Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here.

[Hedonie]

I see argument against both ideologies, none seems appropriate to lead us into the next industrial revolution.

 tragedy of the commons ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons )

The tragedy of the commons is a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action.

This problem our society is facing never got bigger than now a days.

How to provide freedom to the people, and at the same time prevent people from depleting or spoiling common resource ?

My feeling is that both system are inappropriate and new ideologies / social organisation must been followed. the problem have no binary answer : Capitalism vs. Socialism.

[BADecker]

Capitalists don't make money except that they make everyone prosperous by each person's own work and initiative. This means that the best thing that capitalists can do is make the situation fertile for each person to WANT to work. Here we have Bernie aiming for Venezuelan kind of capitalism... otherwise known as socialism.


Economic Bill of Rights: Bernie Wants Same Healthcare Promise as Venezuela

Trump has succeeded in one thing: Pushing Democrats so far to the Left they look like economic fools in comparison.

Economic Bill of Rights

Kicking off his 2020 election campaign at George Washington University, Bernie Sanders pitched his Democrat Socialist Plan to the US.

Sanders seeks an "Economic Bill of Rights" that would include the right to a decent job that pays a living wage, quality health care, a complete education, affordable housing, a clean environment and a secure retirement.

Suddenly it is a fundamental right, no matter how little one produces, to have literally everything. Such promises have been made before, never successfully.

Marxist Sanders

Please consider The Marx Brother.

Having parted ways with some non-Marxists who managed to infiltrate his 2016 presidential campaign, Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders will attempt to clarify this afternoon that he is not like other candidates seeking the Democratic nomination in 2020.

Many readers may find it laughable that Mr. Sanders would attempt to position himself even further to the left than he did in 2016. But as a Journal editorial noted in April, there's nothing funny about the extreme commentary from people who are now members of the Sanders 2020 operation. For example, current Sanders speechwriter David Sirota once wrote an op-ed titled "Hugo Chávez's Economic Miracle". And Mr. Sirota isn't the only Sandernista who has lauded the Chavistas. Assessing the current Sanders team, the Journal observed: "Voters need to understand that they don't merely admire Venezuela. By their own words, they want America to emulate it."

Given the long history of Mr. Sanders' friendly relations with communist thugs, one must be optimistic to assume his brand of socialism would remain "democratic." How many Americans want to live through a revolution dreamed up by an angry, underemployed writer anyway?

Attendees at today's Sanders event can expect him once again to urge U.S. adoption of the same health care guarantee that's been made for years by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Check the links in the article.

[Mastrhiggins]

I mean that is basically what the U.S. is now with all the social programs that exists.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah the very known social programs of USA xD

Well known for this yeah

Sarcasm?

Welfare subsidies everywhere...

social security, medicare, medicaid, food assistance, public housing, flood zone subsidies, tax credits, student grants...list goes on.

That's social democracy (aka. Nordic capitalism), not socialism.

A strong welfare state might make life a bit more comfortable for the poor but it is still squarely within the framework of a free market capitalist society. There is nothing about removing the capitalist class or abolishing private property or nationalizing large swaths of the economy for example.

In recent years, it's been made more confusing by the fact that many democratic socialists (e.g. Bernie Sanders) and democratic socialist parties in Europe run on what are more accurately described as social democratic platforms. Democratic socialism and social democracy both arose from the same roots but while the former aims to implement socialism gradually over time through democratic reforms, the latter is essentially just capitalism with regulations and a big safety net.

I didn't say the US was socialism...it was a hybrid.   Social Democracy is a good term.

[coins4commies]

Capitalists don't make money except that they make everyone prosperous by each person's own work and initiative. This means that the best thing that capitalists can do is make the situation fertile for each person to WANT to work. Here we have Bernie aiming for Venezuelan kind of capitalism... otherwise known as socialism.


Economic Bill of Rights: Bernie Wants Same Healthcare Promise as Venezuela

Trump has succeeded in one thing: Pushing Democrats so far to the Left they look like economic fools in comparison.

Economic Bill of Rights

Kicking off his 2020 election campaign at George Washington University, Bernie Sanders pitched his Democrat Socialist Plan to the US.

Sanders seeks an "Economic Bill of Rights" that would include the right to a decent job that pays a living wage, quality health care, a complete education, affordable housing, a clean environment and a secure retirement.

Suddenly it is a fundamental right, no matter how little one produces, to have literally everything. Such promises have been made before, never successfully.

Marxist Sanders

Please consider The Marx Brother.

