Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

More like TOTAL LIMITATION ON SOCIALISM. Socialism does not exist when government does not own or control production, distribution and wealth. IOW, there is no socialism in the US, there are only a few social programs which which are funded because Capitalism produces prosperity such that we can afford those programs.

You do realize (I presume), that if the people call for a monarchy, that too is a social contract. Your love story with social contracts overlooks that virtually any kind of government which people choose to accept is a social contract as well.

 

Our government does own and control some means of production through central planning and income transfers through taxation.

 

Roads are a means of production.

 

Control of some means of production? Get real Daniel! In socialism all major production and distribution and wealth is controlled by the government. The income transfers you are talking about are social programs, not socialism.

 

Roads are infrastructure, that are bought and paid for by the taxes of the people, mostly through fuel taxes. Does infrastructure help production? Of course it does, but private enterprise controls production and distribution and capital and the workers enjoy the fruits of the wealth produced through that enterprise.

 

Infrastructure is included in the means of production, and therefore we have a concrete example of means of production being controlled by the state. We can argue over how significant that is compared to privately owned means of production, but you can't argue (well, at least not with any hope of winning) that there aren't elements of socialism in our society.

 

Your special pleading only works in your vacuum. Socialism is simply the basis of Government and includes the social authority over the coercive use of force of the State.

Socialism can create Institutions of money based markets in any political economy as easily as creating the "market" for the War on Drugs.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it doesn't. It simply requires sufficient subjectivity of moral values, to engender in Man, a better angel who has not the need for the Expense of Government.

 

Infrastructure exists no matter what kind of government/economic system we have. They are an aid to everything, not just production, but no matter how much you whine over it, it is not PRODUCTION IN THE ECONOMIC SENSE. Unless the government controls all major (and I am giving you more credit than you deserve with that "major") production, distribution and possibly even more important wealth.

We do not have a capitalist/socialist mix economy. We have a regulated capitalist economy whereas private enterprise makes the decisions as to what to produce, how much to produce, when to produce, all facets of distribution and wealth is allowed to distribute according to production and private means. When you say "elements of socialism" in our society you are wrong, totally wrong. As a capitalist economic system creates prosperity our society uses part of that prosperity to help the more needy. Those are social programs, not socialism.

Since socialism cannot exist without an oppressive or repressive government to control the people (and I don't mean law enforcement) there is no socialism in the US. As one of our more renowned economists is quoted:

Ludwig von Mises - Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism. The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality pp. 6465 Capitalism vs. Socialism

Ludwig von Mises - Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management. Bureaucracy p. 10 Capitalism vs. Socialism​

 

And your special pleading falls on deaf ears.

Nope! Socialism is, "Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management," and you are confusing social programs for socialism. You don't get to redefined what things are to make a point. Either accept what socialism/capitalism are and make your argument, or you are doing nothing but special pleading to call things what you want to call them.

Except that for socialism to create institutions of money based markets it must first be a socialist entity. You have not yet proved your point that socialism exists in the US.

Since there is no more moral value engendered in man in a socialist atmosphere than in a capitalist atmosphere (more likely less than more), and since socialism must control man to exist, there is no argument to support Socialism. Harping on morality does not justify your 'special pleading' since morality exists or fails to exist no matter which social/economic system there is.

Ludwig von Mises Economics, as a branch of the more general theory of human action, deals with all human action, i.e., with mans purposive aiming at the attainment of ends chosen, whatever these ends may be.​

 

Our social Contract established through that form of socialism authorizes the coercive use of force of the Unites States.

Socialism can create Institutions of money based markets in any political economy as easily as creating the "market" for the War on Drugs.

Our exorbitantly expensive, nationalized and socialized, War on Drugs is a purely social construct that would have failed on its own initiative, if it were held to same fixed Standard, held for other artificial persons with recourse to wealth.

 

Leave out the word socialism and you are correct, but it can be coercive only to enforce laws and to prevent unfair business practices and fraud. It is not socialism. All economic systems require a government like that, but when it is socialism it is oppressive, not just coercive to enforce laws.

Maybe it could, but since we do not have socialism in the US our capitalist system creates the wealth such that the government wages a war on drugs with revenue from that capitalism.

Absolute baloney! Our war on drugs is expensive, not completely nationalized as state and local government participate, and it is not socialized. And the only reason there is recourse to wealth is because our economic system is capitalism. No matter how many ways you try to say it, how you parse the words, how hard you want it to be, our system is regulated capitalism with social programs, not socialism and not a mixed economy. You are busily special pleading again Daniel and you still don't have an argument.

 

Irrelevant. It's still a means of production, and there's no reason infrastructure can't be built by private enterprise. Thus state ownership of infrastructure is worthy of note.

Just because something generates positive externalties, that doesn't stop it being a means of production.

Oh, well do enlighten us all then. What's production "in the economic sense"?

Why?

Justify your axioms.

A quotation isn't an argument. Especially when the quotation contain factual inaccuracies.

 

Baloney! A very knowledgeable and renowned economist who knows a lot more than you or I put you in your place. The quotations are not the argument, they are support for the argument and they represent the man quoted very well. And the quotations tell us more about economics and our system then everything you have asserted. As to state ownership of infrastructure, it tells us only that the state maintains it for all and that is all it tells us.

BTW, if you wish to discuss this with me do so with respect or you will be ignored.

Fact, the government is not productive, it takes from production.

Fact, infrastructure is not production, it is not paid for by the government as the government does not produce wealth. Capital pays taxes for the infrastructure. Even if capital builds its own infrastructure it is but a tool in the production of capital.

