Can't say I'm a fan, sadly there's not currently a better option. Don't worry, I'm working on it.
Your Thoughts on Capitalism
- Thread starter DrDeath3191
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You got to remove the head or destroy the brain.THAC0 said:
/zombie reference
It's broken, it's bland, it runs on making sure people fail at life so it can live.
I respectfully disagree. Being born into wealth, it isn't being born into nobility. All men are born equal, but the charity of another, family or not, can change someone later on in life. If I was born and someone decided to give me a lot of money, it doesn't mean I was born better.Silver said:
The idea of everyone being born equal is that people won't be born with less rights. Her having money doesn't really affect her rights anyhow. Sure, not everyone will be born *exactly* equal; some will be taller, some smarter, some stronger, some faster, some talented. Even so, they are still equal because one of them doesn't gain any more rights than another.
Granted, capitalism nor socialism are both partners of a seesaw, with the country as its fulcrum. Both are needed, and both aren't to be used. You lean towards one side when you need it, but then return when you don't. Politics like to pretend to balance by rocking back and forth so it's "pretty balanced."
For the love of... Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive! I don't know how many times that's been pointed out in these forums during the last week alone... Capitalism is a system in which society is based on the redistribution of capital, services and goods. Which is every single society in the world! Socialism is first of all not a distinctive set of standpoints, but rather the banner under which a large variety of thoughts are collected. Just like there are different kinds of liberals and conservatives, there are different kinds of socialists. All "socialism" really says is that odds are the system mentioned is going to advocate equality and social security. And last I checked, there was no need to eliminate free trade and currency in order to have a social security system. As long as a society uses some form of currency, it's capitalist.DrDeath3191 said:
Socialism works perfectly fine. I refer you to The Swedish Model [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_model], for example. Norway, Denmark, Germany, Canada, Great Britain, France and Finland are other examples of nations with a strong socialist tradition. As someone mentioned, socialism != communism. That said, communism has never failed either, since it has never existed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_socialism].stone0042 said:
sethwood said:
Now there's a post I can agree with! I spent about two weeks playing Capitalism II non-stop. Awesome game.SimuLord said:
Capitalism can work. Socialism can work (and neither of them are anything like 'extremes', as implied in the OP). But in order to work they both require that those in power have a clear understanding, unbiased by greed or by any personal agenda, of the causes of inequitable distribution of resources and the inherent flaws of any society. Because whenever two or more people try to live on the same planet, there are going to be flaws.
I never said they were. I tend to lean more on the side of Capitalism than Socialism. I understand that some aspects of Socialism are needed, but I think that a more Capitalist ecomony can work far better.Nomad said:
What I think that neither Capitalism or Communism or Socialism has done good, is getting rid of poverty. But Capitalism is the lesser evil in my opinion. But what we need is an ideal capitalist society, but with a way to give the poor a chance to move up in life. Cause the idea of Capitalism is the idea of the free market and individual rights, and that anyone who wants money and happiness, has to work for it.
What I find wrong about Communism, is depending on what kind of Communism we're talking about. There is the one where the government control every action of our lives and basically owns us, and the one with just equal rights and salaries. Well, the first one is obvious what's wrong with it. But with the second one, I consider it wrong, in that it requires more work to become, for example, a doctor, than it does to become a guy working at McDonalds. And if we are to break it down, it's basically stealing from the working man. Allow me to elaborate. A working man, is a man who produces something or gives service. Both, have an individual worth in money. For example, a man who makes a chair, is entitled for around maybe 10$ for every chair he makes. But then there's the guy who makes couches. Should he get 30$ for every couch, since it takes more work and resources to make, or should he get 10$ just for the sake of the chair-maker not feeling so sad about his life.
And it's nothing else than true that the couch-maker should have more salary for his efforts. But if we were to apply Communism, it works in a way that the government owns our well-earned money and hands it out equally to every person. So how would you feel, if I reached into your pocket, took half your rightly deserved salary, and gave it to a poor man, without asking?
And I'm sure many are going "But what about the poor people who can't get up in society?". Well, let's put it this way. Do you have any idea how much money is donated to poor countries all over the world to get them healthy lives? Trust me, there are enough kind people in the world to help. And if we were to use that money and give it to the poor in the well-established countries, they could easily work their way up in society, get a good job, with good salary, and then we have even more people to help the poor. The only problem is, that it's always a long-shot, cause nobody knows how much people would give to charity, cause we don't know how many greedy or generous people there are.
I may be wrong, and if it's that case, do tell me, I want to learn, cause I'm not that well-educated, I only now some simple things about the systems.
But what I think most of us can agree on, is that no system is 100% good. Most of them works in different angles, so it's about what we're willing to sacrifice in our lives for the welfare of ourselves and others.
What I find wrong about Communism, is depending on what kind of Communism we're talking about. There is the one where the government control every action of our lives and basically owns us, and the one with just equal rights and salaries. Well, the first one is obvious what's wrong with it. But with the second one, I consider it wrong, in that it requires more work to become, for example, a doctor, than it does to become a guy working at McDonalds. And if we are to break it down, it's basically stealing from the working man. Allow me to elaborate. A working man, is a man who produces something or gives service. Both, have an individual worth in money. For example, a man who makes a chair, is entitled for around maybe 10$ for every chair he makes. But then there's the guy who makes couches. Should he get 30$ for every couch, since it takes more work and resources to make, or should he get 10$ just for the sake of the chair-maker not feeling so sad about his life.
And it's nothing else than true that the couch-maker should have more salary for his efforts. But if we were to apply Communism, it works in a way that the government owns our well-earned money and hands it out equally to every person. So how would you feel, if I reached into your pocket, took half your rightly deserved salary, and gave it to a poor man, without asking?
