Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

Actually no! It is only because of the wealth created in our capitalist economic system that our social programs are sufficiently funded to even exist. Social programs are not what defines socialism. Capitalism/Socialism is defined by how the wealth of a system is created, not by the altruistic accomplishments of the government.

All of that may well be true, but it still does not define socialism.

If in fact we do become a socialist economy our prosperity will gradually decrease to the point that the "haves" (other than the government leaders) will no longer exist and everyone is a "have not."

The expectation that capitalist prosperity should exist without social programs is misguided; just like suggesting that if an economic system has social programs, it becomes a socialist economic system.

 

What Socialism really is, is surrender.

It's the equivalent of saying, you know what. I can't make a living on my own. I can't support myself. I'm throwing in the towel. I don't have the skill set to obtain gainful employment, I'm not smart enough. The best I can do in terms of employment keeps my family and myself in poverty. I need the government helping me, to survive.

It is waving the white flag, surrendering to an institution, a government...I need you to survive...all the while giving the middle finger to those who say....I don't need the government to survive. Yes not all government is bad of course, they provide for the national defense, for public education, etc. It's not all bad, we do indeed need government on some level...but we should never surrender to them completely which is EXACTLY what the proponents of Socialism want. Complete surrender from the moment of birth to the moment they pass away.

We're a nation of surrender monkeys...millions who are throwing in the towel....burying any personal pride along with it...a nation of mediocrity is what the United States has become by embracing Socialism...by embracing one Barack H. Obama. Wave the white flag Socialists....wave it with pride...you are too dumb to support yourself apparently.


*end of rant*

 

Nothing "requires" socialism, least of all social programs which cannot exist without the wealth created in a socialist economic system.

I agree, I can't, and I don't plead, about anything, laws, religious or anything else.

No Daniel it doesn't. Socialism does not exist in an economic system driven by capitalists. We can say that some of the same things in socialism has also exist in capitalism; but that does not make the economic system socialist. Otherwise there would not be enough wealth for the "social programs" to exist as they are.

 

It can be. But until the government owns or controls production, distribution and wealth, it is not socialism.What you are talking about is a welfare state, which ultimately cannot exist for very long in other than a capitalist economic system. Just like with Obamacare; it is not socialism just because the government collects taxes and pays the bill for huge chunks of our citizenry, because medical providers will still be private enterprise. Even most hospitals are private enterprise except in the case of Public Service, Military, or Veterans Affairs hospitals.

Until the government owns or controls the productive economy it is still not socialism. I see and hear all sorts of comments about our government becoming more and more "socialized" but the key definition is still not socialism.

I suspect you are right about what socialists want, but that still does not make us a socialist country.

I understand the pessimism of libertarians and other conservatives who see us falling helter skelter into socialism, and the socialist had better hope it never actually happens, because if it does we will become a nation like India, in which case 75% or more of us will be poor and 25% of us will be rich (relatively) and our prosperity will continue to decrease until like M. Thatcher said, "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

 

An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. No need to justify.

 

Dear DN smith Maybe your living on another planet but the "Capitalism " that has plundered this nation into poverty A deft & dumb blind man can see favor's the upper 5% and is disgracefully one sided are you like 15yrs old or something My god what have you been doing with your life ? Any idiot knows full well the system is rigged . Your born into debit . the central banking act was a scam . The income tax on earned wages illegal ! How can anyone with even an ounce of honesty say the things you did knowing full well it's total bull(*)(*)(*)(*) ..The banking cartel plundered the nation into poverty and got bailed out in 15 minutes we are still waiting for a LOUSY JOBS BILL to put the worker's who lost there shirts when they imploded the housing market . our entire infrastructure get's rated "F" for failing. with each inspection and yet no jobs bill to rebuild our failing infrastructure .. your daft to think this system works. sure it works for the top 5% and them alone. foolish naive child

 

And just what does your comment have to do with the type of economic system there is in the US?




BTW, what part of our great country do you live in? I live in SE Alabama and the people here are doing just fine.

 

you really are kidding yourself

 

Nope! I lived in India during my last years of high school and observed real poverty; where 300 million people with electricity have a bulb hanging from the ceiling and the switch is screw in the bulb to turn it on. I understand real poverty, I have lived within it. Poverty is not driving a clunker automobile, it is walking next to a bullock cart. Poverty is not having an non-airconditioned class room to sit it, it is squating on the hard ground under a tree with the teacher using a tripod black board. Poverty is not having a hand held video game, it is playing hop scotch in the dust. Poverty is not watching a black and white TV, it is looking out of the windowless hole in the dirt wall wondering it it is going to rain again tomorrow during the monsoon season. Poverty isn't having to eat ground meat hash again today for the 7th time this week, it is hoping that there is a little sugar to go on the white rice Mom found in the trash can behind the restaurant. Poverty isn't making at or near the poverty line in the US, it is hoping the man comes tomorrow to pick you up to sit on the ground hitting big rocks with a hammer making little rocks so you can make 20 rupees today.

