An interesting view comparing Socialism and Capitalism

panampost.com...

It's a simple enough take, which I prefer, as the 'hair splitters' generally detract from the original intent and discussion.

The point seems valid, yet I believe it omits the size issue. Both 'isms' seem 'size-issued'. Socialism seems most effective in smaller application, families are a good example, communities....yes, workable in communes , even smaller homogeneous nations. The key 'seems' to be agreement. The larger it grows, the more number of individuals that do not agree or hold views outside that collective.

I believe the commonality between the two is both should serve people and society. Obviously, Capitalism has more latitude to serve specialized interests and demands, yet it also applies to Socialism in the unique needs of minorities, disabled and the aged.

Capitalism seems capable of serving a larger sphere without oppressing others, if applied with a strong moral base. Still, my arbitrary(?) view is national sized or less versus international-size. Apparently, the international sized operations, understandably, hold individual nations outside the profit equation.

Balance seems to be the key. We had a pretty good balance in the past and hopefully we will again in the future. Both need reining in....

Thoughts?

I wonder what the world is going to be like in a fifty years. I know we will have destroyed our environment far before that. But what kind of governments and societies will we have in fifty years? Will a world war destroy all but one type of society and economic structure? Will we have any personal freedom at all in fifty years? It is just a matter of who is running things, we will all still be pawns under something that has seized power.

a reply to: rickymouse


I see the environment being far more resilient than you do. That's a different subject, however.

I actually have no problem with a ruling 1-2%. They tend to be the creators and few are capable of wearing that 'hat' , so to speak. The current batch, however, may need removal....

The simple view over socialism and capitalism is.

Both ideologies are greed and materialism.

The only real difference, and argument is who should pay.

a reply to: nwtrucker

re: "Capitalism seems capable of serving a larger sphere without oppressing others"

Are you serious? Wealth inequality is at all time highs! Marx said laissez faire capitialism is always followed by communism because unfettered greed would result in a government's currency collapse. Once the currency collapses people in bread lines will DEMAND more government not less. Right now, because privatization, that is, the merger of corporations with government we have more government currency in the fewest hands by percentage than probably in our history. The government's currency is ripe for collapse.

Socialism works great. We have roads, bridges, and huge commonwealth making us all better off. The problem is not socialism but corruption. What difference does it make where the corruption comes from. All corruption is bad. When we had publicly owned water utilities it was lot cheaper and with better quality. Now we have CEOs taking the lion's share of the profits. It used to be water utilities like hospitals were not-for-profit. Private or public corruption what difference does it make. The public is not served by white collar crime or out-of-control CEOs.

You may not agree with my opinion. But I'm not saying my opinions are facts like many other people. I just remember inequality was no where near as bad as it now since I was young. Greed is out of control. Corruption is out of control. The criminals running our government, that is, the corporations want it this way.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: rickymouse


I see the environment being far more resilient than you do. That's a different subject, however.

I actually have no problem with a ruling 1-2%. They tend to be the creators and few are capable of wearing that 'hat' , so to speak. The current batch, however, may need removal....

It's when that ruling elite class gets to be ten to fifteen percent that they suck the life out of us. That is what is happening here in America now.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Socialism is the desire to be ruled by an authority that the proponents agree with. If a socialist state were enacted by socialist, they would have to use massive vote disenfranchisement to get their way. They are a small group. They would be outvoted on how money should be distributed if a socialist system was put in place.
no matter what the socialist agitators lose using their own principles. Socialist agitators would have to suspend democracy, free speech, the 2nd amendment, other civil rights in order to get the authority they want in power.

People do not like to be ruled by people who they perceive are not like them. This is why the multicultural state always fail when the going gets tough.

The main problem with capitalism is when it corrupts government, the government itself is too weak to greed. Strong private property rights with a culture that believes in private property rights(low crime) creates a successful state
Private property rights index puts exactly what we think of the best countries into order.

a reply to: nwtrucker

It is an interesting thought to consider size limits of the two ideologies and I agree that socialism works well in an immediate family sized unit.

