Socialism vs Capitalism Meme Review

[Hydrogen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkFZgZ5IjTU


Above is a link to one of the best socialism vs capitalism analysis & breakdown pieces I've had the pleasure of seeing.  ^

People have a tendency to approach topics like free markets from rigid textbook definitions. Which do not always parallel the way abstracts apply to real world application. The simplicity and intuitiveness of memes may offer a better framework for analysis. For the same reasons people far and wide across the internet prefer posting memes over dictionary terminology to make points.

With the recent economic crisis we are witnessing a resurgence in debate over which systems and formats are best suited to handle the challenging conditions we find ourselves in. And so here is my contribution to the cause.

[1714814362]

1714814362

[1714814362]

1714814362

[Tylev]

Regarding socialism, Nostradamus said in his quatrains that Russia will retreat from historical development by 74 years. That, in my opinion, says it all. Socialism has a lot of good, but in general it is the path of an unfulfilled utopianism. I lived under socialism and no longer want to return to it. In my opinion, society does not need political add-ons at all. Humanity should simply develop and make its life more convenient. We need to unite and develop other planets, and not constantly look for an excuse for war with each other.

[Averim]

Socialism works in China but not in other countries, capitalism works in USA but not necessarily in the ex Soviet countries, i have the strong belief that all what matters is the person to controls the democratic tools, if we talk about people open minded then everything will be fine, if not, then we just die in front of the hospital because we don't have medical insurance. Capitalism or socialism it goes down to the leaders.

[dothebeats]

To be fair, memes actually deliver quite a clearer and more concise message than textbooks nowadays. Maybe because anyone can relate to it and understand it without having to look at deeper context just because of the meme formats?

Anyway, Capitalism v Socialism is a long standing debate between which is better. Of course, proponents of either theory will brought forth examples of the system working in an ideal setup wherein everything goes according to what they think should happen. In real-world cases, these are just ideas belonging to books in libraries prized by scholars as they contain ideas that shaped the world to what it is now. There are always flaws to either system which the other one fulfills, so I guess there will never be a better system between the two--at least in ideologies and not real-world application as both proved to destroy society depending on who runs the gears.

It's a great video with lots of memes that gets you really thinking of which really is better in today's society. If I were to pick one, I'd say it's capitalism with some elements of equality--but that wouldn't happen with lots of 'capitalist pigs' and 'giant companies' nowadays.

[carter34]

Humanity should simply develop and make its life more convenient.

I pick this aspect of your post. Capitalism indeed encourages individual growth which helps the society. It allows an individual the opportunity to even help to support the country and people at large since it allows for business to striving far from what it can be with socialism.

[abhiseshakana]

Until now there has been no ideal economic system implemented that can combine the positive values of the two systems above. Because in reality, the ideology of capitalism and socialism takes many victims. Modernization, growth, efficiency, breed of capital, technology, etc., bring many victims because of social inequality, inequality, poverty, both because of monopolies, oligopolies, etc., to the effect of very tight political stability. On the contrary, in the ideology of socialism, the idea of class struggle revolution also brings many human victims. Promises of a bright future that will happen, paid with suffering, terror, and war.

Both socialist and capitalist aims to achieve material wealth both by means of a free market mechanism and by a centralized system of planning through the government. In the end, both systems will exploit existing natural resources to prove which of the two systems is most effective in generating profits. Both of them failed to create an even distribution of welfare.

Along with the growing Muslim population throughout the world. Islamic economists claim that the Islamic economic system is an economic system that can bring prosperity to all humans. The new ideology of capitalism and socialism applies at the level of the most basic purpose of human life, and not the true purpose of life. Fundamental goals keep changing so that humans will not be happy. In Islamic economics material is not a goal, but rather a tool/way to achieve the goal so that the benchmark for the success of the Islamic economic system is not more and more material or benefits gained. Rather it is the extent to which the material possessed has benefits to the running of the economy.

[davis196]

That was a funny video,however it would be nice to distinguish socialism from social democracy.Scandinavian countries and western European countries after WWII can be considered pretty leftist and social democratic,but they have created high living standard and high quality of life.On the other side are all the
"socialist" countries in the third world,which are mostly totalitarian regimes that failed miserably.
Social democracy was kinda successful,while the totalitarian "socialism",that was oriented towards creating a communist utopia was a big pile of s*it.
Social democracy is the  idea of combining socialism and capitalism.That's why it worked.

[DoublerHunter]

^ My idea is, socialism and capitalism may be different but they both promise equality but what is important right now is our idea of equality. Inequality, socialism where everything is ruled and owned by the government, all citizens are workers that are governed by their law while Capitalism somehow can not be equal to their citizens for people who have the option of building their own business and have the rule over his worker. Nevertheless, Capitalism promotes less equality but the sense of giving everyone the chance to grow is already equality underneath. The commodities are being owned and rule by one then the cost of living is in full control of one person while in capitalism where everyone can compete with other capitalists then there will be a big chance to pull down the cost of living in capitalism. Hence, for these two I prefer Capitalism but I didn't go against Socialism for both of them have only one goal and that is to provide equality to everyone.

