Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

Yes, that also is my understanding. I'm sure others see them as completely different. That's why I find discussions about "blahism is ..." to be so unproductive.

 

I think what seems to confuse people is the fact that capitalism is not a government, it is an economic system whereby private property is protected by the government.

On the surface Socialism is also an economic system but the problem lies in the fact that a socialist economy will not last very long because it stymies initiative, motivation, ambition and high achievement of the individual and as those people become discontented with there efforts supporting so many who do not have the same traits the system either fails outright or the government becomes dictatorial and force fear is required to keep the people down.

 

A strong government is required in all systems to keep the people in check. And no matter what the system is, the inevitable centralization of power is only a matter of time. The US has suppressed many forms of civil revolt throughout it's history from all types of people and continually amasses power over it's society. Russia probably isn't much better. The only people who seem to be doing better are those people coming out of horribly repressive regimes, and that usually the cycle.

Revolution > Accomodation (Government plays "Good Cop") > Centralization > Oppresion (Government plays "Bad Cop") > Revolution

Probably true.

 

A agree. The variation in systems center around how well the society protects people and what they own from government theft and interference.

 

I agree that our government has centralized power well beyond the intent of the constitution. I don't agree about civil revolt, as our government has been instrumental in reducing oppression within our borders and without. Witness WWII.

 

Do you mean the cycle of revolt after a government assumes centralized power? Well, so long as the government was strong and cohesive, civilian revolt against a central government is next to impossible. However, it's when parties of interest with actual power- national or foreign- ally with the civilians that the revolution gains teeth. The French revolt was successful because the debate of the overthrow of the monarchy penetrated society to the extent that it also divided the French military on itself, and so you had comparative forces against one another. America damn near owes it's existence to the French for it's role in the Revolution. In some sense, the CIA provides a good example. It has helped regimes overthrow and replace central governments by funding rebels with weapons and supplying intel, logistis support, etc. Without this, the central power usually crushes resistance like in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, yada yada.

You're absolutely right, though, a successful revolt would be next to imossible unless the rebels in some way gain access to a considerable means of force.

 

Yet no matter what you have said, I do not believe the US government has been oppressive. I agree we owe the French for their help in the revolution. Vive la France! Many of my ancestors are French. I also don't believe the US populace wish to overthrow the government, and I for one will fight against such a revolt. I assume you are aware that there are between 8 million and 9 million armed hunters in the US who in conjunction with the National Guard are prepared to stop insurrection or invasion.

 

Actually you are right, I should have chosen the word repressive rather than oppressive. The early government tended to unilaterally back the interests of the land owning class and the enterprising class. The poor had many rebellions. In fact, there were common desertions durng the war because the colonist soldiers were angry about the unfair treatment shown between regular enlisted and the officers within their own army. They also left because they some were dislluisoned with the war and saw litle difference between the rule of British landowners and the rule of American landowners. The first American cynics, I suppose.

The oppression is mainly reserved for the Native Americans and the Blacks. At the very beginning of the US, it was also the white poor, but as the government grew stronger and the racial distinctions between White and Black grew, that no longer became so much an issue.

At a later point, it was generally a climate of antagonism between the poor and the rich during Capitalisms freest moments when wealthy, powerful entities rose to command overwhelming power and influence in the locality and in the government. Many labor resistances flared up around the abussive treatment. In effect, that period of America marked American laborers similar to third-world sweatshop workers. Particularly interesting, considering that there was still a whole underclass of Black workers as well. The government backed the entrepreneurs unilaterally, and local law enforcement was known to partcipate in beatings and targeted killings or assassinations of labor leaders in support of the elite businessman, but as the strikes and resistances grew in frequency and intensity, the government began to concede protections to the laborer.

However, as labor conditions improved, and a lot of the harsher features of capitalism wher transfered to third-world countries, life became generally better for most Americans. The Blacks were still oppressed, and th women were still repressed, but if you limit your analysis to just the White Americans, than around this time, certainly none existed. After this, it was more a state of gradually stronger repressions as the State assumed more power.

Sorry for the long post, but I tend to explain myself at length.

 

a

We are only quibbling about socialism versus capitalism. It is about distinguishing between economic systems and forms of government, merely for the sake of the Body politic and any reasoning and diagnoses, as a result.

It is merely my contention that a social Contract constitutes a basis in Socialism, not Capitalism; since a capital Contract constitutes a basis in capitalism and not socialism.

Thus, many of those who merely engage in special pleading and appeals to emotion instead of reason, merely engage in fallacy as a form of ethic, if not moral, regarding philosophy and the ostensible Purpose, of discovering sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

In any case, I subscribe to a view of supply side economics that claims, supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

We should be simplifying our social safety nets and improving the efficiency of our economy in a market friendly manner.

