Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here.

[BADecker]

Everybody uses forms of socialism throughout their lives, whether they are poor or rich.

The socialism being talked about in this thread is being used by the wealthy as a form of capitalizing on people's ignorance to make them slaves of the wealthy. In other words, socialism is a form of capitalism that the wealthy are using.

Drop both, socialism and capitalism, and get on with your life.

[Daniel91]

I lived in capitalism and socialism.
Main difference is that in socialism state owns everything and regulate everything.
NO free market and no freedom.
In capitalism we have free market and freedom.
We have private ownership and people are free to start business.
I really prefer capitalism based on my life experience.

[coins4commies]

There isn't a debate being had.  No one supports socialism as the capitalists are defining it but people in this thread continue to argue against that straw man.   No one supports a system where people have no freedom.  Advocates of socialism and capitialism both want a system with more freedom. 

[TECSHARE]

There isn't a debate being had.  No one supports socialism as the capitalists are defining it but people in this thread continue to argue against that straw man.   No one supports a system where people have no freedom.  Advocates of socialism and capitialism both want a system with more freedom. 

So is your argument that all the other times Socialism and Communism failed they all sat around and said "Hey you know what would be great, if we had a Communist totalitarian dictatorship!". No. They all thought they were making an improvement just like you, and they all lacked basic understanding of economics and human nature that tell them this system ALWAYS leads to this result. What you want is irrelevant. The outcomes of your attempts to attain your goals are relevant, and history has filled entire libraries with the documentation of the failures of your ideology.

[mOgliE]

There isn't a debate being had.  No one supports socialism as the capitalists are defining it but people in this thread continue to argue against that straw man.   No one supports a system where people have no freedom.  Advocates of socialism and capitialism both want a system with more freedom. 

Stop fighting wind

They won't open their eyes on the very simple fact that previous communist countries were dictatorships... That a dictatorship is communist, capitalist, religious or whatever it doesn't matter. It's a dictatorship.

Now could we implement communism without dictatorship? That would be an interesting question.

But don't argue just put those idiots on ignore. They're too stupid to discuss anything outside of their beliefs.

I never saw a communist refusing to admit capitalism has its pros.
I never saw a capitalist admitting communism has its pros.

It isn't difficult to see where is the open mind.

[TECSHARE]

There isn't a debate being had.  No one supports socialism as the capitalists are defining it but people in this thread continue to argue against that straw man.   No one supports a system where people have no freedom.  Advocates of socialism and capitialism both want a system with more freedom. 

Stop fighting wind

They won't open their eyes on the very simple fact that previous communist countries were dictatorships... That a dictatorship is communist, capitalist, religious or whatever it doesn't matter. It's a dictatorship.

Now could we implement communism without dictatorship? That would be an interesting question.

But don't argue just put those idiots on ignore. They're too stupid to discuss anything outside of their beliefs.

I never saw a communist refusing to admit capitalism has its pros.
I never saw a capitalist admitting communism has its pros.

It isn't difficult to see where is the open mind.

They didn't just become dictatorships magically. Socialism and Communism were the preferred methods of usurpation for many of these dictatorships. You simply lack the intelligence to understand this process of degradation and what causes it. You think you have the answer but all you have is the same old genocidal dictatorships with a new face and an Instagram page.

Communism at best is "successful" until it runs out of resources and a way to motivate its people to produce resources. Once the resources are gone and there is no work incentive, guess what? You are now all slaves and you go to forced work camps or else the country collapses. This is the guaranteed outcome EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

Communism has its pros like cocaine has its pros. It feels awesome for like 20 minutes then you feel like shit and you want more. You get addicted to it, burn through all of your savings, and now you are blowing people on the street for crack rocks. That is Communism in a nutshell. So if by pros you mean you have a tiny moment of euphoria before a horrible grotesque world is imposed upon you then, sure it has pros.

[mOgliE]

Communism at best is "successful" until it runs out of resources and a way to motivate its people to produce resources.
Once the resources are gone [...] You are now all slaves and you go to forced work camps or else the country collapses.

You're amazing my dear <3

You manage to gather so much nonsense in so little words...

Anyway, I guess you can see why it is NOT useful to try to argue with people like that coins4commies. They have no argument, no reasoning, no logic... They just like to say the same thing over and over again. What you say don't matter, they will answer the same thing.

Even though their answer is completely illogical and self contradictory ^^

[dippididodaday]

capitalism is also a dictatorship actually.
through a financial cartel

I say fuck both these asshole systems. We the people could dismiss, deny and nullify these oppressive in-bed-with-government systems once and for all. We have the means and power through technology.

And we should be very wary at this time for the other just-as-fucked ass system - fascism, which is the next in line to rear its ugly head, given the point in time we are at.

