Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here.

[kpcian]

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 ideology of socialism is great if it is implicated truly.but human nature can not allow it.we can see that soviet union fall because they can not implicate  what they say.if the authority ia hundred percent honest then we can socialism is great,with great power comes great responsibility.in socialist country' the government and high officials get immense power which leads to a situation where they abuse their power,and people loose their freedom of speech.government controls everything and there is little scope for individual freedom.

[1714771811]

1714771811

[1714771811]

1714771811

[1714771811]

1714771811

[1714771811]

1714771811

[1714771811]

1714771811

[1714771811]

1714771811

[Arpetuos]

I stand for free market, because only deliberate and purposeful human action can create the efficient allocation of scarce ressources in order to give the most value to every actor through trade.

Murray Newton Rothbard, Man Economy, and State

[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.

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.

It may lead or signals the beginning of World War 3, since our society today are communicating closely due to the advancement of technology.
Probably, a war between two or several states with different systems.

[hanzac]

I think decentralized infrastructure will invalidate these centralized political infrastructure no matter what it's called, capitalism or sweet socialism.
I also think that bitcoin and its followers bring the imagination to the new world. People and their value will no longer being manipulated by any group they dislike.
This means the independence of the individuals inside the human society. This is very important to protect the human value.

[Artemis3]

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

Excellent to have a honest socialist. Its all about control, coerced control. You obey or else... Socialism is the opposite to freedom, pure and simple.


In a free market you live in freedom, you can exploit but you can also give on your own will, without someone pointing a gun at you. Of course, that means one type of society is more mature than the other, and its not exactly the socialist one...

Let me debunk the lie of inequality. Is inequality bad? NO. You don't care the 1% is richer than the 99%, but that the poorest of those 99% still have  better lives than the majority of "equal" societies ruled by an iron fist or a dystopian police state, like socialism produces in the end (see east Germany).

Socialism wants control of the means of production (and the economy). Do not be fooled by any sweet words, it is about coercion. "Humans are egoist so they must be coerced into sharing", is what they are deep thinking. They come with a thousand excuses to justify this exploitation on a state level, and even try to paint it a "democratic" face, but its all about obeying the leader, and in some extreme cases, paying cult (and tribute, of course).

And this also means, no leader can ever be questioned, because you are an enemy "of the people" for daring to question him or the party or the ideology. Then corruption creeps in and now everything is in hand of corrupt bureaucrats which will burn the last bit of wealth by managing somehow to do nothing for the people they collected that money for...

Let me tell you, this is one of the worst systems ever devised by man, and its so scary because you only get it once you are trapped in it.

"Capitalism" may lead to injustice. Yes, because you have the freedom to do the good and the bad, but in socialism, you will either do "the bad" or you won't be able to survive.

A free market economy is power directly in the hands of the people. You cast a vote with your wallet on every single purchase. This is a decentralized system which scales to the last individual member of society with grace and elegance, producing information real time and adjusted to the situation of everyone.

In socialism this power is snatched away from the hands to the people and given to a small select few who suddenly decides who eats and who doesn't. Who is going to question these decision makers when tomorrow you risk not getting food or worse?

This "select elite" can never replace a free market economy. They can't get the information fast and well enough, they can't process the amount information needed in the required time, they can't ensure the resources allocated reach their intended recipients, they can't come with a solution that works well for every single person at every single moment either, etc, etc. In it terms, its centralized, and un-scalable.

In our context, one way to understand socialism is centralization, with all its risks and weaknesses, and injustice, oh the injustice. Of course, everyone gets the same level of injustice under socialism, except those close to the rulers, that is... Socialism makes monarchies look tame.

[coins4commies]

You guys have done a great job critiquing government control.  Congrats.  Nobody is advocating for that so I'm not sure what you are accomplishing by critiquing systems everyone hates. 

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 ideology of socialism is great if it is implicated truly.but human nature can not allow it.we can see that soviet union fall because they can not implicate  what they say.if the authority ia hundred percent honest then we can socialism is great,with great power comes great responsibility.in socialist country' the government and high officials get immense power which leads to a situation where they abuse their power,and people loose their freedom of speech.government controls everything and there is little scope for individual freedom.