[hugeblack]

-cut-

I tend to take a hybrid system and not be strict behind every specific one and try to make it the best compared to the rest of the systems, and unfortunately, many of these comparisons are specific to ideology.
Now some are trying to portray what happened with COVID-19 as a victory for socialism, especially with the increasing number of casualties in the United States, but each country has a specific model.

I will listen to the video later and give an evaluation.

[Darker45]

^ My idea is, socialism and capitalism may be different but they both promise equality but what is important right now is our idea of equality. Inequality, socialism where everything is ruled and owned by the government, all citizens are workers that are governed by their law while Capitalism somehow can not be equal to their citizens for people who have the option of building their own business and have the rule over his worker. Nevertheless, Capitalism promotes less equality but the sense of giving everyone the chance to grow is already equality underneath. The commodities are being owned and rule by one then the cost of living is in full control of one person while in capitalism where everyone can compete with other capitalists then there will be a big chance to pull down the cost of living in capitalism. Hence, for these two I prefer Capitalism but I didn't go against Socialism for both of them have only one goal and that is to provide equality to everyone.

And in that respect, both of them failed. Equality is in reality nowhere to be found both in a capitalist and a socialist society. We do not lack the numbers that prove to us that in a so-called free society, those who have the wealth will always rule over those who do not. And while some are saying that everyone is given equal opportunity at least, that is far from the truth. Where there is inequality of wealth, so there will be unequal opportunities. As regards socialism, it is not even worth expounding as it was never even applied in real life.

[abhiseshakana]

And in that respect, both of them failed. Equality is in reality nowhere to be found both in a capitalist and a socialist society. We do not lack the numbers that prove to us that in a so-called free society, those who have the wealth will always rule over those who do not. And while some are saying that everyone is given equal opportunity at least, that is far from the truth. Where there is inequality of wealth, so there will be unequal opportunities. As regards socialism, it is not even worth expounding as it was never even applied in real life.

Since economic reforms and openness in the Deng Xiaoping era, it seems that China has tried to make Chinese-style capitalism that is now realized with the existence of state capitalism. In-state capitalism, the state acts as the center of economic actors, where commercial economic activity is taken over by the state. One practice is to reform and revitalize state-owned enterprises, and provide large subsidies to SOEs and provide a large portion of economic activity, so as to be able to support the national economy.

America as a symbol of capitalism with its free-market seems to begin to recognize and begin to imitate the application of state capitalism. This can be seen clearly from Trump's incessant influence on the economy besides the great support for Barnie Sanders with his green new deal as well. China's amazing development made socialism begin to get support, even Francis Fukuyama, an author of the end of history, revised his writings that socialism will eventually return. Chinese state capitalism is a serious competitor to liberal democracy today. And many assume that state capitalism is the most plausible theory at the moment because this system can guarantee long-term stability and economic growth in a way that liberal democracy cannot.

[Hydrogen]

The two most polarizing topics here appear to be.

Socialism works in norway

Norway and other examples of socialism working trend towards being smaller nations with lower population densities. Norway for example has a population of around 5 million. By contrast the united states pop is closer to 300 million. There's a question of whether policies which work for smaller nations can be effective for larger ones. Rural and less densely populated regions typically have far lower crime and better health stats in comparison to big cities. The same precedent could apply to norway vs united states analysis.

Equality

Amazon, apple, google and many large tech corporations had humble beginnings as small businesses operated out of a garage on the budget of a college student. Its open to debate as to whether they're prime examples of equality. In terms of anyone having the freedom to start a similar business at the time those corporations were founded. Or whether they're instead symbols of oppression and privilege as is often claimed today by the media.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

People have a tendency to approach topics like free markets from rigid textbook definitions. Which do not always parallel the way abstracts apply to real world application.

I don't know if I agree with that assessment.  One of my favorite books is The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, which was basically a paean written to socialism--and that book is over 100 years old.  It certainly showed some of the pitfalls of a capitalist system where workers are at the mercy of not only their bosses but the owners of companies and all of the abuses that can (and did) take place. 

But that was in 1906.  Things have improved considerably for capitalism since then, whereas socialism/communism haven't exactly caught on around the world.  IMO there are far too many problems with a socialist structure, and I don't say that having just reviewed a textbook.  I say that having noticed how the world has been working for the past 35+ years of my life.

Having grown up in a capitalist society, I'll admit I'm biased.  I don't see anything inherently evil in socialism or communism, but when it's put into actual practice....oh boy, the abuses are legendary.