I think they each have a list of things that everyone agrees their pool of money should provide. The arguments are over what that list contains and how much should be contributed to the pool by each individual. So they are the same thing, just different points in the spectrum.

More people equals higher probability of disagreement, perhaps that's why we break things down to city control vs. Nation control.

a reply to: rickymouse

There are three fusion technologies about to make oil obsolete: German Stellerator, Chinese LFTR, and Brillouin Energy. All three are energy positive and heavily funded. Big oil will die in the next 50 years.

In terms of government, we will have the government based on mind of the people. You simply cannot have Hitler unless you have the German people willing to follow him. People seem to have a sense of the golden rule. But people seem extremely susceptible to propaganda. Corporations spends millions on commercials because propaganda works.

The Syfy channel had TV series called "Incorporated" which I thought seemed pretty accurate in it's predictions of what our government will be like:

www.syfy.com...

There's nothing to suggest liberal democracy is going to survive the merger of corporations with our government. All the laws are written by the lobbyists. All the judges are pro-corporations in every ruling. I just don't see our democracy lasting much longer. Voting is pretty much irrelevant. The president serves the corporate masters.

I agree with much what has been said already, especially about having a good balance of socialism and capitalism, and how greed can, and is ruining it for the many.

It seems at the moment in the UK, the big corporations and already rich have both socialism and capital, while the rest of us are under austerity, declining socialism and only a little capitalism if you're lucky or work extremely hard.

I think as technology improves we will need more socialism, as many people will be losing their jobs.
For instance, driver-less cars will be the next big job killer and that is one of the biggest industries in the World.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The problem is that there is no one who would stop and say, "That's enough socialism".

Socialism might be like vicodin.

Good in small amounts, but in larger amounts it is damaging and addictive. And like an addict, people would justify it's use and abuse.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I wonder what the world is going to be like in a fifty years?

i'm glad i won't be around in fifty years to see it.

i need to say something stupid about this perhaps. a lia probably. like ..they are totally different things.

a reply to: jellyrev

Socialism in my town is 2/3 of our police force doesn't work and is living high on the hog with fat pensions!

A good comparison is that capitalism has always worked, and socialism has never worked.

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Yup.


Thank you for stating that

mg

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
A good comparison is that capitalism has always worked, and socialism has never worked.

I guess it depends on what you consider worth measuring in your definition of "worked". It's not clear yet the world financial system will not collapse at some point. I think the jury is still out whether capitalism is not going to implode because of greed.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
A good comparison is that capitalism has always worked, and socialism has never worked.

People who promote socialism claim that to be free from oppression we need a system that gives absolute power to the state.

Astonishing logic.

a reply to: dfnj2015

By "worked" I mean didn't collapse.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I kind of get what your saying. My guess is that over the course of the next 100 years, as the concentration of wealth in a monied and largely multi-national "helicopter" elite greatly increases, coupled with extraordinary rates of unemployment due to technological developments such as AI, robots, etc., that the "helicopter" ruling elites will be forced to and will find it to their advantage to implement some moderate form of socialism, if for no other reason than to keep the masses fed and at bay, although, it will probably be entirely impossible to even reach the "helicopter" elites as they move about from country to country, resort island to resort island, etc.

Actually, if you look at it, the education system is already priming the plebes for this; pumping propaganda into them at a furious pace, convincing them that living in one room hovels, taking the bus or riding a bicycle to navigate over crowed cities that are in fact, gleeming slums, is for the "greater good". Crime will no longer even be reported......if you didn't see it on CNN, it didn't happen. They'll ride about in self-driving Uber mobiles; they won't themselves even know how to drive. They'll have access to free, albeit rationed and in many cases deadly health care. Schools and even Universities will be free and graduating people who can barely read and write. Reproduction will be rationed, and abortion will be rare because of contraceptive implants that only a doctor can remove and won't unless the person qualifies for a reproduction chit. The "countryside" or rural areas will be altogether off limits and inacessible with limited range self-driving cars; trips to National Parks will be eliminated and replaced with virtual reality tours.

Freedom, wealth and riches for the capitalist elites; socialized squalor and free drugs for the plebes.