Why do people think Socialism and Capitalism are different from each other?

I'm curious as to why people think these two systems are any different from each other. Sure, they sound different, but the effect is exactly the same.

Socialism - The government grows too big, the government enjoys power, and money. Money comes from the people, and are given to the government/greedy corporations.

Capitalism - Monopolies form, and huge corporations desire more money and power. They become the government, or control the government with all this wealth accumulated over years of the " trickle up " effect.

I think the answer is to find a good medium, give the states more power, allow companies far less expansion, or let them be a franchise-based corporation with low royalties as to let wealth spread. America should have small business as their back bone, and the fed should have no say in our daily lives.

Giving it to the government will not work.
Giving it to the billionaires will not " trickle down " regardless of how much/little they are taxed/impacted by various laws.

Edit : I realize neither capitalism nor socialism are ever practiced correctly. I am simply talking about people that lean toward " capitalistic " or "socialistic" idealogy, and what it turns into.

Anyways, /end rant

That is all,

Deadlyhope

They are not the same, not even close.

The problem is that capitalism is not being practiced.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

greencmp
They are not the same, not even close.

The problem is that capitalism is not being practiced.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

edit on 1-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

Well, I realize neither are being practiced the way they are supposed to be, but that is my point, what socialism and capitalism turn into due to human nature twisting inherently good idealogy into self serving agenda.

Why do they think they are different?
My impression comes from growing up in the south(US) where I always heard,"No one should tell me how much money I can or can't make!"
I agree with you about some type of middle road solution, but I don't see it happening.

Ummm, not the same at all. You need to do some reading/research on capitalism, socialism, fascism, oligarchy, coporatism, and communism for good measure.

We don't have pure systems of any of the above in the U.S.

If you want an example of an almost 100% socialized system in the United States, study the workings of the public school system. Pretty much everyone is forced to pay into it, most people wind up having to make use of it, it is controlled by large, top down bureaucratic systems that are tied closely to government and centralized, the workers are heavily unionized, and only the very wealthy can afford to escape the system. And while you are at it, study it in-depth in terms of the money poured into it, the relative quality of outcomes, the attitudes the people who work in the system (especially the administration) take toward their tasks, the corruption throughout.

Perhaps someone else on here can give you a good example of a truly capitalistic system you can contrast it with. There aren't very many left.

I also think that maybe instead of looking at the various ideologies which are really very different, and trying to shoehorn then in as the same.

I think what you are really looking at is the root of all evil as it were.

I would respectfully suggest that maybe what you are looking for is human nature, not any economic or political system.

deadlyhope
Well, I realize neither are being practiced the way they are supposed to be, but that is my point, what socialism and capitalism turn into due to human nature twisting inherently good idealogy into self serving agenda.

In the case of capitalism, it is cronyism or the economic interventionism exercised by the state which subverts true competition.

Socialism is imaginary and can never be implemented satisfactorily to anyone including its proponents, the mere pursuit of it is destructive.

If we take human nature into account, only the free market possesses the ability to improve the quality of everyone's lives.

reply to post by ketsuko


I suppose I should switch my first post to show what I said in my second post in this thread. I realize neither socialism nor capitalism is, or has been practiced as they should be in the United States.

I am just wondering why people think the results of either will turn into anything beneficial for the average citizen. Both are twisted into a system where most citizens get screwed, and the powers that would be benefit. Finding a middle ground, and weighing what to keep, what to add, what to get rid of from there, would seem to be of greater benefit, rather than attempting for one or the other.

reply to post by deadlyhope


Because you're still missing the problem, and you allude to it right there in your first two lines: It's not the system. It's the people in charge.

The reason why I like the idea of capitalism over socialism is that socialism implies a LOT of control. I'm a very private person. I like my own space, my own things. Socialism doesn't let you be yourself. It prizes the good of all over the good of you. I know everyone thinks that sounds wonderful ... it does until you wind up being a statistical outlier in some way. Then, you must either find a way to conform to the good of the collective or you are forever in a bad place.

To illustrate, let's suppose that the collective has decided that pretty much everyone is about 5'8" tall, so they decide that all beds will be no longer than 5'10" long. What happens when you are the poor shlub who is born to be 6'4"? What happens when all the clothing are made for people who will never be taller than 5'8"? And all the doorways ... the cars ... and on and on. This is a merely annoying example.

What if you're the person with that rare disease?

Of what if you're the person who is smarter then average in a world where all education is tailored to people much less intelligent than you? (We already see this one, btw.)

What if they only sell cow's milk and you are lactose intolerant?

In a capitalistic society, someone would see that you are a person who has money that could be spent buying goods designed for someone of your unique size, and they'd be more than happy to make those things for you. It's a win/win. You get the clothing you need, and they make money to spend on things they need.