Having parted ways with some non-Marxists who managed to infiltrate his 2016 presidential campaign, Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders will attempt to clarify this afternoon that he is not like other candidates seeking the Democratic nomination in 2020.

Many readers may find it laughable that Mr. Sanders would attempt to position himself even further to the left than he did in 2016. But as a Journal editorial noted in April, there's nothing funny about the extreme commentary from people who are now members of the Sanders 2020 operation. For example, current Sanders speechwriter David Sirota once wrote an op-ed titled "Hugo Chávez's Economic Miracle". And Mr. Sirota isn't the only Sandernista who has lauded the Chavistas. Assessing the current Sanders team, the Journal observed: "Voters need to understand that they don't merely admire Venezuela. By their own words, they want America to emulate it."

Given the long history of Mr. Sanders' friendly relations with communist thugs, one must be optimistic to assume his brand of socialism would remain "democratic." How many Americans want to live through a revolution dreamed up by an angry, underemployed writer anyway?

Attendees at today's Sanders event can expect him once again to urge U.S. adoption of the same health care guarantee that's been made for years by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Check the links in the article.

Education, good health, guarnteed living wage, and a clean environment are all things that make people WANT to work and you are arguing that the result of these things is a population that won't want to work.  Its such a weird argument to make logically. 

[TECSHARE]

Education, good health, guarnteed living wage, and a clean environment are all things that make people WANT to work and you are arguing that the result of these things is a population that won't want to work.  Its such a weird argument to make logically. 

And on what evidence exactly are you basing your conclusion that these entitlements will result in people wanting to work? If people have all of their basic needs covered free of charge, what incentive do they have to better themselves or work?

[coins4commies]

I've never come across another human who was healthy, educated, and had just their basic needs met but didn't want to work.  Do you know people like this? Do you work? Do you not have your basic needs met?

On the contrary, I've come across a lot of people who didn't want to work and none of them had all of those things.  I've also seen them obtain those things over time AND end up wanting to work.  

Many want luxury
Many want to help people
Many want to fulfill a purpose

Some want all three but I've never seen one who didn't want any of those things. Thousands of people and I can't think of a single exception.

Please tell me what evidence you have of the contrary. Maybe my life experience is all just a wild fluke.

[TECSHARE]

I've never come across another human who was healthy, educated, and had just their basic needs met but didn't want to work.  Do you know people like this? Do you work? Do you not have your basic needs met?

On the contrary, I've come across a lot of people who didn't want to work and none of them had all of those things.  I've also seen them obtain those things over time AND end up wanting to work.  

Many want luxury
Many want to help people
Many want to fulfill a purpose

Some want all three but I've never seen one who didn't want any of those things. Thousands of people and I can't think of a single exception.

Please tell me what evidence you have of the contrary. Maybe my life experience is all just a wild fluke.

That is what is called "anecdotal evidence". Even if it was true, your personal experiences are not statistically relevant. You are basing your argument on assumptions, not facts and evidence. All these entitlements not only create dependency (the opposite of independence), they also remove the primary motivations people have to better themselves and work harder. Plenty of people are perfectly satisfied having their basic needs met, and if those are handed out freely, what motivation do they have to ever do more? Why would people who are working really hard to make it keep working so hard if they can just give up at any moment knowing the government safety net is there to take care of them? What happens to the ability of society to produce all the resources and services we need to survive when everyone starts checking out and relying on these entitlements? Most importantly what kind of power and influence is created over the population by the government with such a large dependent class? You are arguing from a position of Pathos, not a position of Logos.

[coins4commies]

Sometimes, anecdotal evidence is all we have.  You are right here in this thread and haven't answered the questions about your personal motivation.   I have given anecdotal evidence and you have given no evidence.  I acknowledged my experiences could all be a fluke but your claim are completely unsubstantiated. 

If you were correct, no one in Finland would be working at all anymore.  The entirety of the Country and countries like it are part of my anecdotal evidence.   

I challenge anyone in this thread who has their basic needs met, is healthy, and educated but does not work to reveal themselves.

what motivation do they have to ever do more?

-Many want luxury
-Many want to help people
-Many want to fulfill a purpose


You are basing your entire argument on people who don't exist.

[TECSHARE]

Sometimes, anecdotal evidence is all we have.  You are right here in this thread and haven't answered the questions about your personal motivation.   I have given anecdotal evidence and you have given no evidence.  I acknowledged my experiences could all be a fluke but your claim are completely unsubstantiated. 

If you were correct, no one in Finland would be working at all anymore.  The entirety of the Country and countries like it are part of my anecdotal evidence.   

