Capitalism or Socialism choose a side and state your point

[Anarchisteve]

How can you say anarchism failed?

How can you say anarchism can be used to govern an immensely complicated and wealthy industrial nation with a population of over three hundred million people? Even a major city would be impossible to control. And let's not even get started on the military and law enforcement agencies.

And there is your problem: "Even a major city would be impossible to control". Anarchism is not about controlling people, it is about people controlling themselves.

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).

Do anarchists have a +5 Bag of Holding that has an infinite supply of resources? Or are you just so naive as to think that you can simply give everyone all the food, healthcare and shelter they need?

Do capitalists have a +5 Bag of Holding that has an infinite supply of resources? Thought not. Obviously food, healthcare, shelter and so on would need to be created by the people. But the benefits of the work (the food, healthcare, shelter, wealth and so on) would go to the people who created it, not the owners who do no work and get rewarded with palacial homes, fleets of supercars, private jets and so on.

Like all the anarchists I've encountered, you don't understand the realities of life and how complicated a human society is in the 21st century.

Like all the capitalists I've encountered, you accept the current situation completely and without question and instantly dismiss other ideas as not fitting in with what you judge human nature and human society to be like. If life and human society are so complicated in the 21st century why do we leave the decisions to a small number of people rather than spreading the burden around the entire population, who can then make decisions for the benefit of the whole rather than the benefit of the few?

 

[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.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

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....."

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.

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.

 

[ArcWinter]

Selective Communism, because normal Communism is too corrupt. Just take anyone who either isn't doing their share or is gaining more wealth due not to extra effort but cheating the system, and take 'em out behind the barn with your ol' double-barreled.

Not Capitalism because the idea of progress in that ideology is false.
Not Anarchy because, despite the attractiveness of the idea on paper, there are too many differing ideas about it(although Anarchisteve makes a very good argument, one that would probably work).
Not anything else because I haven't heard it yet.

However, this is all hypothetical, since most likely none of us will ever influence anything important globally.

For the record: Slavery and antisemitism still exist, maybe not where you live, but they are thriving in other parts of the world.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Selective Communism, because normal Communism is too corrupt. Just take anyone who either isn't doing their share or is gaining more wealth due not to extra effort but cheating the system, and take 'em out behind the barn with your ol' double-barreled.

Not Capitalism because the idea of progress in that ideology is false.
Not Anarchy because, despite the attractiveness of the idea on paper, it makes no sense.
Not anything else because I haven't heard it yet.

So it acceptable for the lazy to be excecuted...but simply leaving them to fend for themselves is entirely unacceptable?

 

[KarumaK]

If I was in charge it would be a Martial Law Monarchy.

Since I'm not capitalism, because I like the chance to be rich.

 

[Xvito]

I don't like either Capitalism or Socialism.

Because they're clearly not working...

 

[DrDeath3191]

Capitalism. The desire for more money is a great motivator for development of technology and services. Plus it allows those who do their buisiness well to thrive, while the others fail.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I don't like either Capitalism or Socialism.

Because they're clearly not working...

Actually....the former is. It might not be pleasant, but this is all part of capitalism. Believe me, if it wasn't working, you and I would not be having this discussion.

 

[Captain Pancake]

Socialism. Though capitalism has it's benefits, In particular a stronger overall economy, I like to think that the government will support me if any unforeseen events impair me in any way.

 

[ArcWinter]

Selective Communism, because normal Communism is too corrupt. Just take anyone who either isn't doing their share or is gaining more wealth due not to extra effort but cheating the system, and take 'em out behind the barn with your ol' double-barreled.

Not Capitalism because the idea of progress in that ideology is false.
Not Anarchy because, despite the attractiveness of the idea on paper, it makes no sense.
Not anything else because I haven't heard it yet.

So it acceptable for the lazy to be excecuted...but simply leaving them to fend for themselves is entirely unacceptable?

Good suggestion! They will have a choice to either form their own isolated community, or be executed.

Rolling Thunder, I assume you are supporting Capitalism? To "use human nature to benefit humanity" or whatever the earlier quote was? However, human nature currently sucks: war, greed, all that stuff. I say change it, I mean, look at the world today.
Do you see flying cars? No.
Do you see superhumans? No.
Do you see teleportation? No.

