Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here.

[djsugar]

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?

Socialism keeps check of distribution , much maintains an oligopoly market, keeps check of prices , inflation and laws of land and labor. Socialism for me is fairer as compared to capitalism. Giving too much power to privates can turn one selfish as it is finally about making money and earning profits.

[DireWolfM14]

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?

Socialism keeps check of distribution , much maintains an oligopoly market, keeps check of prices , inflation and laws of land and labor. Socialism for me is fairer as compared to capitalism. Giving too much power to privates can turn one selfish as it is finally about making money and earning profits.

Just two questions:  Was it fairness that motivated Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates?  Is your life better as a result of their motivation?

Human nature trumps fairness.  Every one of us wants more than "the other guy," and some of us have an abundance of skill, intellect, and motivations to achieve.  If you truly care about fairness, then what makes you think you are entitled to share in the accomplishments of others?  To me that sounds absurdly unfair.

[UNOE]

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"

I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people that want equality of outcome.
Few people can never own everything because they'll always need to trade with other people, they'll need to purchase services and items from others for which they'll have to pay since no one's going to work for free and by exchanging money there's always going to be circulation of currency.

You're missing on how the world works.
If you limit Bezos on 20billion instead of 120billion, maybe he's not going to have Amazon Prime anymore and people won't have a service that delivers items to their door in 2 days. By limiting profit, you limit services, because you're taking away the incentive to make something possible and to make peoples lives easier.

Others aren't capable to do that. Bezos is. That's why he's there and why he's done the things he's done. He deserves to earn those billions since he provided so many services to so many people.

[KingScorpio]

capitalism doesn't work without some kind of support through religion, or opposition from a soviet union, american and british banksters will simply scam everyone working for their money, and destroy them.

[UNOE]

capitalism doesn't work without some kind of support through religion, or opposition from a soviet union, american and british banksters will simply scam everyone working for their money, and destroy them.

90% of China is irreligios
73% of Sweden
72% of Czech Republic
United Kingdom   69.00%
Netherlands   66.00%
Belgium   64.00%
Australia   63.00%
Hong Kong   63.00%
Norway 62%
Denmark   61.00%   
South Korea   60.00%
Japan   60.00%   
Germany   60.00%   
Estonia   60.00%   
Switzerland   58.00%   
Spain   57.00%   
Canada   57.00%   
Ireland   56.00%   
Finland   55.00%   
Slovenia   53.00%   
Austria   53.00%   
Latvia   52.00%   
France   50.00%

[Sahyadri]

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?

Socialism leads to benefiting the lower class while capitalism brings our more of organization and control. Following either can not benefit all the socities. At,my end , socialism prevails and there is a big gap between top and lower classes of people. Socialism reduces the equality gap , keeps check of law of land and labor and also maintains price fluctuation . Capitalism works well in socities where the authorities are disorganized and dont work well.

[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?

Socialism leads to benefiting the lower class while capitalism brings our more of organization and control. Following either can not benefit all the socities. At,my end , socialism prevails and there is a big gap between top and lower classes of people. Socialism reduces the equality gap , keeps check of law of land and labor and also maintains price fluctuation . Capitalism works well in socities where the authorities are disorganized and dont work well.

How did socialism help the working class in Ukraine, Cambodia, China, North Korea and Venezuela?

[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"

I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people that want equality of outcome.
Few people can never own everything because they'll always need to trade with other people, they'll need to purchase services and items from others for which they'll have to pay since no one's going to work for free and by exchanging money there's always going to be circulation of currency.

You're missing on how the world works.
If you limit Bezos on 20billion instead of 120billion, maybe he's not going to have Amazon Prime anymore and people won't have a service that delivers items to their door in 2 days. By limiting profit, you limit services, because you're taking away the incentive to make something possible and to make peoples lives easier.

Others aren't capable to do that. Bezos is. That's why he's there and why he's done the things he's done. He deserves to earn those billions since he provided so many services to so many people.

Who are these people who want equality of outcome?  Not any major socialist or communist party that I can tell you.  Show them to me then.  Give me a link to their platform to prove its not just the same tired strawman.

and lol you think bezos makes amazon prime work. thats cute.

[TECSHARE]

Who are these people who want equality of outcome?  Not any major socialist or communist party that I can tell you.  Show them to me then.  Give me a link to their platform to prove its not just the same tired strawman.

and lol you think bezos makes amazon prime work. thats cute.

He might as well try to convince a 2 year old Santa Claus doesn't exist. Every criticism you have no argument for is a "strawman", and any time communism was tried was "not real communism".