I challenge anyone in this thread who has their basic needs met, is healthy, and educated but does not work to reveal themselves.

what motivation do they have to ever do more?

-Many want luxury
-Many want to help people
-Many want to fulfill a purpose


You are basing your entire argument on people who don't exist.

Lol. Sure it is, anecdotal evidence is all you have when you have no logical argument. My personal motivations are as irrelevant as your personal anecdotes. The Finland UBI experiment was like 2000 people, that is hardly a national economy shifting development and not indicative of anything. That program was so successful they ended it BTW.

Let me break it down using simple logic. Most people don't do work they want to do, they do the work that provides the most value to the economy that they are capable of. If people didn't have to work, we would have a billion people who want to be famous rock guitarists or basket ball players. We don't need a billion famous rock guitarists or basketball players. Furthermore just because some one wants to do some thing doesn't mean they are any good at it. That is the purpose of supply and demand within the economy, to provide the skills and resources we most need the most reward, and to reward the people who fill those rolls and do so efficiently. Even if your premise was correct that people would not be influenced to work less, the simple economic fact is that handing out free money does not magically make more resources appear. More money handed out for nothing just creates more demand for resources, driving up the prices. All you are doing is creating inflation and ending up right back at square one with the haves and the have-nots.

Entitlement programs create dependence. Dependence is exclusive of independence. Independence is agency and responsibility. Dependence strips people of agency and responsibility making them less able to be independent as time goes on and they are not continually expanding their abilities via exercising their agency. Just like the body atrophies without exercise, the mind and the will atrophy without being challenged by responsibility. Liberty and responsibility are inherently linked, you can not have one without the other. Even IF your nonsense premise was true, all you are doing is giving the government ever increasing power over the population, and turning the government from the servant of the people, into the master of the people. That is a huge problem. Especially when the resources run out and labor becomes mandatory and government controlled... like every other time Communism is tried. There are endless reasons your premise of free shit for everyone is a failed concept.


"Labor-force participation fell substantially after the crisis, contributing 2.5 percentage points to the shortfall in output. The decline showed no sign of reverting as of 2013. Part is demographic and will stabilize, and part reflects low job-finding rates, which should return to normal slowly. But an important part may be related to the large growth in beneficiaries of disability and food-stamp programs. Bulges in their enrollments appear to be highly persistent. Both programs place high taxes on earnings [emphasis added] and so discourage labor-force participation among beneficiaries. The bulge in program dependence …  may impede output and employment growth for some years into the future."


https://fee.org/articles/surprise-welfare-incentives-discourage-work/

https://www.politico.eu/article/welfare-discourages-work-labor-market-employment-social-rights/

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/dependency-work-incentives-and-the-growing-welfare-state/

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/welfare-better-deal-work

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/welfare-reform-analysis-issues/view/full_report

https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0046.html#Conclusion

https://rbj.net/2016/10/21/welfare-system-that-discourages-work-ambitions-needs-fixing/

[KingScorpio]

no one right in the mind joins capitalism if he is not part of the elite.

the problem with those capitalists elites is that sooner or later they will need a victim (working class) to supply their followership

[TECSHARE]

"#31 The Origins of Communism and Its Tactics | China Unscripted"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwPScbShR_0

"#55 How Communism Destroys a Society | Joshua Philipp"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjBUPB009Qo

You really need to watch the second video especially. This guy is exceptionally informed about the psychology and function of communism/socialism, and why it is by definition malignant.

[Tash]

Capitalism vs. Socialism

Neither, Voluntarism is the way forward. Earn as much possible, give as much as possible to the "right" cause. 
Will-based system.

[TECSHARE]

Capitalism vs. Socialism

Neither, Voluntarism is the way forward. Earn as much possible, give as much as possible to the "right" cause. 
Will-based system.

Capitalism is not antithetical to voluntarism. Socialism and communism however are.

[Sadlife]

They both equally beneficial to a country's economy sometimes a regulated system or government needs to intercept private owner's that wants to overprice their products or services which is why capitalism if left alone to individual owners would ruin fair standard pricing that socialism provides.

[Negotiation]

I think both are equal to capitalism vs. socialism Both are used in the field of society The effect of capitalism is more on the lower classes of society If they are exploited and oppressed by the rich people of society then it is not a form of socialism if the society is obstructed It has a serious impact on the economy of the country.

[senne]

A couple of recent threads saw us going off topic and we found ourselves arguing the merits of capitalism vs. pitfalls of socialism.   