Definition of fascism (wikipedia): Fascism is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.

Take heed my fellow libertarians.

[coins4commies]

There isn't a debate being had.  No one supports socialism as the capitalists are defining it but people in this thread continue to argue against that straw man.   No one supports a system where people have no freedom.  Advocates of socialism and capitialism both want a system with more freedom. 

So is your argument that all the other times Socialism and Communism failed they all sat around and said "Hey you know what would be great, if we had a Communist totalitarian dictatorship!". No. They all thought they were making an improvement just like you, and they all lacked basic understanding of economics and human nature that tell them this system ALWAYS leads to this result. What you want is irrelevant. The outcomes of your attempts to attain your goals are relevant, and history has filled entire libraries with the documentation of the failures of your ideology.

Can you explain how my system leads to the same result?

I think the biggest difference is that the historical examples you're thinking of wanted to achieve communism immediately by force, and I want to achieve communism slowly by improving conditions to the point where the current state of human nature under capitalism is removed and the natural, cooperative version of human nature is restored.

For example, can you find any historical examples of communists who don't believe property should be taken away from the capitalist class? Theres a fundamental difference between people who want to take the power away from the capitalist class and give it to the workers vs people who want to drown out the power of the capitalist class by empowering the working class. 

I would concede your point if you showed me non-authoritarian examples of marxism that failed.

[TECSHARE]

There isn't a debate being had.  No one supports socialism as the capitalists are defining it but people in this thread continue to argue against that straw man.   No one supports a system where people have no freedom.  Advocates of socialism and capitialism both want a system with more freedom. 

So is your argument that all the other times Socialism and Communism failed they all sat around and said "Hey you know what would be great, if we had a Communist totalitarian dictatorship!". No. They all thought they were making an improvement just like you, and they all lacked basic understanding of economics and human nature that tell them this system ALWAYS leads to this result. What you want is irrelevant. The outcomes of your attempts to attain your goals are relevant, and history has filled entire libraries with the documentation of the failures of your ideology.

Can you explain how my system leads to the same result?

I think the biggest difference is that the historical examples you're thinking of wanted to achieve communism immediately by force, and I want to achieve communism slowly by improving conditions to the point where the current state of human nature under capitalism is removed and the natural, cooperative version of human nature is restored.

For example, can you find any historical examples of communists who don't believe property should be taken away from the capitalist class? Theres a fundamental difference between people who want to take the power away from the capitalist class and give it to the workers vs people who want to drown out the power of the capitalist class by empowering the working class. 

I would concede your point if you showed me non-authoritarian examples of marxism that failed.

The bolded part of your statement I feel perfectly exemplifies your inability to even form a basic logical premise. You define conditions by which I argue do not even exist (Marxism is inherently totalitarian), and then demand I meet your impossible contradictory standard in addition to meeting my standard. In short you are doing little more than demanding I ARGUE YOUR POINT FOR YOU.

Seriously man. You need to see a professional psychologist. You have problems. I don't mean that in a dismissive way. There is something seriously wrong with the lens thru which you view the world and I would wager it is the cause of many problems in your life, all of which you likely project upon other causes. Either you are here to do a job or you have serious issues. If you are on the job I am impressed with your acting skills because you fit the bill to a T. If not seek help.

[coins4commies]

There isn't a debate being had.  No one supports socialism as the capitalists are defining it but people in this thread continue to argue against that straw man.   No one supports a system where people have no freedom.  Advocates of socialism and capitialism both want a system with more freedom.  

So is your argument that all the other times Socialism and Communism failed they all sat around and said "Hey you know what would be great, if we had a Communist totalitarian dictatorship!". No. They all thought they were making an improvement just like you, and they all lacked basic understanding of economics and human nature that tell them this system ALWAYS leads to this result. What you want is irrelevant. The outcomes of your attempts to attain your goals are relevant, and history has filled entire libraries with the documentation of the failures of your ideology.

Can you explain how my system leads to the same result?

I think the biggest difference is that the historical examples you're thinking of wanted to achieve communism immediately by force, and I want to achieve communism slowly by improving conditions to the point where the current state of human nature under capitalism is removed and the natural, cooperative version of human nature is restored.

For example, can you find any historical examples of communists who don't believe property should be taken away from the capitalist class? Theres a fundamental difference between people who want to take the power away from the capitalist class and give it to the workers vs people who want to drown out the power of the capitalist class by empowering the working class.  

I would concede your point if you showed me non-authoritarian examples of marxism that failed.