[coins4commies]

Its because strawman is actually the best type of argument to make against communism or socialism.  Capitalists aren't comfortable arguing against the core principals of communism so they have to make up things to pin on it.  This is how smears work.  People put up all sorts of points against the ideology but how often do you see someone actually cite communist or socialist literature, and then make points against it.  Most of the people are arguing against the soviet union which no longer exists.  Thats another form of strawman.  I should call it a deadman. 

If you want to avoid strawmanning all the time, I suggest you go to some party platforms and read them.  I think most people here have "learned" about socialism from capitalists which is the cause for so many strawmen. Go to primary literature. 

Of course its much easier to make an argument against some BS you made up than it is to say "workers don't deserve power"
https://www.cpusa.org/party_info/party-program/

We see revolution as a profoundly democratic process, one that involves the actions and decisions of the vast majority. We reject all approaches that welcome and seek violent action.

Reading just two sentences from that page already destroys what most people think about communism.

[TECSHARE]

Its because strawman is actually the best type of argument to make against communism or socialism.  Capitalists aren't comfortable arguing against the core principals of communism so they have to make up things to pin on it.  This is how smears work.  People put up all sorts of points against the ideology but how often do you see someone actually cite communist or socialist literature, and then make points against it.  Most of the people are arguing against the soviet union which no longer exists.  Thats another form of strawman.  I should call it a deadman. 

If you want to avoid strawmanning all the time, I suggest you go to some party platforms and read them.  I think most people here have "learned" about socialism from capitalists which is the cause for so many strawmen. Go to primary literature. 

Of course its much easier to make an argument against some BS you made up than it is to say "workers don't deserve power"
https://www.cpusa.org/party_info/party-program/

We see revolution as a profoundly democratic process, one that involves the actions and decisions of the vast majority. We reject all approaches that welcome and seek violent action.

Reading just two sentences from that page already destroys what most people think about communism.

Communism has no core principles. Communism is amorphous and changes depending on the argument presented against it, then people like you constantly shifting the goal posts cry "NO that is a straw man, that is not real communism, this is real communism!" You then proceed to rattle off some other equally amorphous ill defined definition, then use the same tactic again once the end of that road is reached. Rinse and repeat. You are addressing nothing even approaching logic. You have sophistry, rhetoric, and pathos.

I also enjoy the part where you accuse me of "strawmanning" as you literally make a statement on by behalf as if I said it and expect me to defend that. Maybe actually learn what the words you use mean, because they don't mean what you think they do. Of course, words are just a means to an end to acheive your goals, not a system of logic right? So let the amorphous goal post shifting begin!

[coins4commies]

More blanket statements. "communism" is not an organization.  "Communism" is simply a label adopted by or assigned to groups and organizations with diverse sets of core principles.   There are many different types of "communists" but its easy for the lazy mind to put them all in one box instead of reading.  That is why I recommend you going into party websites to see what they are really about.  The soviet union is no longer around. 

That isn't the goal post shifting, thats just diversity amongst communists.  Communists disagree on a lot of things including what is communism and who is a real communist.  You somehow think you easily pin down every communist into one narrow lane but you can't.

Words like "love", "freedom", "democracy", "tyranny", "order" and "fairness" mean different things to different people with different perspectives and interpretations.  Even if your perspective is the "official" correct one, you can't just assume everyone else has that same interpretation.  You need to work on listening to and respecting perspectives that are different from your own.  

[UNOE]

Its because strawman is actually the best type of argument to make against communism or socialism.  Capitalists aren't comfortable arguing against the core principals of communism so they have to make up things to pin on it.  This is how smears work.  People put up all sorts of points against the ideology but how often do you see someone actually cite communist or socialist literature, and then make points against it.  Most of the people are arguing against the soviet union which no longer exists.  Thats another form of strawman.  I should call it a deadman. 

If you want to avoid strawmanning all the time, I suggest you go to some party platforms and read them.  I think most people here have "learned" about socialism from capitalists which is the cause for so many strawmen. Go to primary literature. 

Of course its much easier to make an argument against some BS you made up than it is to say "workers don't deserve power"
https://www.cpusa.org/party_info/party-program/

We see revolution as a profoundly democratic process, one that involves the actions and decisions of the vast majority. We reject all approaches that welcome and seek violent action.

Reading just two sentences from that page already destroys what most people think about communism.

How do you seize and redistribute the assets of people who won't agree to give them over?

[coins4commies]

I don't speak for all communists and there are a bunch of ways to answer that question but personally, I don't believe in seizing assets unless thats how you refer to taxes.  

I simply believe there is enough new wealth being created to make sure it gets distributed fairly amongst workers.   The economy grows each year but most of that growth is enjoyed by the 1% while wages stay stagnant.  If we simply saw that new wealth distributed evenly amongst workers, we wouldn't need to seize anything.  