There are very few truly poor people in the US. We have safety net systems which give most of our less wealthy "needy" brethren living a life that in India would be envied by many of the lower middle class.

 

One can also opine that Capitalism is objective while Socialism is subjective to the point of suppression of the individual.

 

That suppression tends to occur in socialist economic systems, especially with people who would be high achievers. I am just happy to live in a capitalist country that is sufficiently prosperous to afford the costs of so many social programs to help the needy.

 

Public sector intervention in private sector markets is a form of socialism. Why is that so difficult for those of your point of view to accept?

 

No Daniel, it is only a reasonable regulation to protect the people from unfair business practices. Such "intervention" occurs in every kind of market system, not just socialism. The point is, some similar actions normally found in one system can reasonably be employed in another without changing the basic system. The differentiation between Socialism and Capitalism is in the ownership and control of the primary means of production, distribution, and with socialism especially the control of the division of wealth. To declare those social programs socialism is to misunderstand economics and give credence where none is there.

Socialism as an economic system ceases to exist in several circumstances:
When the government is no longer sufficiently regressive/oppressive to control the people, especially high achievers; and
When the government no longer owns or controls production, distribution and wealth; and
When private enterprise controls production and distribution.

It is not like the old Donnie and Marie opener in their show when one sings, "I am a little bit country" and the other sings, "and I am a little bit rock and roll." In economic systems it is either one or the other.

 

Agreed!!!

 

His comments agree with your point. His comments only support your point if you can demonstrate that a majority of economists agree with him. Otherwise I can just start posting opposing quotations from different economists, and we'd be at a stalemate.

Why is the source of the revenue relevant?

Ah, so you're of the opinion that only the people who do physical labor contribute to wealth, not people responsible for funds or planning. You sure you're a capitalist?

You're begging the question. Whether or not the government creates wealth is one of the things being debated.

No more so than whatever contribution Apple makes to the economy is bought and paid for by Apple's customers.

Being disrespectful won't help your case.

So what do you call it when there's a mix?

So what, you think I live under feudalism then?

Again, you're begging the question. You can't assume a priori that economics in the US don't contain socialist elements in a discussion on that very question.

If you can't have a discussion without resorting to personal attacks, maybe you should leave this thread to those people who can.

- - - Updated - - -

You haven't the faintest clue what socialism is. You can have socialism without social programs, and you can have social programs without socialism. They're different things.

 

Sort of my point. The fact that this thread exists proves that your premises aren't actually self evident.

 

I could really care less what you do.

Because it proves the government does not produce the wealth, private enterprise does and the government taxes that capital and uses it to build infrastructure.

I not only did not say that I don't agree with that. The point is THE GOVERNMENT ONLY ACTED AS THE FUNNEL OF MONEY from capital to the producers of the infrastructure. If you are going to try to put words in my mouth you need to understand what I believe.

Debating? Not at all. It is obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together. You aren't debating, all you are doing is looking for holes in the facts presented.

Apple's capital buys production, the consumers who make their wages buy the products. So what?

Depends, who owns or controls the production, distribution and wealth?

I really don't think about what you live under nor do I care, only that you don't understand the difference between capitalism and socialism.

What I can assume is, what kind of system we have based on who determines what is to be to produced, how it is to be produced, where the money comes from to do the production, how to distribute the production and whether or not the government controls the wealth of the nation or private individuals do. The fact that social programs exist is a testament to the wealth capitalism creates.

Of course they are, and I have stated that many times. Having problems understanding what you read are you?

BTW, you started this encounter with a chip on your shoulder. Don't let it get in your way of a respectful discussion.

 

Actually they are to anyone who understands economics and the definitions of capitalism and socialism. Here they are again. At least try to figure out what they mean. I have no intention of trying to "redefine" what is well defined already.

Full Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1.: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2.a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3.: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.​

 

Yeah, it's almost as though I wasn't talking to you... Might want to worry about your own reading comprehension.

Clearly you have no interest in a reasonable discussion, so we'll end things here. Once you've matured beyond making personal attacks in place of well reasoned arguments...well, I don't imagine that'll be any time soon, so it hardly matters.

 

Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. So long dude.

 

man am i sick and of these statements on socialism . You clothe socialism in communism and then rant about .

first up ,to ignore the incredible divide in america with the have and have nots and toss in no medical services equal in content as the rich is unethical .