That is because we don't need those things, we do not need the rampant progress that is going on. I mean, it's nice, but not necessary. Tell me, would you rather have a unicorn, or a toaster than can toast 4 bread slices at once?

 

[Xvito]

I don't like either Capitalism or Socialism.

Because they're clearly not working...

Actually....the former is. It might not be pleasant, but this is all part of capitalism. Believe me, if it wasn't working, you and I would not be having this discussion.

According to my moral-code; it's not working.

I know that it's doing what it's supposed to; I just don't like it.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Selective Communism, because normal Communism is too corrupt. Just take anyone who either isn't doing their share or is gaining more wealth due not to extra effort but cheating the system, and take 'em out behind the barn with your ol' double-barreled.

Not Capitalism because the idea of progress in that ideology is false.
Not Anarchy because, despite the attractiveness of the idea on paper, it makes no sense.
Not anything else because I haven't heard it yet.

So it acceptable for the lazy to be excecuted...but simply leaving them to fend for themselves is entirely unacceptable?

Good suggestion! They will have a choice to either form their own isolated community, or be executed.

Rolling Thunder, I assume you are supporting Capitalism? To "use human nature to benefit humanity" or whatever the earlier quote was? However, human nature currently sucks: war, greed, all that stuff. I say change it, I mean, look at the world today.
Do you see flying cars? No.
Do you see superhumans? No.
Do you see teleportation? No.

That is because we don't need those things, we do not need the rampant progress that is going on. I mean, it's nice, but not necessary. Tell me, would you rather have a unicorn, or a toaster than can toast 4 bread slices at once?

1. I do not mean to be offensive, but who are you to judge what we need or not? In fact, who is any random person? In capitalism, the judgement as to whether something is worth developing is made by the people who pay for it - either through their taxes and votes, or through spending.

2. Your assessment that human nature sucks is entirely subjective. Personally, I believe a bit of war is good for humanity. It can act as a purgative, clearing away the useless parts of society (to clarify, I mean it forces people to take a good, hard look at their countries, and ask 'how can we make it better?'. I am not suggesting some insane social Darwinism where war somehow weeds out the weakest. War is not discrimiate in that matter.)

3. The unicorn. I dislike toast.

4. I support capitalism, in that I support the original suggestion put forth by Adam Smith of a mixed-market economy where the majority of economic activity is partaken in by private individuals, regulated by government and society, with those things provided poorly by the private concern (schooling, transit, hospitals, healthcare) provided by the state.

 

[ArcWinter]

original argument

Riposte

Good suggestion! They will have a choice to either form their own isolated community, or be executed.

Rolling Thunder, I assume you are supporting Capitalism? To "use human nature to benefit humanity" or whatever the earlier quote was? However, human nature currently sucks: war, greed, all that stuff. I say change it, I mean, look at the world today.
Do you see flying cars? No.
Do you see superhumans? No.
Do you see teleportation? No.

That is because we don't need those things, we do not need the rampant progress that is going on. I mean, it's nice, but not necessary. Tell me, would you rather have a unicorn, or a toaster than can toast 4 bread slices at once?

1. I do not mean to be offensive, but who are you to judge what we need or not? In fact, who is any random person? In capitalism, the judgement as to whether something is worth developing is made by the people who pay for it - either through their taxes and votes, or through spending.

2. Your assessment that human nature sucks is entirely subjective. Personally, I believe a bit of war is good for humanity. It can act as a purgative, clearing away the useless parts of society (to clarify, I mean it forces people to take a good, hard look at their countries, and ask 'how can we make it better?'. I am not suggesting some insane social Darwinism where war somehow weeds out the weakest. War is not discrimiate in that matter.)

3. The unicorn. I dislike toast.

4. I support capitalism, in that I support the original suggestion put forth by Adam Smith of a mixed-market economy where the majority of economic activity is partaken in by private individuals, regulated by government and society, with those things provided poorly by the private concern (schooling, transit, hospitals, healthcare) provided by the state.