Combine that with the fact that the US government creates new money all the time and most of that money goes to corporations and finds its way into the pockets of the uber rich.  I'd simply suggest that wealth goes to everyone.  There are a lot of democratic methods for achieving this like Universal basic income, education, healthcare, jobs, or housing.  None of those involve seizing assets from anyone.  

Evaluating the impact of QE1, which began in 2008, is nearly impossible.  At the time the Fed began rapidly expanding its balance sheet, a number of other events and policy changes were taking place. They included the banking bailout, the auto bailout, advent of zero interest rates, the stimulus package and an accounting change that allowed banks to hold assets on their books to maturity at cost rather than marking them to market. Had all of these taken place in the absence of QE1, how would the economy have performed?  Would it have recovered as it did?  At the time, it was anybody’s guess.

https://www.cmegroup.com/education/featured-reports/did-quantitative-easing-help-spur-growth.html
As you see, we print money to help the "economy" all the time.  I say we start printing money to help everyday people.  

[TECSHARE]

Communism is just so diverse I can't possibly define it, and if you try to define it I meant the OTHER type of communism!

[HammaSan]

I have not yet seen a socialist country where the people have freedoms as they do in a capitalist country. I was in Brazil for some years, during the period of the previous government that was socialist, friends of Cuba, Venezuela and so on. What I saw was chaos. Lots of corruption, loss of morality and other absurd things. I also lived in the Amazon, near Venezuela, and I saw women fleeing Venezuela and prostituting themselves to send money to the relatives who stayed there.
The "socialists" of Brazil when they want to go for a walk, go to the United States, France, etc. but I did not see any socialist wanting to go for a walk in Cuba, Venezuela, Angola etc.
So, from what I saw and lived, I still prefer capitalism.

[Cratoon]

There is no such thing as pure socialism or pure capitalism in today's societies.

Prove me wrong.

[UNOE]

I don't speak for all communists and there are a bunch of ways to answer that question but personally, I don't believe in seizing assets unless thats how you refer to taxes.  

I simply believe there is enough new wealth being created to make sure it gets distributed fairly amongst workers.   The economy grows each year but most of that growth is enjoyed by the 1% while wages stay stagnant.  If we simply saw that new wealth distributed evenly amongst workers, we wouldn't need to seize anything.  
Combine that with the fact that the US government creates new money all the time and most of that money goes to corporations and finds its way into the pockets of the uber rich.  I'd simply suggest that wealth goes to everyone.  There are a lot of democratic methods for achieving this like Universal basic income, education, healthcare, jobs, or housing.  None of those involve seizing assets from anyone.  

Evaluating the impact of QE1, which began in 2008, is nearly impossible.  At the time the Fed began rapidly expanding its balance sheet, a number of other events and policy changes were taking place. They included the banking bailout, the auto bailout, advent of zero interest rates, the stimulus package and an accounting change that allowed banks to hold assets on their books to maturity at cost rather than marking them to market. Had all of these taken place in the absence of QE1, how would the economy have performed?  Would it have recovered as it did?  At the time, it was anybody’s guess.

https://www.cmegroup.com/education/featured-reports/did-quantitative-easing-help-spur-growth.html
As you see, we print money to help the "economy" all the time.  I say we start printing money to help everyday people.  

Your graph shows wages rising when profits are falling (1970).
The profits can be reinvested in purchase and expansion of the company which can't show wage increases right away.

Socialists don't understand if workers take profits the company makes, they need to take losses as well.
Imagine working 8 hours a day, 25 days a month and then at the end of the month, you ow someone 2000$.
GG, socialists.
Not all companies make profit, and they never will. It's impossible.
Work exists because not all people are willing to engage in risk, they want to have a secure source of income so they can feed their families.

[Subbir]

Capitalism vs. Socialism this is often usually just a quick check out how the upper classes exploit and oppress the underprivileged. during this case, the rich get richer and therefore the poor get poorer. The rich people of society keep them as slaves and deprive them of all aspects. If socialism isn't possible without capitalism, then the capitalists keep society more corrupt.

[coins4commies]

So its clear that capitalism is better for a small minority, the top percentiles of the population. Its also clear that the group expands during times of economic prosperity.

What should be clear is that capitalist systems are ill-prepared for disaster and that socialism thrives at making things good for the people and times that would otherwise be worse off.  Public health is collectivized.  We are all connected.  If one of us gets sick, we all might get sick.  The natural world cannot be changed to fit into this artificial capitalist system.

Vietnam and Cuba are handling this crisis brilliantly while the US absolutely fails to scramble its mangled social systems.  Everyone knows the markets can't fix coronavirus.

China: Hoospitals built in days, hundreds of thousands tested

Vietnam: no deaths, rapid testing, free meal delivery for quarantined

Cuba: Antiviral developed days after first case

US/UK: Rich bolt off to doomsday bunkers