And I'm sure many are going "But what about the poor people who can't get up in society?". Well, let's put it this way. Do you have any idea how much money is donated to poor countries all over the world to get them healthy lives? Trust me, there are enough kind people in the world to help. And if we were to use that money and give it to the poor in the well-established countries, they could easily work their way up in society, get a good job, with good salary, and then we have even more people to help the poor. The only problem is, that it's always a long-shot, cause nobody knows how much people would give to charity, cause we don't know how many greedy or generous people there are.
I may be wrong, and if it's that case, do tell me, I want to learn, cause I'm not that well-educated, I only now some simple things about the systems.
But what I think most of us can agree on, is that no system is 100% good. Most of them works in different angles, so it's about what we're willing to sacrifice in our lives for the welfare of ourselves and others.
THIS.zoozilla said:
The thread provides a false dichotomy: on one hand, there's capitalism, a form of government based COMPLETELY on the free market, on the other hand there's socialism, in this thread generally equated with communism, where every transaction is state-regulated. Which just isn't how you politics.
In holland we have a very socialist tradition: our top income taxes are pretty high, and our social safety net is pretty air tight, if a bit costly to contain. One defining feature of dutch economy is the so-called 'polder model', where employers and unions discuss terms of employment in the context of the current economical climate. While this tradition of discussion between employer and employee is time-consuming and limits corporations to react to sudden developments in the global market, it does lend a certain stability that's beneficial for both parties. And for the Dutch as a whole!
If TL;DR, let me summarise that I'm for a more or less free market, regulated to ensure that those less capable also have a decent quality of life. Like, not dying and stuff.
They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?
As long as the man on the top takes advantage of the system, then the system in itself will be flawed. The only problem with communism in the past has been the dictators and the only problem with capitalism are the corporations.
As long as the man on the top takes advantage of the system, then the system in itself will be flawed. The only problem with communism in the past has been the dictators and the only problem with capitalism are the corporations.
You're just asking for a flame war. I would never make a political thread, unless it was balanced.
I can understand why capitalism appeals to people, particularly company owners and the like. But Socialism has a better concept. Capitalism is better for putting into practice though.
I can understand why capitalism appeals to people, particularly company owners and the like. But Socialism has a better concept. Capitalism is better for putting into practice though.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
You've never read any of Adam Smith's works, have you? A capitalist society is one where the state will still provide certain market goods. Smith never advocated a pure free-market economy, merely a mixed-market economy with a heavy disposition towards the free market, save where the free market was inefficent (i.e. public goods, merit goods and the like, such as healthcare and so on).
And the debate as to what FDR did or failed to do still rages. Keynesian Economists argue he failed because he neglected to run enough of a deficet to actually lift America out of the Depression, and given the fact that deficet finance worked for Britain and France during this period, it would appear that their assessment is correct.
So, I guess the essence of my post would be don't post on subjects you don't seem to fully grasp.
Every political system has its flaws when put into practice in the real world. I'd say that every system sucks equally. Also, I live in capitalism so I see its flaws every day. Corruption and greed, bankrupt and homeless the system has some flaws. The biggest flaw I notice in capitalism is that only a small percentage can really get rich. Lets face it, there are only room for so many different types of companies in one world. From there it's just about how that percentage lets their wealth "trickle down". (Worker pay and benefits, where their labor is, human labor over mechanical, and others.) Like the economic theory I quote, it doesn't really work well. People have a tendency to horde their stuff. So the rich get freakin' rich and not a ton comes all the way down to other people. Oh well, life's tough all around.
Thanks hebdomad. But the East India Company was a blatant example of government thuggery- it was a government monopoly, not a free market phenomenon. Black Water is employed by the government, and the entire oil industry is controlled by governments directly. If this is capitalism, its the non-free, fascist sort. There is no 'free market' at work here. And again with market crashes and bailouts- the former is probably possible on a free market, but in our time it is the result of governments acting at the behest of their corporate backers.hebdomad said:
In my opinion, you are submitting the problem as a solution to itself. I think we need a free market. My answer is always to get the government out of the market so the little guy can have a chance, for once. Often, you can't even open a business of any sort without government permission. The rich and their corporations buy politicians to run the government for their benefit. You can't solve that by expanding the government. And fuck compulsory voting. That would truly be a crime. I mean, I don't vote as a matter of principle. Are you going to point a gun at me? You personally?
Amen to censorship and copyright, though!
I think you missed my point. They're not mutually exclusive because they're not polar opposites. Socialism is rival to liberalism and conservatism. Capitalism is rival to barter economies and gift economies. Some socialist ideologies may advocate a sidestep from the capitalist system, but that doesn't mean they themselves are the alternative. They are only proponents of the alternative.DrDeath3191 said:
If I don't like cats, that doesn't make me a dog.
What you're doing is confusing capitalism with free market. There's a world of difference between the two, since capitalism is a part of the free market system, but not the other way around. Just as barter or gift economies are part of anarchism and communism, but not the other way around.
Edit: I thought I'd provide a quick example of what I'm talking about, since I realized I wasn't doing a terribly good job at explaining myself. Hopefully this will clear up the difference between economic organisation and ideology.
LETS [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Exchange_Trading_Systems], a form of barter economy. This is an alternative to capitalism. Note the distinctive difference between LETS and an ideology.
This is why anarcho-socialists usually run around with signs that say "No gods, No Leaders".Unit420 said:
They want a barter/gift economy without paper currency/credits where militant trade unions prevent corporations/companies from abusing people and there is no government hierarchy for leadership to form in.Basically everyone would live in small communes and vote directly on what they want with no offices to hold.