Capitalism or Socialism choose a side and state your point

[Redliph]

As previously stated, I would go for a slight mixture of the two. Maybe 80% capitalism and 20% socialism like it seems now. You are free to get rich and live out your dream through hard work, guile, dispiline, and luck while we have systems in place to help the less fortunate who may have gotten the short end of the stick. I generally support capitalism as it creates the constant strife that leads to progress. People try to outdo eachother and grab the brass ring. I find that things like strife and even war are imperitive to our species survival into the future as these things drive the progress that we need.

That is just my view, though.

 

[Skeleon]

Neither and both, for none of them can work on their own.
Capitalism in itself leads to exploitation (industrial revolution style) while socialism has the risk of creating a weak and impractical economy.
But combine the two and you get something worthwhile.

 

[Durahan2]

Again, I would like to see your proof. The only anarchist systems that have existed in history have broken up because of massive external violence, not because they failed to function.

Doesn't that mean that they failed to function to protect itself? So techically, it didn't survive so it failed.

I believe we need a balance between left wing and right wing ideals. Oh but capitalism for sure, just not extreme capitalism.

You saying at how bad people have it in capitalism, you do realize Mao Zedong killed more people then hitler and stalin combined with his "Great Leap Forward" and it's theory of productive forces. It caused widespread famine and killed around 43 million people.

How can you say anarchism failed? If it were tried again it may succeed. Probably the biggest obstacle anarchism needs to overcome is how to defend itself against those in power (who obviously wish to keep their power and opulence). If that can be overcome (and surely it can) it would be free to succeed in ways capitalism never can (such as providing food, healthcare and shelter to all the population, not just those who "own" us).

It's failed because, it wouldn't be able to defend itself. Anarchy, has no means to build an army or anything short of a small force of untrained civilains. There is no way it'd would survive against a highly trained and organized force.

Plus anarchy has no authority, so who'd provide us with food and all that other stuff. Even then if it did work, some power-hungry fool will take control, and then we would most likely be in a dictatorship then.

We humans are social creatures, in the end we'll just build a social struture around ourselves. Anarchy in the end will never sate that urge we all have.

 

[Anarchisteve]

Rolling Thunder, your multiple definitions of failure change nothing. If failure or success is based purely on whether something currently exists then terrorism is clearly a success, as is: rape, homicide, war, disease, poverty and so on. Slavery was a success for a long time but it eventually became a failure. Anti-semitism was also successful once upon a time but has fortunately failed. Capitalism will surely be a failure one day.

Surely a better judge of whether a system is good or bad is what it offers and at what cost. Capitalism offers a third of the world's population poverty, misery and slave-style working lives. Is that what you call a success?

Your definition of success and failure also means that only capitalism can possibly be judged a success as it is the only system in widespread use around the world. Any other system is by definition a failure and any discussion is pointless.

1. Indeed, they were. However, sir, you have presented a logical fallacy. Simply because slavery and anti-semitism were successful, and so is capitalism, does not place them in the same moral category. That is rather like arguing that since Genghis Khan and Mother Theresa were both widely known, they were both of the same moral standard - an utter absurdity. Plus, simply asserting that capitalism will fail is not a valid argument, as you provide no reasoning or evidence to support your claim.

Another example would go like this (Props to the original creator of this):

"Y'know, Obama's been breathing a lot of air recently.

Know who else breathed a lot of air?

Hitler.

Just sayin', that's all....."

Unless you are suggesting capitalism will outlive both the human race and the universe itself it is doomed to failure. Indeed everything is only a failure waiting to happen if existence is the only criteria.

2. I am loathe to break it to you, but if you had made even rudimentary study of history, you would discover two things. Firstly, that prior to capitalism, the same third of the world and more, indeed, roughly 80% of the world lived in the same conditions, so your idea that capitalism somehow is responsible for this is an utter, utter fantasy. Secondly, that the countries in which poverty and misery is endemic are often those farthest from the free market, either by means of corrupt government, socialistic rulers or both.