Ludwig von Mises - Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism. The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality pp. 6465 Capitalism vs. Socialism

Ludwig von Mises - Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management. Bureaucracy p. 10 Capitalism vs. Socialism​

Read his references, you may learn something.

 

Individuals can be wrong no matter how renowned. Demonstrate a consensus among all renowned economists, and then you have the start of a valid point.

Well the government produced roads, so clearly you're wrong.

Infrastructure is produced and provides utility to individuals. Therefore it is production. It is also important in facilitating future production, and is therefore a means of production as well.

Sure it does. Simply saying that it doesn't won't change that fact.

Ok, let me try to put this in terms that you might understand. If I purchase a computer from Samsung, and then Samsung uses that money to help pay for a new factory, that doesn't mean Samsung isn't paying for the factory. Taxes are payment to the government for services provided by the government. When the government spends that money, be it on infrastructure, scientific research, or whatever, it is the government that is paying, and it is the government that is contributing to the wealth that results from said infrastructure, research, etc.

You've yet to demonstrate the mutual exclusion between production and infrastructure.

There's more than one means of production. Some can be privately controlled, and others can be publicly controlled. No contradiction whatsoever.

Capitalism doesn't say anything one way or the other about "the sovereignty of voters". Socialism doesn't say anything one way or the other about government control of an individual's life. Your 'expert' is a moron.

 

How are you reaching your conclusion.

How can I leave out the word, socialism if it is based on the Social Contract?

Only the special pleading of last millennium, during the Cold War, came up with the equivalent to the Fahrenheit system instead of the metric system concerning diagnosing any Body politic.

Our exorbitantly expensive, War on Drugs, would not exist under truer forms of capitalism, but does exist under our form of socialism; and, not only that, it can also be considered a public sector means of production, owned and operated, by the People.

 

There is no great secret to figuring out what socialism is and what capitalism though you people seem to be creating problem in the process. Instead of playing semantics here go to Merriam-Webster for the answer.

You people are making it hard for yourselves by reading into some of the functions, especially that of government.

 

My point is what is important, and his comments support my point.

With revenue collected from capital, so I am not wrong.

Do you think government employees built the infrastructure? Or did contractors, PRIVATE ENTERPRISE build it? All the government did was collect revenue and pay for the job. The government produced nothing. Government is the least productive element in our economic system.

Horse manure!

Revenue is collected from capital because the government does not create wealth. What ever contribution government makes to the economy is bought and paid for by the people.

What I have asserted is so clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together will understand it.

In a capitalist economy private control, in a socialist economy government control. In the US private enterprise creates all the wealth by which people are paid and government collects revenue. In a socialist economy government owns or controls production so all the wealth is the government's to dole out as it chooses.

Obviously you have no personal experience relative to either. There has never been, nor can their ever be, a socialist economic system in place without an oppressive/repressive government; the people would not stand for it for long. As to the "expert" I quoted, when you achieve 10% of his intellect get back to me, otherwise you can stew in your own juices.

 

Daniel, you do know that a social contract is not reserved only for socialism, don't you?

So what? You are still special pleading about socialism. BTW, I recall the F system as a child back in the late 30s, before WWII!

It obviously does exist in capitalism, as is demonstrated by reality. The public sector produces no wealth, ergo production is by capital, and the government extracts revenue; it does not produce revenue. Like it or not, the government does not produce anything, they only take and in some cases redistributes through social programs.

 

Some of us want to split the "infinitive". IE we want to split the verb to "produce," not withstanding that "production" as an economic term equals the creation of wealth through product or service. Daniel and I have been having a respectful and dignified conversation without your help or that of any other assistance from without. We may or may not ever come to a meeting of the ways, but that's ok too, because it is not contentious.

 

Government is socialism, not capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it is only reserved for Socialism since Capitalism requires capital contracts. It really is that simple, unlike the problem manufacturers of the opposing view.

 

socialism isn't necessarily the communist plan you propose it is.

socialism is when the haves help out the have nots...

the more the haves have ..the better off the have nots ...in a fair system of taxation that is.

 

Government is neither and can govern either capitalism or socialism.

Not so Daniel. Nothing in the definitions below even hints at a "social contract" being reserved only for socialism; and it really is that simple.

social contract
n.
An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

social contract, compact
n
(Philosophy) (in the theories of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others) an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state or of organized society, the prime motive being the desire for protection, which entails the surrender of some or all personal liberties

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

so′cial con′tract
n.
the agreement among individuals by which society becomes organized and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare.
[1840–50]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. social contract - an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty in return for protection
accord, agreement - harmony of people's opinions or actions or characters; "the two parties were in agreement"
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.​

 

America is turning more and more Socialist everyday,
I'd say 1 in 4 can't make in on their own, live in abject poverty and wait for government help.
Given the direction we're headed it will be 1 in 3 by 2020.
50% of the population will be completely dependent upon the government by 2030.

It's what the Socialists want. It is how they retain political power. Enable the citizenry to be dependent upon you and they will keep you in power, indefinitely

 

I am not equating socialism with communism though they are similar in many ways, especially as the the oppression or repression of the government.

Actually you are loosely describing social programs made possible by the creation of wealth in capitalism.

I do agree with that comment. The more prosperous the total economy is, the better off the "have nots" are. Here in the US production and distribution are principally determined by private enterprise. That tells you we are not socialist; if you understand the basic definitions of what capitalism/socialism really are.

As it is, our "poor" as defined by the poverty line are better off than the majority of the middle class in 3rd world countries.

 

It requires socialism, not capitalism. In any case, you can't plead, specially regarding any "holy trinity" of laws simply because you are not religious enough in our temporal and secular republic.

That is specifically a form of socialism.