reply to post by doctornamtab
Don't get me wrong; I don't like capitalism either, but I don't think you're right about this.
Capitalism is about the private ownership of resources and resource allocation by price competition. Socialism is about the public ownership of
resources and resource allocation by government decisions.
Capitalism is brand new. It's only come along after 200,000 thousand years of socialism. Capitalism stands on the work done by socialism and
claims it was doing the work all along.
Both capitalism and socialism are modern economic structures. Before that, we only had traditional economy. Capitalism did not come along and claim it
was doing the work all along. Capitalism developed after the rise of international trade and the Industrial Revolution. Socialism developed after Marx
Traditional economies do everything in a, uh, traditional way. For example, in Ancient China, division of labour is done in a traditional way. If your
ancestors have been farming all along, then most likely you'll farm. if you're a male, or get married to your father's friend's son if you're a female
(and then you'll be responsible for raising the kids, knitting, housework, etc.). There are also doctors and merchants. None of these jobs give you
high social status. The only way to achieve high social status is to study a lot and become a jinshi. Then you'll get to be a government official. The
was both private and public ownership of property - probably a bit more than capitalist economies, but much less than socialist ones.
Do you really think competition is a viable long term survival strategy? Try it in your family, no one sharing food or water or helping each
other or anything. Doesn't work because it's not how humans are meant to live. It's not how we've ever lived. Until recently. And its not working.
In the circular flow, the 'household' and the 'firm' are the two sides of the coin. As the household is seen as a 'unit', clearly, you need to share
resources, even under capitalism.
Think about it physically, simply from a flesh and bone standpoint. If humankind were meant for competition, for fighting, we wouldn't be so
fragile. Humans HAVE to come together and cooperate because our skulls are thin and fragile and our bones are on the inside. Fights between two humans
really mess each other up. We're not like rams or bears who can walk away after a violent battle. If we fall out of a tree, we're broken and mostly
likely a goner. We're made for thinking, not competing. Physically, evolutionarily, we had to adhere to socialist values, simply for survival.
Capitalism is a luxury we can only afford because of the work done by socialism.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems that your point is this: humans are not made for competition -> humans are not made for capitalism.
As human wants are unlimited and resources limited, the world's resources are scarce. Unless you live in a Robinson Crusoe economy, competition must
occur to allocate resources. Competition is not always about fighting. It usually isn't. The core of capitalism is resource allocation by price
signals. Socialism allocates resources with a central organisation, which is usually the government. You said we're made for 'thinking', which can be
used in as form of competition. People who are better at 'thinking' get great scores and get into good universities. This increases their chance of
employment and salaries, and more resources are thus allocated to them through price competition.
Competition occurs in traditional economies. Farmers, doctors, etc., have low income and receive fewer resources. Government officials have somewhat
higher income and receive some more resources. Nobles have very high income and receive lots of resources. All of these through sort-of price
competition, depending on the amount of money you have. Not capitalist, but even less socialist.
Socialism is so ingrained our our society and our nature that we don't even notice it anymore. Cooperation is a part of every aspect of our
society. Would people wait in line if we are ruthless competitors? Would we have NGOs and non profits? Would homeless people keep asking for change if
people never gave it? We share. We cooperate.
There's nothing in capitalism that bans cooperation. Perhaps you're confusing cooperation and cartels. As firms in a capitalist system are supposed to
pursue their self-interests, (which, regrettably, is also human nature), allowing cartels often leads to disastrous consequences. It would create a
monopoly. In a capitalist system, without competition, selfishness will create a situation where the firm can do whatesoever it wants for money.
-Cooperation is important in a capitalist economy. How do you get a firm in the first place if you don't cooperate? People cooperate with each other
-How is waiting in line a socialist practice? Usually, it isn't classified as price competition, but capitalism doesn't mean doing everything through
price competition. In fact, in a sense it is
price competition if you consider the full price of the waiting, which is the sum of the fee and
the time cost.
-I don't see how NGOs and non-profits are going against capitalist principles. By definition, they're just firms with noble pursuits instead of
-I don't see how giving money to beggars is non-capitalist at all... You maximise get happiness from helping the guy, so you're maximising your
And our capitalist leaders know it. Why do they fight so hard against leaders displaying ANY tiny speck of socialism. The West sanctions these
countries and hurts the people for the actions of the leader. A leader who is just trying something different for his people. Why do Western
capitalists fight so hard against socialism? Why do they fight against redistribution of wealth, against paying their fair share?
The redistribution of wealth is practiced in Northern Europe, and I don't see anyone fighting them.
edit on 11/3/13 by diqiushiwojia because:
(no reason given)