Simple solution: give power to individuals not the government

[TECSHARE]

You guys have done a great job critiquing government control.  Congrats.  Nobody is advocating for that so I'm not sure what you are accomplishing by critiquing systems everyone hates. 

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 ideology of socialism is great if it is implicated truly.but human nature can not allow it.we can see that soviet union fall because they can not implicate  what they say.if the authority ia hundred percent honest then we can socialism is great,with great power comes great responsibility.in socialist country' the government and high officials get immense power which leads to a situation where they abuse their power,and people loose their freedom of speech.government controls everything and there is little scope for individual freedom.

Simple solution: give power to individuals not the government

What is government composed of Captain Postmodern?

[BADecker]

^^^ In common law, the government is composed of paperwork. Paperwork doesn't jump up and do anything. It just lies there.

In common law, government people are simply people. When they harm you, use the legalities of the paperwork to punish them just like they would punish you if you harmed them.

[mOgliE]

What is government composed of Captain Postmodern?

200 individuals max.

Socialism = give power to ALL individuals. Not just 200 selected gods.

[yeosaga]

What is government composed of Captain Postmodern?

200 individuals max.

Socialism = give power to ALL individuals. Not just 200 selected gods.

How should everyone be able to show their power, through an individual vote?

[mOgliE]

How should everyone be able to show their power, through an individual vote?

yup

[YoloBull]

How should everyone be able to show their power, through an individual vote?

yup

Why should the masses with no experience get to determine policy? Wouldn't policy better be determined by experts in a field? Should medical doctors write laws on oil and gas excavation? Or should oil and gas engineers get to write laws on what medical practice?

Or better yet... should experts in the field write the laws?

[coins4commies]

Experts in the field would still be able to write policy.  They just wouldn't be able to pass it without consent of the people. The people have full experience living under the laws so they can listen to expert opinion and make their own decision.

When you go to a doctor, they usually tell you the options and their expert opinion but ultimately you get to decide on the path of care.  That is what we are talking about here.

[YoloBull]

Experts in the field would still be able to write policy.  They just wouldn't be able to pass it without consent of the people. The people have full experience living under the laws so they can listen to expert opinion and make their own decision.

When you go to a doctor, they usually tell you the options and their expert opinion but ultimately you get to decide on the path of care.  That is what we are talking about here.

And what's to say people make good decisions as a collective? Why should anyone get to decide what medicines are legal for an unrelated third party to take? Especially when doctors might support giving it, even though the public has still voted to keep it illegal?

[yeosaga]

Experts in the field would still be able to write policy.  They just wouldn't be able to pass it without consent of the people. The people have full experience living under the laws so they can listen to expert opinion and make their own decision.

When you go to a doctor, they usually tell you the options and their expert opinion but ultimately you get to decide on the path of care.  That is what we are talking about here.

And what's to say people make good decisions as a collective? Why should anyone get to decide what medicines are legal for an unrelated third party to take? Especially when doctors might support giving it, even though the public has still voted to keep it illegal?

In the US, the collective makes decisions by voting for their representatives. Everyone who votes for a particular person into office knows that these people follow the regulatory bodies that have been established for certain areas. In the medical area, representatives are expected to trust the medical establishment through the HHS and underlying agencies (these include things like FDA, CDCP, and others).

Since these things are run by humans you can expect human interference.

[Artemis3]

Why should the masses with no experience get to determine policy? Wouldn't policy better be determined by experts in a field? Should medical doctors write laws on oil and gas excavation? Or should oil and gas engineers get to write laws on what medical practice?

Or better yet... should experts in the field write the laws?

And they can't. First thing that happens when socialists get the power, is dictate rules for everyone else to follow. No they don't ask everyone, and even if they do, the "minority" is irrelevant. Social struggle is their belief, not peaceful resolution as done in a free market society with every transaction...

A small group ends "leading". Its a natural transition from the communist party organization, they don't believe masses can "do revolution" without leaders, they HAVE to lead. And once they get into power, this thinking remains and is put in motion nationwide.

Which is how you end with, all the "failed" attempts in human history...