1. These numbers are very useful, helping organize. Good idea. But there is nobody is judge what we need or not. Our base instincts tell us what we need. Sustenance, water, shelter, community, perhaps procreation. We don't need anything else, but people want more. I am fine with that, I am just saying that here in America, it's getting a bit excessive. I believe anything with a useful function is worth developing or creating - but if it is not my money, then I cannot judge. However, I can mock bad monetary choices.

2. Actually, if human nature, the part we need to revise, had a little bit more introspection, we wouldn't need war, by your point. But the fact about war that I protest to is all the money, time, and other resources spent on it. We take other people's lives, who could have led a wonderful life - and we don't even use the body! We could eat it, make it into clothing... but no! Once it's dead, oh just throw it away in the ground. Ridiculous.

3. Not even with orange marmalade?

4. Okay, a bit more in-depth than a "yes", but alright. However, things always look good on paper. Like chocolate and bacon combined. But the actual product is useless or negatively impacts all partakers. (I'm not comparing it to Capitalism, I don't really care about that, it's more the average state of mind in a human that is disappointing)

 

[pirateninj4]

they're not the same sort of thing. socialism is a system of government and capitalism is a way of life.

 

[hamster mk 4]

You can't just pick a side because Capitalism and Socialism are just labels we made up to simplify a far more complex issue. That issue is the degree in which a government interferes with the economy. Nations labeled Capitalist have relatively little government involvement in the economy, where as Socialist or Communist nations have almost total government control. Yet even in the most "Capitalist" country the government still sticks its nose into the economy. It prints money, imposes taxes, and provides services. Also the most "Communist" country still does not exercise complete economic control. A black market or simple barter based system usually pops up to allow individuals to get their hands on things they want that the government neglects to supply.

I and most rational human beings are for government control for certain aspects of the economy like public safety, ie military, police, fire department, disaster relief, and environmental regulation. I am probably a bit more socialist than others in thinking medical care should be included in that list. However I am still opposed to government intervention in food supply, personal goods, and entertainment.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

original argument

Riposte

Good suggestion! They will have a choice to either form their own isolated community, or be executed.

Rolling Thunder, I assume you are supporting Capitalism? To "use human nature to benefit humanity" or whatever the earlier quote was? However, human nature currently sucks: war, greed, all that stuff. I say change it, I mean, look at the world today.
Do you see flying cars? No.
Do you see superhumans? No.
Do you see teleportation? No.

That is because we don't need those things, we do not need the rampant progress that is going on. I mean, it's nice, but not necessary. Tell me, would you rather have a unicorn, or a toaster than can toast 4 bread slices at once?

1. I do not mean to be offensive, but who are you to judge what we need or not? In fact, who is any random person? In capitalism, the judgement as to whether something is worth developing is made by the people who pay for it - either through their taxes and votes, or through spending.

2. Your assessment that human nature sucks is entirely subjective. Personally, I believe a bit of war is good for humanity. It can act as a purgative, clearing away the useless parts of society (to clarify, I mean it forces people to take a good, hard look at their countries, and ask 'how can we make it better?'. I am not suggesting some insane social Darwinism where war somehow weeds out the weakest. War is not discrimiate in that matter.)

3. The unicorn. I dislike toast.

4. I support capitalism, in that I support the original suggestion put forth by Adam Smith of a mixed-market economy where the majority of economic activity is partaken in by private individuals, regulated by government and society, with those things provided poorly by the private concern (schooling, transit, hospitals, healthcare) provided by the state.

1. These numbers are very useful, helping organize. Good idea. But there is nobody is judge what we need or not. Our base instincts tell us what we need. Sustenance, water, shelter, community, perhaps procreation. We don't need anything else, but people want more. I am fine with that, I am just saying that here in America, it's getting a bit excessive. I believe anything with a useful function is worth developing or creating - but if it is not my money, then I cannot judge. However, I can mock bad monetary choices.

2. Actually, if human nature, the part we need to revise, had a little bit more introspection, we wouldn't need war, by your point. But the fact about war that I protest to is all the money, time, and other resources spent on it. We take other people's lives, who could have led a wonderful life - and we don't even use the body! We could eat it, make it into clothing... but no! Once it's dead, oh just throw it away in the ground. Ridiculous.