Can you guess where I stand on the issue?  If not I'll tell you.  Freedom is not compatible with socialism, and I'm more inclined to remain free and provide for myself than I am to accept handouts and be enslaved.

What about you?

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is the extent of government intervention in the economy.
A capitalist economic system is characterised by private ownership of assets and business. While a socialist economic system is characterised by greater government intervention to re-allocate resources. Socialism takes care of prices , inflation and unemployment while capitalism cares about profits as owned by private players. Therenis more equality too in socialist society as compared to capitalist society.

[UNOE]

A couple of recent threads saw us going off topic and we found ourselves arguing the merits of capitalism vs. pitfalls of socialism.   

Can you guess where I stand on the issue?  If not I'll tell you.  Freedom is not compatible with socialism, and I'm more inclined to remain free and provide for myself than I am to accept handouts and be enslaved.

What about you?

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is the extent of government intervention in the economy.
A capitalist economic system is characterised by private ownership of assets and business. While a socialist economic system is characterised by greater government intervention to re-allocate resources. Socialism takes care of prices , inflation and unemployment while capitalism cares about profits as owned by private players. Therenis more equality too in socialist society as compared to capitalist society.

Socialism doesn't take care of price, inflation or unemployment.

Most of socialist countries experienced shortages because there was no invisible hand to show the scarcity of items, they experienced tremendous amounts of inflation because goverments were printing money in order finance their spending and they only hide the unemployment rates by hiring people on non-existant positions.

[TECSHARE]

A couple of recent threads saw us going off topic and we found ourselves arguing the merits of capitalism vs. pitfalls of socialism.  

Can you guess where I stand on the issue?  If not I'll tell you.  Freedom is not compatible with socialism, and I'm more inclined to remain free and provide for myself than I am to accept handouts and be enslaved.

What about you?

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is the extent of government intervention in the economy.
A capitalist economic system is characterised by private ownership of assets and business. While a socialist economic system is characterised by greater government intervention to re-allocate resources. Socialism takes care of prices , inflation and unemployment while capitalism cares about profits as owned by private players. Therenis more equality too in socialist society as compared to capitalist society.

Equality doesn't exist. No one is equal to anyone else, that is the definition of being individual. Of course equality of opportunity should be striven for, but equality of outcome is not an attainable goal, or at least not one anyone really wants. They think they do but they don't. If you deliver equality with an equal number of bullets to each person's head so they share an equal amount of life, that is also equality. Achieving equality requires taking from some to give to others. People always fantasize that they will be the ones receiving and never the ones taken from of course. They seem to forget that universal slavery is also equality. Increasing your relative position by reducing that of others is not gain, but that is a requirement to acheive equality. The term equality itself is meaningless and arbitrary.

[coins4commies]

No one wants equality of outcome so lose the strawman.  He simply said more equality and meant less inequality.  Its a sliding scale.  No one wants to strive for equality of outcome but that doesn't mean we want a system that accelerates inequality of outcome until a few people own everything.  Those are the two extremes of the spectrum.  Socialism is about installing a floor where everyone has access to basic necessities.  We don't want to put a ceiling on how much anyone can earn. With that said, we do want policies that have a secondary consequence of affecting how fast someone like Bezos accumulates wealth.  Bezos having lets say 20billion instead of 120 billion is far from "equality of outcome"

[TECSHARE]

No one wants equality of outcome so lose the strawman.  He simply said more equality and meant less inequality.  Its a sliding scale.  No one wants to strive for equality of outcome but that doesn't mean we want a system that accelerates inequality of outcome until a few people own everything.  Those are the two extremes of the spectrum.  Socialism is about installing a floor where everyone has access to basic necessities.  We don't want to put a ceiling on how much anyone can earn. With that said, we do want policies that have a secondary consequence of affecting how fast someone like Bezos accumulates wealth.  Bezos having lets say 20billion instead of 120 billion is far from "equality of outcome"

Surprise surprise. More shifting of definitions form Captain Postmodern. Communists and socialists ramble on about "equality" all the time, so save the act. Is the part in bold even in English? What the fuck are you trying to pull out of your rotting cranial cavity here other than jibberish purposely intended to obfuscate the situation?

Oh you don't want to do that? [Immediately then explains how you want to do that]

This is why I have zero respect for communists and socialists in general, but especially you. I find it absolutely revolting and it turns my stomach you might actually be in a position to be "educating" people. You are doing your students and the world at large a great disservice. You don't have logical arguments, you have rhetoric, sophistry, and mental gymnastics. Literally nothing, not one word of what you said makes any sense or has any basis in reality. P.S. Jeff Bezos isn't a policy position.