those who work but still need to claim government assistance because their wages are so shit.

@Ellatynemouth Yeah, you may notice in my first post I didn't say we were socialist but I said that we have some socialist programs. I proved that as well with a list of items. You're correct that Sweden is more socialist, and that many who work still need assistance. None of what you said is either on topic or contradictory to what I posted.

3

I think a measured amount of capitalism does incentivise an economy; communism has shown that lack of earnings incentive just doesn't work. But unchecked capitalism is poisonous. people are just too greedy and you wind up with the 1% business.

godef Level 7 June 12, 2018
3

To be really honest, I know too little.
Both seem to produce a lot that I put on my garden.
My bottom line, neither is perfect and less than perfect won't work forever. How hard can it be? Economics is such simple arithmetic. It is when politics gets involved, some are mroe equal than others and such.
[boredpanda.com]

3

I'll take capitalism over socialism any day. Socialism reminds me too much of what that jesus guy from the holy babble advocated, summed up, wealth redistribution. A free society should never compel its citizens to go along with something that of which said citizens do not wish to participate in. I go to work to make a living for myself, and if I'm at a job that doesn't pay well that would be on me to seek out a better paying one, it does no good to complain about unfair wages.

2

socialism is economics for the betterment of the many. capitalism is for the betterment of the few. socialism takes care of the unfortunates . unbridled capitalism does not

2

Interesting how "schism" is also an -ism word.

so is jism

@btroje I think jism is less prone to creating schisms than some of the -isms addressed in this post. I could be wrong.

2

I'd like a new way of being that wasn't an 'ism' , some way of being that values people for who they are as well as what they do -equality would help - if no one had any more or less than anyone else and we practised caring a bit better we would still be individualists but maybe able to be a bit more caring if we were not fighting for our own place in the sun and making sure 'our' children -got more benefits out of the society.

jacpod Level 8 June 12, 2018
2

"isms" in general are a necessary. To survive as a species we need distinct practices, systems, political ideology and artistic movements. In the best light they help us live and grow together. However, there is a downside. Humanities less desirable characteristic exploit "ism" for personal gain or the gain of one group at the expense of another. Hence, capitalism vs. socialism issues. There's no perfect system but I do believe humans, for now, need "isms".

2

Extremism in pursuit of any "ism" is no virtue.

2

Thats not a hot button, the G spot is.

You win!

@bigpawbullets
I know ! LOL

Or in a guy the P spot

@jwd45244
I am not into guys !

2

I will say that what we have going is better than most, but we know it can be better. I support an RBE, or at a very least a livable wage coupled with basic living packages, provided free and without reciprocal expectation, for the basics of a fulfilling life. Shelter/Clothing, Food/Water, Medical Care/Continuum, Education/Transportation, Enrichment.

You do know of course that the standard of living in some socialist European countries has surpassed, by far that of the U.S.A.? "What we have going..." is and has been fading for years.

@dahermit Yes. I do.

1

We don't have capitalism in the US. Regulated markets and government interference (see: epipen) are not free market capitalism. What we have is closer to socialism than anyone wants to acknowledge. Actual capitalism provides the best platform for helping the poor rise economically.

so disagree . you should travel more

@SilverDollarJedi, @markdevenish - like I said, closer than you may want to admit. Government interference in the market is not "free market capitalism." And to assume I support Trump is simply stupid (do you understand what a tariff is?). Let me guess - you think the socialism of Venezuela isn't "real" socialism, right?

The definition of capitalism.. Root word Capitalize. Meaning "To take advantage of"...

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:105114
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.