Whether or not they were poor before has nothing to do with it. The problem now is that their resources, labour and land are owned by wealthy western elites and all the profit from them flow to their pockets.

3. I judge it as the system that has permitted man to rise above poverty, misery, ignorance, disease and squalor by means of the effort of millions of individuals working not for some abstract social good, but for their own ends and desires. A system that places all men as being of equal worth and freedom, that offers oppurtunity to the hardworking and the intelligent, that takes the best of every man's talents and puts them to work where needed.

Capitalism is a system where millions of individuals work, not for some abstract social good, but for the ends and desires of the owners of society, who live in opulence and luxury supplied by those of us who work.

And ArcWinter, you are sadly right that slavery and anti-semitism do still exist and I didn't mean so suggest otherwise. My point was that neither are on the scale they once were.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

@ Anarchisteve: What do you judge more moral? That a man be rewarded for his effort and ingenuity, or merely for existing?

Face the facts - without entrepreneurs, there would be no businesses. Without businesses, there would be no jobs, no technological drive and no advancement of society. Since we have proven that capitalism is the most efficent system, it follows therefore it is the most moral - it will produce the largest number of people who are fed, clothed, employed and able to pursue their own interests. To argue that this is immoral is rather to argue that penicillin was a bad invention.

 

[Shpongled]

As previously stated, I would go for a slight mixture of the two. Maybe 80% capitalism and 20% socialism like it seems now. You are free to get rich and live out your dream through hard work, guile, dispiline, and luck while we have systems in place to help the less fortunate who may have gotten the short end of the stick. I generally support capitalism as it creates the constant strife that leads to progress. People try to outdo eachother and grab the brass ring. I find that things like strife and even war are imperitive to our species survival into the future as these things drive the progress that we need.

That is just my view, though.

The irony is that in this capitalist society, 90% of multi-millionaires have this financial wealth simply because they were born into it. Then there's the bank executive fat-cats, who have managed to destroy the economy and become rich in the process. And don't tell me they made their riches by working hard. A nurse on 10 hour a day shifts works hard. A factory worker working 70 hours a week works hard.

The idea of wealth based on personal merit is good, but it's a complete fallacy. Wealth is still largely inherited, or gained at the severe detriment of others.

 

[satsujinka]

@ Anarchisteve: What do you judge more moral? That a man be rewarded for his effort and ingenuity, or merely for existing?

Face the facts - without entrepreneurs, there would be no businesses. Without businesses, there would be no jobs, no technological drive and no advancement of society. Since we have proven that capitalism is the most efficent system, it follows therefore it is the most moral - it will produce the largest number of people who are fed, clothed, employed and able to pursue their own interests. To argue that this is immoral is rather to argue that penicillin was a bad invention.

People will become entrepreneurs without nearly the level of incentive currently provided by capitalism, any other system can easily be worked to provide the modest incentives necessary to encourage invention and risk.

Capitalism is efficient at creating new products, it is not the most efficient system for many other goals (such as equality and distribution of food.) Communism is the system most capable of creating the largest number of people who are fed, clothed, employed, and (at least on paper) able to pursue their own interests; the entire point of communism is to ensure that the largest number of people have these things.

I personally, feel that small community based communism is best. However, when speaking of large diverse groups, like nations, or when intergroup relations are concerned regulated capitalism would work. In order for such a structure to arise, though, would require the overthrow of federalism and the reintroduction of anti-federalism. In other words, the power structure that I feel is ideal is:

community > city > state > nation

as opposed to the current structure:

nation > state > city > community

To prevent the mess that was pre-federalist America, each grouping would have specific areas in which they hold the power to enforce. For example the nation would have the power to manage currency. Mostly, laws would start at the community level and work their way up if that law had universal support (ie. for a law to be moved to the city level everyone within the city would have to vote for the law to be moved up to that level, once there the lawmakers at that level could change the law.)