3. Not even with orange marmalade?

4. Okay, a bit more in-depth than a "yes", but alright. However, things always look good on paper. Like chocolate and bacon combined. But the actual product is useless or negatively impacts all partakers. (I'm not comparing it to Capitalism, I don't really care about that, it's more the average state of mind in a human that is disappointing)

Firstly, I'd like to say I am pleasantly surprised by the fact we appear to be having an intelligent, civilised debate on this subject.

1. As my Economics teacher often said: "Yes, you can live on that, but would you really want to?" Let's be frank here - everyone likes nice things. The internet, for example.

2. You can no more revise human nature than you can alter the colour of the sky. Humans are inherently violent, greedy and dangerous. If we were anything else, we would have failed as a species. Violence makes us more likely to survive moments of violence, as we are more likely to respond in a manner that will secure our survival. Greed makes us want, compells us to produce, to claw as much from life, the world and everything as we can in our limited years.

The reason war is conducted is simple: "Ultima Ratio Regum" - it is the last argument of kings. Right or wrong, good or evil, death or glory, freedom or slavery - they all mean nothing unless backed by a force of some kind.

3. No, sorry.

4. I must argue that it's worked quite well so far. Yes, many have suffered, but let us be frank - suffering is part of existence. Capitalism is unique in that it permits on to ascend through that suffering, and in doing so, lift up others. A hundred years ago, we would not be having this discussion, we would live considerably shorter, harder lives, and so on. What changed this? In part, capitalism and the free market. Yes, there are side effects, and in some isolated cases they outweigh the benefits, but those are tiny, tiny spots on the vast, endless panorama of human enterprise and industry.

 

[ArcWinter]

original argument

Riposte

comeback

well-thought out twinkles

some more words

Firstly, I'd like to say I am pleasantly surprised by the fact we appear to be having an intelligent, civilised debate on this subject.

1. As my Economics teacher often said: "Yes, you can live on that, but would you really want to?" Let's be frank here - everyone likes nice things. The internet, for example.

2. You can no more revise human nature than you can alter the colour of the sky. Humans are inherently violent, greedy and dangerous. If we were anything else, we would have failed as a species. Violence makes us more likely to survive moments of violence, as we are more likely to respond in a manner that will secure our survival. Greed makes us want, compells us to produce, to claw as much from life, the world and everything as we can in our limited years.

The reason war is conducted is simple: "Ultima Ratio Regum" - it is the last argument of kings. Right or wrong, good or evil, death or glory, freedom or slavery - they all mean nothing unless backed by a force of some kind.

3. No, sorry.

4. I must argue that it's worked quite well so far. Yes, many have suffered, but let us be frank - suffering is part of existence. Capitalism is unique in that it permits on to ascend through that suffering, and in doing so, lift up others. A hundred years ago, we would not be having this discussion, we would live considerably shorter, harder lives, and so on. What changed this? In part, capitalism and the free market. Yes, there are side effects, and in some isolated cases they outweigh the benefits, but those are tiny, tiny spots on the vast, endless panorama of human enterprise and industry.

0. Surprised? Well, it is the internet. We must be making history.

1. Alright, good point. But at least make the luxury items universally enjoyable, not rubbish.
2. This is one of my points. Part of human nature is that you think human nature cannot be changed. Humans have unimaginably large egos, which make them think they are important, and are a forced to be reckoned with. Hah! I myself am human and I feel very distanced from the foolishness that many in the modern world have embraced. I embrace my own, different foolishness. And the sky changes color every day. Wonderfully, I should add, sitting on the beach watching the sunset is pure awesome.

You say humans are violent and greedy? True. The thing is, humans are violent for the wrong reasons, and greedy for the wrong things. They are wasting their lives. And yes, that Latin phrase you mentioned is true - but we are using the wrong force. And anyway, what would you enforce with violence that could possibly be beneficial? The ends do not justify the means. (and while I'm condemning judicial matters, guilt by association is nothing but crap) So, you are right, and on paper your theories are flawless. Unfortunately, in your calculations, you've forgotten that stupid and misguided people exist.