Yes, they would give you this fake rhetoric/facade: "power to the people", but we the people will follow our loved great leader... They "replace" the wealthy group they accuse of everything, and after taking all their possessions by force (sometimes distribute a bit but keep the best for them) take their place as the leading "nomenclature" or party officials or revolutionary whatever. And it always degrades into something resembling a monarchy, just look at north Korea: hereditary leadership like the absolute monarchies of the past (who ruled from that very city of Pyongyang).

They call themselves social scientists, and yet neglect to see that repeating the same experiment, again, and again and again produces the same results. When are they ever going to give up? Theory does not produce results, and practice has always shown the opposite results to what they promise.

They don't blame socialism, they blame the corruption. Oh, lets conveniently forget how corruption is instigated by their system, ok, they never experienced it beyond their own thinking, that is why they make such comments. Let them try socialism somewhere, and NOTHING they do can't prevent it from degrading into, the same thing the rest of humanity degraded into when they tried...

IT DOES NOT WORK.

You always end with something worse than what you had. Humans won't act like machines even with your enforced rules, they won't ever fit in your theories, people don't act that way.

[BADecker]

Portland used to be a really nice place until socialism took over.


Collapse: Leftists have taken over Portland, Oregon, as cops are no longer responding to calls

In the mid-1800s, hundreds of thousands of Americans began migrating west along the Oregon Trail to take advantage of federal legislation guaranteeing a plot of land to anyone who settled the region.

“The trail was arduous and snaked through Missouri and present-day Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho and finally into Oregon,” the History Channel notes. Thousands died of diseases and what are, today, easily treatable conditions like dysentery.

Over the next century or so, Oregon flourished and became home to scores of patriotic Americans who worked hard, built lives, and made something out of an obscure frontier.

But then something happened to destroy the frontier, can-do mentality of Oregonians: Democrats and their Left-wing supporters took over and now the state is hostage to anti-establishment, anti-patriotic lunacy.

[coins4commies]

And they can't. First thing that happens when socialists get the power, is dictate rules for everyone else to follow. No they don't ask everyone, and even if they do, the "minority" is irrelevant. Social struggle is their belief, not peaceful resolution as done in a free market society with every transaction...

A small group ends "leading". Its a natural transition from the communist party organization, they don't believe masses can "do revolution" without leaders, they HAVE to lead. And once they get into power, this thinking remains and is put in motion nationwide.

Which is how you end with, all the "failed" attempts in human history...

Yes, they would give you this fake rhetoric/facade: "power to the people", but we the people will follow our loved great leader... They "replace" the wealthy group they accuse of everything, and after taking all their possessions by force (sometimes distribute a bit but keep the best for them) take their place as the leading "nomenclature" or party officials or revolutionary whatever.

I used to get offended but other topics have made me realize where this misconception comes from.  The same logic that allows  you to think a person calling themselves muslim and killing people makes islam bad also allows you to think this sort of thing makes socialism bad. 

I don't know how to help you understand that individual actions and ideology are not the same thing.

And it always degrades into something resembling a monarchy, just look at north Korea: hereditary leadership like the absolute monarchies of the past (who ruled from that very city of Pyongyang).

You need to understand that DPRK is not a product of natural 'degradation' but rather a direct creation from outside interference.  The PRK was the original, socialist government before the US murdered most of the leadership.   Some of them escaped to the north and the USSR coopted their movement and created the DPRK as a combative, oppressive counter against American/capitalist aggression. 

All you have done is told us that socialism doesn't work with capitalist interference or cooption.

[TECSHARE]

And they can't. First thing that happens when socialists get the power, is dictate rules for everyone else to follow. No they don't ask everyone, and even if they do, the "minority" is irrelevant. Social struggle is their belief, not peaceful resolution as done in a free market society with every transaction...

A small group ends "leading". Its a natural transition from the communist party organization, they don't believe masses can "do revolution" without leaders, they HAVE to lead. And once they get into power, this thinking remains and is put in motion nationwide.

Which is how you end with, all the "failed" attempts in human history...

Yes, they would give you this fake rhetoric/facade: "power to the people", but we the people will follow our loved great leader... They "replace" the wealthy group they accuse of everything, and after taking all their possessions by force (sometimes distribute a bit but keep the best for them) take their place as the leading "nomenclature" or party officials or revolutionary whatever.