Ethics is a huge part of socialism.

secound to say that poverty is a minimal in america compared to India is suppose to lighten the blow...it's putting the blinders on.

I can't imagine anyone saying the things in this post without just killing themselves laughing with zero compassion at the front of it all..

it's totally bereft of any truth

i'm hedging your a republican

 

Why do you believe the arbitrary definitions of the Cold War are still relevant today. The Cold War no longer exists. Shouldn't it be more about diagnosing the Body politic, with as few fallacies as possible?

 

Where to start and who to address! I think first I shall talk to the point by DanielPalos. Daniel, definitions are definitions, some of which have lasted for centuries. If you want to change the definitions of capitalism and socialism I suggest you talk to the Dictionary or Encyclopedia people because what we have is what we have. It is admirable that you want to address the issues of poverty and I will support you in that effort, but please, for the sake of the discussion, address it within the context of the stated definitions. This it is/no it isn't/it is/no it isn't, makes the thread almost unreadable. I don't get much time to look at discussion boards and this one is getting too rote to enjoy.

Mjolnir, remove your head from your excremental orifice long enough to understand reality. It seems like you are only here to fuss with people. We call that trolling on message boards. When you attempt to malign one of the most renowned economists of the modern era it reflects on you, not him. Now as to your assertion that infrastructure is production. Go back to school if you believe the government created or paid for the infrastructure. The government may have written the checks but the people, primarily those who pay the most taxes, paid for the infrastructure. That is even true for the Eisenhower error Interstate system designed to be military infrastructure. I presume you are aware that every so many miles there is a stretch straight enough to be a landing field for big jets. Even so, the government only over saw the contractors the tax payors paid to create. By the way, when you started with your disrespect at the subject he responded similarly. Clean up your act or the mods will clean it up for you.

I am not really sure why I am addressing Doc Dred because his comments are so pedestrian; but here goes anyway. Doc, the discussion is about socialism/capitalism. As to your "clothing socialism in communism," comment take off your blinders. There is very little difference between the two in practice; only the degree of oppression and the cruelty used to enforce either failed economic system. You obviously are new to this thread as the person you are attacking is probably the most altruistic person on the thread; a person who has stated his support for universal medical care and social programs for the poor. He is absolutely correct when he says that poverty in America is relative to those who have more and that there is really very little true poverty there. So before continuing your "I'm more decent than you are," rant at least try to determine where he is coming from. In an earlier post which you obviously missed the gentleman discussed his philosophy of do goodering, so you are talking out of school. One does not have to restate some positions to every new comer to the thread, if you understand what I mean.

Dnsmith, you need to loosen up a little in your dogma, especially for people who have no idea where you are coming from. So OK, your definitions of Capitalism and Socialism come from reference books but maybe you need to recognize that many people in the US see some "social programs" as you call them a move toward Socialism itself. I know I do, even if I don't call the socialist they distress me because I too have experienced autocratic government and lived with socialism as a youngster. We are all the sum total of our experiences and it is necessary for you to try to understand where some of the antagonists on the thread come from too.

 

The differences between socialism and communism is minimal and relates more to the level of oppression in the government.

You obviously do not have the faintest idea about what I believe on those points, and nothing I have posted suggests the lack of ethics you surmise, especially as to medical care, for which I am totally in favor.

Only in theory. In practice it is no more ethical than communism or capitalism as human behavior does not change based on the type of economic system.

It is a fact! Not to say that those living below the poverty line don't suffer, but their poverty is in fact little more than "they are not as wealthy as the next quintile up."

What I laugh at is the total lack of understanding you have shown as it relates to me. You have come into the discussion late, but even so I don't feel the need to go back in time are reiterate my personal altruistic feelings.

Nothing I have posted lacks truth, NOTHING.

You would be wrong. I am a life long democrat, though I am moderate, not extreme left as some are. The difference is, at almost 78 I have made more observations about life and economics than most people on the forum and I don't address anything for which I have no experience.

 

I have discussed the issues here based on what the dictionary/encyclopedia says they are. To my knowledge there has been no reasonable movement to change the basic definitions so I talk about them as defined. Maybe we would understand each other better if you did the same thing.

Really Daniel, that is totally irrelevant as Marxism has been around much longer than the "Cold War."

In fact that is exactly what I try to do. I make every effort to address situations IAW basic economic theory/practice and human behavior. If you have read my profile you should know I have a graduate degree in business, economics, and a higher graduate degree in psychology. Therefore, when I discussion the relation of economics and political practices and government I do so with all of those things in mind and to the best of my ability.