3. Well then, how about a bagel?
4. I'm looking through our arguments, and noticing one thing: That I agree with the methods and causes you put forward, but I disagree with the desired result. Wealth, progress, fame... and yet no budget toward the study of Peace of Mind.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Valid and Reasoned points, not posted for reasons of avoiding the quote-tree of doom.

1. No luxury item is universally enjoyable. Take, for example, a chess board. I like chess. I suspect you do (all communists like chess, after all). But for many people, chess is overly complex, boring or just not their prefered means of relaxation. The same can be said for a pack of cards, a television, a computer - all of them are not in the slightest bit universally enjoyable. That is where the free market's genius comes in - if there is money to be made is producing something someone wants, it will be made. In essence, you can guarantee that no matter what your tastes, there is something for you.

2. My point is, fundamentally, humans are hardwired to be greedy and violent, and if we were not, we would not survive as a species. Greed and violence are survival traits, and highly useful on a societal level as well. Greed pushes men to compete, violence, to contest for what resources are available. It forces man to become faster, stronger, more efficent and in all ways better. Why, take the internet for an example. By means of a market system, the exchange of ideas, of ideals, concepts, debate, reasoning, philosophy - has expanded thousandfold in the last decade or so. In essence, the desire for of men for wealth has had the entirely unintended benefit of creating close to an entire generation of humans (in the developing world) who will be the best-informed group of people on the planet.

3. Sounds good to me. Meet me at Rekjaviek airport in 6 hours.

4. Peace of mind is too widespread and different an ideal to be achieved. It is, fundamentally, an abstract, and a subjective one at that. For some, it may be a wife, children, a house and a comfortable life ahead. For others, it's howling through the skies at Mach 2 with death tucked beneath your wings. For some, it's simply the comfort of knowing you will be remembered. Budgeting for that is rather like attempting to budget for a Van Gogh, a Monet, a Bach - you may place a value on it after it's creation, but beforehand, no economic force can compell it's beauty.

In essence, the reason people fail to find peace of mind, is because they fail to look.

 

[ArcWinter]

Valid and Reasoned points, not posted for reasons of avoiding the quote-tree of doom.

1. No luxury item is universally enjoyable. Take, for example, a chess board. I like chess. I suspect you do (all communists like chess, after all). But for many people, chess is overly complex, boring or just not their prefered means of relaxation. The same can be said for a pack of cards, a television, a computer - all of them are not in the slightest bit universally enjoyable. That is where the free market's genius comes in - if there is money to be made is producing something someone wants, it will be made. In essence, you can guarantee that no matter what your tastes, there is something for you.

2. My point is, fundamentally, humans are hardwired to be greedy and violent, and if we were not, we would not survive as a species. Greed and violence are survival traits, and highly useful on a societal level as well. Greed pushes men to compete, violence, to contest for what resources are available. It forces man to become faster, stronger, more efficent and in all ways better. Why, take the internet for an example. By means of a market system, the exchange of ideas, of ideals, concepts, debate, reasoning, philosophy - has expanded thousandfold in the last decade or so. In essence, the desire for of men for wealth has had the entirely unintended benefit of creating close to an entire generation of humans (in the developing world) who will be the best-informed group of people on the planet.

3. Sounds good to me. Meet me at Rekjaviek airport in 6 hours.

4. Peace of mind is too widespread and different an ideal to be achieved. It is, fundamentally, an abstract, and a subjective one at that. For some, it may be a wife, children, a house and a comfortable life ahead. For others, it's howling through the skies at Mach 2 with death tucked beneath your wings. For some, it's simply the comfort of knowing you will be remembered. Budgeting for that is rather like attempting to budget for a Van Gogh, a Monet, a Bach - you may place a value on it after it's creation, but beforehand, no economic force can compell it's beauty.

In essence, the reason people fail to find peace of mind, is because they fail to look.

Alright I was going to write another bunch o' paragraphs, but then I saw your last sentence and I realized you probably understood my point. Because that's exactly it (simplified, of course, but not much). Is it that we agree on specifics but differ in the big picture or agree on the big picture but disagree on specifics? Doesn't matter, you get it. I do say, good joust, Rolling Thunder!