I used to get offended but other topics have made me realize where this misconception comes from.  The same logic that allows  you to think a person calling themselves muslim and killing people makes islam bad also allows you to think this sort of thing makes socialism bad. 

I don't know how to help you understand that individual actions and ideology are not the same thing.

And it always degrades into something resembling a monarchy, just look at north Korea: hereditary leadership like the absolute monarchies of the past (who ruled from that very city of Pyongyang).

You need to understand that DPRK is not a product of natural 'degradation' but rather a direct creation from outside interference.  The PRK was the original, socialist government before the US murdered most of the leadership.   Some of them escaped to the north and the USSR coopted their movement and created the DPRK as a combative, oppressive counter against American/capitalist aggression. 

All you have done is told us that socialism doesn't work with capitalist interference or cooption.

How evolved you have become! You are capable of having retarded delusions without being offended when they are challenged. MUCH SUPREMACY!

Your logic allows you to believe that ideology has no effect over these individuals, because you prefer to claim any positive aspects and disown any negative aspects of the ideologies you propagandize. I don't know how to help you realize ideology is the basis for all actions. Again, everything bad is the fault of capitalism, and everything good is socialism. Lets just ignore that socialism creates all of the factors needed for a dictatorship to take control. There are never socialist nations formed without other capitalist nations existing, therefore your analogy is bullshit because in order for it to be valid would require the total removal of capitalism globally in order for you to call socialism socialism. All you have done is told us that socialism requires impossible to meet standards in order to function.

[coins4commies]

And they can't. First thing that happens when socialists get the power, is dictate rules for everyone else to follow. No they don't ask everyone, and even if they do, the "minority" is irrelevant. Social struggle is their belief, not peaceful resolution as done in a free market society with every transaction...

A small group ends "leading". Its a natural transition from the communist party organization, they don't believe masses can "do revolution" without leaders, they HAVE to lead. And once they get into power, this thinking remains and is put in motion nationwide.

Which is how you end with, all the "failed" attempts in human history...

Yes, they would give you this fake rhetoric/facade: "power to the people", but we the people will follow our loved great leader... They "replace" the wealthy group they accuse of everything, and after taking all their possessions by force (sometimes distribute a bit but keep the best for them) take their place as the leading "nomenclature" or party officials or revolutionary whatever.

I used to get offended but other topics have made me realize where this misconception comes from.  The same logic that allows  you to think a person calling themselves muslim and killing people makes islam bad also allows you to think this sort of thing makes socialism bad. 

I don't know how to help you understand that individual actions and ideology are not the same thing.

And it always degrades into something resembling a monarchy, just look at north Korea: hereditary leadership like the absolute monarchies of the past (who ruled from that very city of Pyongyang).

You need to understand that DPRK is not a product of natural 'degradation' but rather a direct creation from outside interference.  The PRK was the original, socialist government before the US murdered most of the leadership.   Some of them escaped to the north and the USSR coopted their movement and created the DPRK as a combative, oppressive counter against American/capitalist aggression. 

All you have done is told us that socialism doesn't work with capitalist interference or cooption.

How evolved you have become! You are capable of having retarded delusions without being offended when they are challenged. MUCH SUPREMACY!

Your logic allows you to believe that ideology has no effect over these individuals, because you prefer to claim any positive aspects and disown any negative aspects of the ideologies you propagandize. I don't know how to help you realize ideology is the basis for all actions. Again, everything bad is the fault of capitalism, and everything good is socialism. Lets just ignore that socialism creates all of the factors needed for a dictatorship to take control. There are never socialist nations formed without other capitalist nations existing, therefore your analogy is bullshit because in order for it to be valid would require the total removal of capitalism globally in order for you to call socialism socialism. All you have done is told us that socialism requires impossible to meet standards in order to function.

No its more about the power dynamic.  If the US was socialist, capitalist countries would not be able to assert their will over it because of the military power.  Obviously nothing works when it is crushed.  Whoever has the bigger stick gets to right the rules but that doesn't mean might is right.  Being decent towards other people's lives is not an impossible to meet standard and 100 years from now, people will probably look back on today and wonder how the world could have been so savage.