Why all the haters for Socialism? Most of Western Europe has at least some elements of it, and we seem to be doing fine.
Capitalism
- Thread starter Kwoodchuck
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sorry, what?Free Thinker said:
1) Where exactly in the words "Paris Hilton" do I portray how I have made my decisions? At the very most, she is simply an exception to the rule that you propose and is in no-way a full indicator of my feelings on the subject.
2) Who are you to assume that I would be so simple-minded as to base my decision on her singular (though by no means, unique) example?
3) Where exactly in the words "Paris Hilton" is there an insult? Are you an offended relative or fan?
4) Where exactly are your facts, graphs, and data? - set the precedent before demanding it of others.
5) Calm down.
In after all the claims that socialism=fascism. Christ people. Learn the difference between economic and political theory.Kwoodchuck said:
Capitalism in it's purest form- with no intervention by governments at all- is a terrible, terrible thing.
Capitalism with some government intervention, namely for the provision of public goods, is pretty darn good.
When the government starts to intervene into markets which involve normal goods, there are problems. It should stop at provision of public goods.
In my book (Literally), public goods are defined as being:
Non-Rivalrous (There's no competition for them e.g. Air) and,
Non-Excludable (You can't stop others reaping the utility from your good e.g. light from a lighthouse.)
A good that fills just one of those categories is a quasi-public good. It's quite hard to think of things that fulfil both criteria. It's my opinion that the government should step in for the provision of most quasi-public goods, such as healthcare, fire services, police, roads, streetlamps, militaries, and so on.
There are some goods which are best provided by the process of a free market (EG Food), but are perhaps too essential to go lightly regulated. The provision of these goods should be heavily regulated to minimise exploitation of inelasticity. We have failed to do this with oil, unfortunately. The price can rocket and people will still buy it.
In short, free, competitive markets work, but not all the time.
So I guess I'm somewhere in the middle.
People will always hold up the USA as an example of how awesome they think capitalism is, as if it is the sole reason for the country's success. It's not. The reasons America has been so successful are that it:
1) Can employ the resources of (almost) a whole (Incredibly resource rich) continent.
2) Was not turned to dust twice in the last hundred years.
3) Greatly profited from the re-construction of said dust.
4) It was founded whilst mostly empty (See Below).
5) Calvinism pushing hard work at its founding.
To say that capitalism is the sole cause of their success is absurd. It is also absurd to ignore the negative externalities inherent with rampant capitalism. There's no question about it, capitalism is bad in many ways. To balance: It is also absurd to claim that the selfless ethos of the current socialist theories could possibly achieve the same levels of economic growth as current capitalism can, but then we've had capitalism being steadily refined for thousands of years, so that is to be expected.
Personally I think socialism in nearly it's purest form could work on a small, voluntary scale. That is, it would require the establishment of a new, empty country, it which those who wished to practise it could move [footnote]As was the case for America and Capitalism.[/footnote]. It would be impossible to convert a previously capitalist country to it, as the in-grained fetish for amazing economic growth and competition as the sole means of motivation will be too worn in.[footnote]As was the case with Russia, China, and a few smaller countries. Germany's socialism actually served it rather well, until it's manic leader took it to war. It is a special case, and so I do not include it.[/footnote]
There is a lot of truth behind the myths. Unregulated free-market capitalism lead to the abhorrent working conditions of 18 and 19th century Britain, for example, as the workers were not protected from the tyranny of the firms.Fulax said:
It also currently leads to the poverty in Africa and many poorer countries. The suffering is minimised in your country, thanks to globalisation, and it is shipped elsewhere. Just take a look at the mountainous scrap piles picked across by naked children in Africa, or the slums lying low next to high-rise hotels in the Middle East and Brazil (See Image.), and you can see the suffering unregulated capitalism causes.
Instead of the poor littering your streets, they fill the cities of other countries like India, a fair bit of Indochina, a large part of China [footnote]A socialist country, to an extent, but the sweatshops exist in order to sustain it in the context of a greater capitalist system.[/footnote], and the entire continent of Africa. The inequality, rather than being intranational, is now international.
Both systems, when devoid of proper regulation and/or accountability, lead to great inequalities. As I say, we've just had a few thousand years to get capitalism under control, in stable countries where social change was possible. Most nearly-socialist states around the world at the moment rose out of WWII due to necessity, and were then open to the predations of dictators who took it too far.
Some, like China and a lot of Europe, recognised the benefits of socialism and employed a regulated variant. Neither system is inherently economically unsound or morally 'bankrupt'. Both can be well-argued for. The systems are not evil, the people are.
That's quite the assertion to make. Care to back it up?
Try to ignore the extremes of prejudice and just address authoritarianism as a whole, as that seems to be the root problem you have with these systems, not the economics of it.
I hate how many posts on here devolve into neo-McCarthyism.
No I don't. To an extent I do...I believe in the free hand for businesses that arent in the publics interest...but anything dealing with healthcare, energy, etc...I feel only the government can be trusted. Big business doesn't give a care about the common man, the only thing it cares about is the monetary gain (usually on the peoples dime). I put about as much trust in that as I do any of my employers...not a whole lot. Atleast the government is held accountable by the people.
My dad's side is actually originally from Scandinavia, until they came to the U.S and lived in Wyoming about 100 or so years ago. My great-great-grandfather was from Sweden and my great-great-grandmother was from Norway. So who am I supposed to side with in the rivalry?Drejer43 said:
I pretty much agree - the problem with pure unfiltered capitalism is the formation of cartels, both official and unofficial (the diamond supply is officially cartel controlled, for example). Cartels mean that the systems which are supposed to ensure the capitalist system works effectively are undermined, and ultimately it prevents real value from reaching the public.kurupt87 said:
So, capitalism with socialist parts (i.e. Road maintaince, Military Defence, Civil Policing, etc, etc) and government oversight is probably the best solution as of the present time - one day, someone might come up with a better way, but for now, we have to deal with what we've got.
For anyone not getting the difference of Socialism and Communism, i´ll try to simplify:
Socialism: Government controls EVERYTHING(i.e. Soviet Union and other "communistic" countries)
Communism: the Government does not exist and every thing trade related is good-will based(which is why a pure communistic country has never existed and most likely will not).
Communism also does not work because "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" and the fact that the Gov. really evolves into a tyrannical ruling not quite unlike a fascist country(Stalinism, Animal Farm).
"Communist" is really just an insult from right-wingers and extreme capitalists nowadays.
Socialism: Government controls EVERYTHING(i.e. Soviet Union and other "communistic" countries)
Communism: the Government does not exist and every thing trade related is good-will based(which is why a pure communistic country has never existed and most likely will not).
Communism also does not work because "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" and the fact that the Gov. really evolves into a tyrannical ruling not quite unlike a fascist country(Stalinism, Animal Farm).
"Communist" is really just an insult from right-wingers and extreme capitalists nowadays.