 

It is about recognizing that Government is a form of Socialism while Commerce is usually considered a form of Capitalism.

 

Any form of Government must rely on Social-ism due to the nature of Social Contracts; Commerce, is usually considered a form of Capitalism. It is an important disambiguation, in my opinion, due to the concepts involved. A government is analogous to a container for commerce.

Simply claiming last millenniums Cold War propaganda and rhetoric is the only authoritative definition is special pleading, disingenuous, and form of sin against philosophy, as a moral in modern times since it may prevent the Inquiry into sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.

 

Here is a reason for the socialism of our federal Constitution and its effect on Commerce in our republic.

 

As I said, I don't particularly care whether you call it socialism or capitalism. What I care about is the initiation of aggression. I oppose policies that result in the initiation of aggression against people, whether they are labelled as socialist or capitalist.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, and then what?

 

I don't go in for the blame game nor do I speculate as to why the "repression" or 'oppression" may have occurred. The fact of the matter and our nation began we were quite good about doing for the people at the time. Nor do I expect there to ever be perfection. The simple truth of the matter we are a nation concerned about people. I do have a bone to pick with the liberal left extremists as their altruism tends to stop at our border. As a humanist I am concerned with people of every nation and will support ending poverty and oppression/repression of the least of our human brothers.

 

I wonder if you can expand on one of your comments. Your fourth paragraph begins with the phrase "However, as labor conditions improved...." To what do you attribute the improvement of conditions? If you think, as I do, that conditions have subsequently deteriorated, and continue to do so, what will be necessary for them to improve again?

 

You may be quibbling Daniel, I am simply posting opinion as supported by Capitalist paradigm economists.

Since you throw out the definition of Socialism as stated by most dictionaries and encyclopedias, what is your point? That social programs constitute Socialism? To that I say horse manure. Socialism is an economic system which robs people of the initiative, motivation and ambition.

Like you Daniel, when you discuss socialism as virtually any social contract. Socialism is an economic system in which production and distribution is either owned by or controlled by the state and REQUIRES a strong autocratic or dictatorial government to keep the citizens in their place. Only the leadership receives compensation beyond the majority of the people.

Now that is a mouth full which does not address either Socialism or Capitalism. It is an ideal, but because capitalism tends to make the economy most prosperous, it is the only economic system which tends to create enough revenue to perform the needed social programs.

My opinion is, there is a place for supply side and demand side economics in any nation state.

That is exactly want a good capitalist economy does, and to a much greater extent than Socialism.

- - - Updated - - -

A government which provides security for private/personal property, allows investment by the people and does not control the production and distribution of goods and services is not a socialist government.

 

Horse manure again Daniel!

Government is there for only one true purpose. National defense, general welfare, securing private property and regulating the economy to provide protection against fraud, safety in the work place, and collecting revenue to help the needy. That is not socialism, it is simply governance.

Why do you continue with your special pleading Daniel?

A mouth full which means little or nothing.

 

Baloney! Socialism tends to control and if we adopted it, the entire middle class would join the lowest quintile wage group and only the leaders in a socialist government are prosperous because socialism by its very nature saps initiative, motivation and ambition from the people.

 

Well, the 12 - 16 hour work weeks, the dangerous working conditions, the child labor, and general other extortions practiced in that time by various companies of interest had gradually declined with the application of unions and various forms of legislation to create a legal standard. The conditions have once again stagnated recently, but at the moment it is being felt primarily in the lower middle and lower class backets. Decreasing wages and benefits, decreasing conditions of employment- some people work to many hours and some people work jobs where there hire primarily part-time only for about $.75 - $1 over minimum wage (at the lowest) at times that make it inconvenient to even seek a second job. This is just for the legal side. The hiring of illegals through various temp energies eordes these standards even further and leads to a general wage depression in the lower labor classes. As of right now, that's the only major deterioration I see, but that is not happening at too fast a pace. But this is only the degradation of labor conditions. The loss of labor would be a different story.

 

El hombre de La Mancha, In the early industrial era and before they outlived their usefulness, Unions were very successful in improving labor conditions. Once the government usurped the purpose of the Unions in their laws governing work place safety and working to raise the standard of living for the majority of the people. But they went too far, and as a result the 12% of the workforce that are still in existence are an elite labor force which now produces products that many consumers cannot afford. Between Unions, corporate taxation, and any regulation to excess are the reasons why some mobile capital has moved off shore.

 

The point of my question, more than looking at the literal description past an current conditions, was to ask if you had a view on what social/political/economic conditions led to the success by unions and legislatures in raising the standard. This understanding, in turn, might suggest what could be done to reverse the current trend.