The bolded part of your statement I feel perfectly exemplifies your inability to even form a basic logical premise. You define conditions by which I argue do not even exist (Marxism is inherently totalitarian), and then demand I meet your impossible contradictory standard in addition to meeting my standard. In short you are doing little more than demanding I ARGUE YOUR POINT FOR YOU.

Seriously man. You need to see a professional psychologist. You have problems. I don't mean that in a dismissive way. There is something seriously wrong with the lens thru which you view the world and I would wager it is the cause of many problems in your life, all of which you likely project upon other causes. Either you are here to do a job or you have serious issues. If you are on the job I am impressed with your acting skills because you fit the bill to a T. If not seek help.

This bold part is called disagreement. You don't have to completely breakdown just because we disagree on premise. There are other ways to deal with this disagreement considering I have explained why I don't think my views are authoritarian.

You could:

A. Explain how the things I have described are not marxist
B. Explain how the things I have described are indeed totalitarian
C. Draw a connection between the things I have described and the failures of previous marxist regimes.


I am curious, what kind of job do you think I may be working? Do you think a socialist party has sent me here as a way of campaigning? Please explain.

Its also funny to see someone who dismisses psychological research and doesn't believe psychology is "real science" claim the expertise to diagnose psychological problems through the computer and in addition to that, have the nerve to recommend someone to a "professional" who according to their own claims,  can't truly help because they aren't practicing "real science" in the first place.

Talk about logic.

[Balthazar]

Vladimir Zhirinovsky's speech about communism, communists and free speech:

https://youtu.be/V_ioMFHd9PQ

Turn the subtitles on.

[okala]

You stand with the capitalist and from you Post my guest is right but my argument is on the fact that hard it been the socialist did not lost the cold war to the capitalist we may have been witnessing another dimension of economic movement in the world because for me I still like the socialist ideas.

[LUCKMCFLY]

I think that socialism will always be a disguise towards insured failure, where everyone wants to be equal, but never will that happen, a worker can never earn the same as an Engineer or a Doctor, because it would not make sense to study hard to win as a worker. Under this premise they have a rich country, Venezuela, where their political representative says that no matter what degree of study is achieved, a worker who has not had a study should never earn the same as a teacher or teacher who has a degree. That is why I prefer a thousand times the most radical capitalism that exists, where the one who works a lot earns more and the graduate professional is recognized and valued in terms of salary.

[coins4commies]

Work doesn't determine who makes the most in capitalism, capital does.  A ton of people go to college, work two jobs, and are still barely scraping by. Making money in capitalism only requires capital.  You can inherit capital and create a top income with little work at all. 

No graduate professionals do not earn top salaries under capitalism.  Doctors, professors and engineers are far from . the top but they still do it because its what they want to do. 

Your entire post is based on an outdated premise that there is work to be done for everyone.   We are approaching a world of automation where there is scarcity of work but not scarcity of necessities.  That world just isn't compatible with capitalism.  You are also projecting this idea that people only work to be paid but once peoples' needs are all met, they will work for leisure.

I would study regardless of what it has to do with pay assuming I'm going to have all my needs met.  Don't project your own current tendencies onto humanity.  People naturally want to create things that can be used by others. Not everyone but enough of us.

[Privcy Foundation]

coins4commies laying down the brutal truth


We do not live in a meritocracy and the hardest workers are often the poorest.  Capitalism is all about exploitation and stealing value that workers create.  The system is a complete failure when one person can own hundreds of houses and millions of acres.

[TECSHARE]

There isn't a debate being had.  No one supports socialism as the capitalists are defining it but people in this thread continue to argue against that straw man.   No one supports a system where people have no freedom.  Advocates of socialism and capitialism both want a system with more freedom. 

So is your argument that all the other times Socialism and Communism failed they all sat around and said "Hey you know what would be great, if we had a Communist totalitarian dictatorship!". No. They all thought they were making an improvement just like you, and they all lacked basic understanding of economics and human nature that tell them this system ALWAYS leads to this result. What you want is irrelevant. The outcomes of your attempts to attain your goals are relevant, and history has filled entire libraries with the documentation of the failures of your ideology.

Can you explain how my system leads to the same result?

I think the biggest difference is that the historical examples you're thinking of wanted to achieve communism immediately by force, and I want to achieve communism slowly by improving conditions to the point where the current state of human nature under capitalism is removed and the natural, cooperative version of human nature is restored.

For example, can you find any historical examples of communists who don't believe property should be taken away from the capitalist class? Theres a fundamental difference between people who want to take the power away from the capitalist class and give it to the workers vs people who want to drown out the power of the capitalist class by empowering the working class. 

I would concede your point if you showed me non-authoritarian examples of marxism that failed.