Socialism does not accommodate those types of transactions. It's a planned economy.

reply to post by ketsuko


I do agree with you, I am pointing out that the people that are in charge are evil... but..

I will type my original thought just for you, in a way you may understand as you seem to refuse to put what I'm saying into context.

Trying to implement capitalism or socialism will never work due to human nature. It's pointless to use the literal definition of either due to the fact that they are non-existent, only ideas.

What I seek out to say is that people should look for a balanced system, that limits both government and business without being so intrusive as to kill business, nor allowing too much slack to the government as to limit their control over us.

I believe the point is to create a system that can least be taken advantage of, and neither the people that promote capitalism, nor socialism will effectively create such a system, because people are evil, as you said.

Propaganda, indoctrination, deeply ingrained belief structures. The brainwashing to ensure buy-into each of these systems is started at birth through what we hear from our parents who are parroting what they've heard from various media.

The problem with any type of system seems to be corruption and human nature. Our deeply entrenched need to impose our will on others and maneuvering to get a bigger slice of the proverbial pie.

reply to post by deadlyhope


Yes, and you are missing my point which is that no matter what system you put in place human nature will find a way to mess it up.

It is the nature of the beast.

The best way to cushion ourselves is to make our governance structures small and localized. That way, any evil is contained and the fewest people suffer for it. Maximize freedom so that people can leave and evil locality to go to another which may be less evil.

QuestioningDude

The problem with any type of system seems to be corruption and human nature. Our deeply entrenched need to impose our will on others and maneuvering to get a bigger slice of the proverbial pie.

What pie?

The pie is a lie (just like the cake).

If you grow a tomato plant, you are not stealing those tomatoes from other people. Those tomatoes would not have existed without your labor and efforts, but the idea that wealth is part of a finite pie creates that very illusion.

deadlyhope
reply to post by ketsuko

 

I believe the point is to create a system that can least be taken advantage of

This is the right attitude. The least corruptible and manipulatable framework for the equitable interchange of goods and services is the free market (aka capitalism).

ketsuko
reply to post by deadlyhope

 

The best way to cushion ourselves is to make our governance structures small and localized. That way, any evil is contained and the fewest people suffer for it. Maximize freedom so that people can leave and evil locality to go to another which may be less evil.

This I very much agree with, I said there needs to be a way that lessens possible evil, and you gave a good reply, thank you.

Additionally I believe state/local government should have a lot more power, and not be able to be over-thrown by the Fed on a whim.

Buddy of mine who invests into lots of small businesses and charities always told me that capitalism to him is to make the best with your money in the community you want to see thrive. Although he lives in a fairly large city he has a direct impact on his close surroundings, has a network of friends, family, professionals, etc. I always saw him as the guy who 'won at life' because the time and money he put into the community has paid him back ten fold, he gets free pretty much everything when he goes out to eat, needs plumbing done, mechanic, list goes on. And he started off with almost nothing now he lives a happy and comfortable life.
If everyone were like him, investing and moving money all around in circulation we wouldn't have half the problems we have now. But as someone said, people are greedy, and think to capitalize on something is to take it all for themselves and their direct family only, hoarding large amounts of cash and splurging on the now. Or buying a massive house and a big car or T.V.

reply to post by ketsuko


That made me think of the Matrix spoon bending scene for some reason. " There is no pie Neo"

I agree, our monetary system largely exists in the realm of the abstract. I suspect we'll return to a barter system once the current one fails. Value for value. Which sounds appealing versus all the financial hocus pocus, nothing for something hypothetically indebted and interest-ed we have today.

Its all bullsnip, bells and whistles to keep us on the hamster wheel being good little servants to whichever ideologue we happen to be worshipping at the particular time.

stuart crane, 5 part audio series "proofs of conspiracy"
(sorry, i have no link for that)

reply to post by ketsuko


First off: good thread with good replies. We need more of this.

ketsuko
Yes, and you are missing my point which is that no matter what system you put in place human nature will find a way to mess it up.

I agree... except the ONE system that acknowledges and counteracts this problem: Minarchism.

As you already said: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
We learned this over and over again throughout our history - from the Romans to the Middle Ages, from the 3rd Reich and the Cold-War era all the way to our present day with its centralistic crises.

No one can be trusted with too much power, and power must therefore always be limited, seperated and systematically decentralized as much as possible.
Only within in a society of minarchistic, decentralized, independent states are we ever going to see pure capitalism and pluralism in its full potential.

As a political scientist and friend of mine said: Libertarian Minarchism is the logical consequence of the crises, revolutions and wars of our history, and we (as a species) will only thrive once we realized this fact.