Also, sorry to not follow, but when you use the phrase 'the loss of labor,' what do you mean?

 

By "the loss of labor" I meant the loss of jobs, like the loss of manufacturing jobs in the country.

And sorry, I have to work on my concision...

I'm not aware of the exact details or reasons that led to a general improvement in labor other than increasing public rally and resentment against such corporations and industries and the incrimental placement of various checks and protections for the laborer. It does sound like a god topic to look into.

Today, with immigration, it might be a little difficult because the primary method of retalitation without violence was to simply refuse to work and, in effect, shut down the system. But the people who likely strike are usually the lower levels of the working class, and the rate on unemployment and the rate of illegal people eager for work in our country means even if one attempts to strike, they are easily replaceable. This tactic has been used.

If I had to offer my guess, I'd say

1. Limit the access of employers to alternative employment of illegals

2. In general, provide a practical means of employee protection, or ensure a reasonalbe standard of pay and benefits

These are very general, but it is all I have at the moment...

 

As our economy matured Unions helped lift workers out of crappy safety conditions, long hours and low pay. They did this by shutting down/reducing production such that capital had to meet their demands or go broke. It was only natural that those changes be codified when it became obvious that the elite workers in Unions made such a larger amount more in wages and worked in conditions more conducive to health and welfare to workers the overall labor force demanded similar if not as much as Union workers. Once the government had taken over the functions of work place safety, general conditions conducive to the health and welfare of the force because the norm instead of the exception.

The current trend came about as a result of our last two recessions, one of which was caused by the inflation of value of the stock in the dot com industries, and/or the collapse of the housing markets which were hyper inflated because of errors in government monetary and fiscal policies. Probably the single greatest cause of the housing crash was the low interest policies aimed at increasing home ownership for the masses. The inflation of housing prices over value reared its ugly head and financial institutions started losing their revenue. That precipitated low profits for the financial industry, led to excessive foreclosures, financial institutions inventing ways to stay profitable at the expense of the homeowners and the dominoes fell across most of our economy. As yet the labor force has not caught up with inflation even as the unemployment situation began to improve. A significant amount of capital went unspent out of concern for future profits. Part of that problem was the typical concern over the valley of profits and part of the problem is concern over government monetary and fiscal policies relating to interest, and excessive potential for regulation. Obviously a lot of that was conjecture but until needs of production goes up and labor becomes more scarce in the labor market driving up wages we will continue to have some stagnation. Even so the death of the middle class is little more than an ominous feeling which reduces confidence in our over all economy. As time marches on the wage equilibrium of labor/wage will gradually mature. The old adage, "what is good for General Motors is good for America" is as true today as it was in the post WWII days. Labor will continue to have it status improved.

I am sure there is some effect on the labor market driven by illegal aliens, but I am not sure it is as major problem as up-side-down-cake believes. I think more important is the hoarding of capital based on lack of confidence in future business and income in the corporate sector.

Even the export of manufacturing jobs in labor intensive industries has not been the major factor in unemployment as according to studies 1 to 1.5 jobs has been created in the US for every job exported.

Many people clamor to blame the loss of manufacturing as the culprit, yet the facts show that some countries have little more than service industries and still maintain a high rate of prosperity. We can do the same thing in the US, and simultaneously help the economies of the third world by creating jobs there raising the standards of living in those countries while creating huge middle classes in those countries, a huge market for US goods and services over time.

 

A picture is worth a thousand words. Note that the price curve moves up and away from the value curve in real estate markets over time. Click on the picture to see it in a larger frame.



You will see that the price disparity over value started in 1999.

 

The labor movement gets a lot of undue credit for improving working conditions as it occurred during the Lewisian turning point in US economic development. Rising wages and working conditions occur naturally without intervention in a developing country. We see this phenomenon occurring today in places like Brazil, India, and China who have a growing middle class.

http://blog.dexia-am.com/Equity/PublishingImages/lewis_turning_point_effect.jpg

Basically as an economy transitions into an industrialized nation it has a large number of rural workers willing to work for very little. These "slave wages" tend to be a vast improvement in standard of living over the sustinence farming life style they previously enjoyed. However the wages paid to these workers tend to be far less than what could be paid profitably to them. As the supply of cheap labor is consumed, employers are forced to compete for labor. This is the Lewisian turning point and wages tend to shoot upward here. This is basic economic knowledge however historians aren't the most knowledgable on the matter hence the mythology surrounding the labor movement.

If you view the image I linked you can see the average Chinese worker today makes 5 times what he did just 10 years ago. In another 20 years they will enjoy a western standard of living wether or not there is a labor movement.