The bolded part of your statement I feel perfectly exemplifies your inability to even form a basic logical premise. You define conditions by which I argue do not even exist (Marxism is inherently totalitarian), and then demand I meet your impossible contradictory standard in addition to meeting my standard. In short you are doing little more than demanding I ARGUE YOUR POINT FOR YOU.

Seriously man. You need to see a professional psychologist. You have problems. I don't mean that in a dismissive way. There is something seriously wrong with the lens thru which you view the world and I would wager it is the cause of many problems in your life, all of which you likely project upon other causes. Either you are here to do a job or you have serious issues. If you are on the job I am impressed with your acting skills because you fit the bill to a T. If not seek help.

This bold part is called disagreement. You don't have to completely breakdown just because we disagree on premise. There are other ways to deal with this disagreement considering I have explained why I don't think my views are authoritarian.

You could:

A. Explain how the things I have described are not marxist
B. Explain how the things I have described are indeed totalitarian
C. Draw a connection between the things I have described and the failures of previous marxist regimes.


I am curious, what kind of job do you think I may be working? Do you think a socialist party has sent me here as a way of campaigning? Please explain.

Its also funny to see someone who dismisses psychological research and doesn't believe psychology is "real science" claim the expertise to diagnose psychological problems through the computer and in addition to that, have the nerve to recommend someone to a "professional" who according to their own claims,  can't truly help because they aren't practicing "real science" in the first place.

Talk about logic.

Lots of totalitarians think they are benevolent, then suddenly they realize they weren't so benevolent and everyone wants their heads, and shockingly like magic that changes their outlook and approach to the situation. I have no way to know if you are simply a true believer or some one who does this for a living, but the fact is some one sent you here either by choice or by programming. I never said psychology was totally invalid, just that it is "barely science" in the grand context of all hard sciences, and I am not the only one who shares this view by far. What is not science however for sure is your preferred Frankfurt School of "Critical Theory", which is just Marxism with a superficial veneer of science, commonly known as propaganda.

Work doesn't determine who makes the most in capitalism, capital does.  A ton of people go to college, work two jobs, and are still barely scraping by. Making money in capitalism only requires capital.  You can inherit capital and create a top income with little work at all.  

No graduate professionals do not earn top salaries under capitalism.  Doctors, professors and engineers are far from . the top but they still do it because its what they want to do.  

Your entire post is based on an outdated premise that there is work to be done for everyone.   We are approaching a world of automation where there is scarcity of work but not scarcity of necessities.  That world just isn't compatible with capitalism.  You are also projecting this idea that people only work to be paid but once peoples' needs are all met, they will work for leisure.

I would study regardless of what it has to do with pay assuming I'm going to have all my needs met.  Don't project your own current tendencies onto humanity.  People naturally want to create things that can be used by others. Not everyone but enough of us.

We aren't here to discuss your fantasies and predictions for the future. History shows your ideology is not only a complete failure but is a horrific stain on humanity itself resulting in hundreds of millions dead. The fact is there is still scarcity of resources regardless of the rest of your horse shit "reasoning". This one fact alone means everyone can't just have everything they want and there have to be limits for society to function. Even if capital is inherited stupid people don't hold on to capital for long meaning regardless they have to work to keep what they already have, and that means providing value for society as a whole.

coins4commies laying down the brutal truth


We do not live in a meritocracy and the hardest workers are often the poorest.  Capitalism is all about exploitation and stealing value that workers create.  The system is a complete failure when one person can own hundreds of houses and millions of acres.

He is laying down delusional half truths at best. The thing about Communists is they have an argument but their solutions are always worse than the problem they claim they want to solve.

[Remainder]

I think almost all of the countries already chosen their systems. I just want to point out the cons of a capitalism system, is that sooner or later
a revolutionary war might happen given the fact the rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer. The gap of wealth distribution shall be widen and its only a matter of time that a war might happen. The government shall address this issues before its too late to cure it. I think a socialism system is more desirable and better option in a society.

[dimondimon]

Capitalism is the degradation of society , the way to the slave system,smart people will not be able to get an education, will be distinguished from the disease,

Socialism is human development , smart people will lead the rest of the people and develop humanity, even if you were born in a poor family socialism will give you the opportunity to get a good education in order that you could realize yourself

[Russlenat]

I think almost all of the countries already chosen their systems. I just want to point out the cons of a capitalism system, is that sooner or later
a revolutionary war might happen given the fact the rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer. The gap of wealth distribution shall be widen and its only a matter of time that a war might happen. The government shall address this issues before its too late to cure it. I think a socialism system is more desirable and better option in a society.

That's a valid point, every country who found all the signs about the widening gap between the rich and poor should take further steps to lessen the gap. A measures that will help the society avoid such war that will lead to reality shall be formulated soon.