[bits4books]

I am against socialism at least for the reason that I do NOT like that my taxes that I pay from my salary (and not small taxes) are used for:
- treated homeless people
- paid pensions to old people
- saving drug addicts
- the stupidest laws on even bigger taxes were being promoted
- etc
Socialism in any of its manifestations brings up whole armies of social parasites (unemployment benefits, unconditional income, minimum wage, and other heresies). I am much more comfortable living in a place where all people work and get a decent pay for their work than in a place where 60% work and 40% get money just because they are single mothers/migrants/have been fired/elderly

[mu_enrico]

Along with the growing Muslim population throughout the world. Islamic economists claim that the Islamic economic system is an economic system that can bring prosperity to all humans. The new ideology of capitalism and socialism applies at the level of the most basic purpose of human life, and not the true purpose of life. Fundamental goals keep changing so that humans will not be happy. In Islamic economics material is not a goal, but rather a tool/way to achieve the goal so that the benchmark for the success of the Islamic economic system is not more and more material or benefits gained. Rather it is the extent to which the material possessed has benefits to the running of the economy.

Suuureeee, Islamic Economic System is the best! Oh wait, we don't have one.

In the absence of a fully functioning Islamic economic system such an evolutionary interaction could not take place to pave the way for a credible system of Islamic economic doctrines. After the end of the Golden Period of the first four Caliphs, even the basic precepts of Islam did not remain fully operational. It is, therefore, not surprising that, with the exception of Ibn Khaldun, Muslim scholars, who contributed so much to philosophy, science and mathematics, could not make a mark in the important area of Islamic economics. As a result, we do not have at present anything like Islamic economics in the sense of a body of mutually-consistent doctrines of sufficient generality, "simulating" a real Islamic society. It is best to accept this fact in the field of economics in the manner we have done --and very wisely so-- in politics. A direct implication of this open admission is that, at least for the present, we have to turn to something tried in the field of economics, making sure that it does not contradict the basic philosophy of Islam.

Source: Naqvi (1977) https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/20847050

Let's read more:

It may be useful at this point to make clear the 'method' we have employed in deducing the basic elements of an Islamic economic system. We have followed the "axiomatic" approach used in deductive logic: We first set out reasonable axioms which are assumed to hold in all circumstances. After their reasonableness is established they are not open to further question. The next step is then to work out the logical consequences of these axioms. We have adopted as our axioms: (i) Islam assigns central place to the individual in the universe, (also in the economic universe) (ii) However, this freedom entails "responsibility" which in turn implies ethical (and social) constraints on his "natural" freedom. Having accepted these axioms, we then deduce the "rules" or "principles" for a typical Islamic economy. This is the approach we have adopted in this article.

Source: same as above.

I think I read that somewhere:

Partially correct. A free market doesn't mean "absolute freedom" to pursue self-interest so that you can throw away morality to reap as many profits as you can. It is self-interest bounded by morality.

https://www.adamsmith.org/the-theory-of-moral-sentiments

[Darker45]

And in that respect, both of them failed. Equality is in reality nowhere to be found both in a capitalist and a socialist society. We do not lack the numbers that prove to us that in a so-called free society, those who have the wealth will always rule over those who do not. And while some are saying that everyone is given equal opportunity at least, that is far from the truth. Where there is inequality of wealth, so there will be unequal opportunities. As regards socialism, it is not even worth expounding as it was never even applied in real life.

Since economic reforms and openness in the Deng Xiaoping era, it seems that China has tried to make Chinese-style capitalism that is now realized with the existence of state capitalism. In-state capitalism, the state acts as the center of economic actors, where commercial economic activity is taken over by the state. One practice is to reform and revitalize state-owned enterprises, and provide large subsidies to SOEs and provide a large portion of economic activity, so as to be able to support the national economy.

Because, as I have said, the socialism that they have been preaching never actually accomplished anything. Socialism is good in theory but never in practice. It is either you stick to it stubbornly and constantly fail in real life or get out of it, or perhaps do a little tweaking to somehow preserve some crumbs of that ideology. And now we have all kinds of socialism.

As a matter of fact, one of the main highlights of Deng Xiaoping's era of openness is the opening of China's gates to foreign capitalists. China does not control these wealthy global investors, however. What it can control, and absolutely for that matter, are the lives of its people. 

America as a symbol of capitalism with its free-market seems to begin to recognize and begin to imitate the application of state capitalism. This can be seen clearly from Trump's incessant influence on the economy besides the great support for Barnie Sanders with his green new deal as well. China's amazing development made socialism begin to get support, even Francis Fukuyama, an author of the end of history, revised his writings that socialism will eventually return. Chinese state capitalism is a serious competitor to liberal democracy today. And many assume that state capitalism is the most plausible theory at the moment because this system can guarantee long-term stability and economic growth in a way that liberal democracy cannot.

The US is very far from imitating the application of state capitalism. I don't even believe they are interested in it. How can they even start doing it if they cannot even keep their people from staying at home in the face of a highly infectious virus? I mean, I simply cannot imagine the US telling the powerful billionaires in the country that their profit-driven economic activities will now be controlled by the state.

It is beyond imagination having Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and so on telling the US government "here, take control of my companies."

[Ucy]

Humanity should simply develop and make its life more convenient.

I pick this aspect of your post. Capitalism indeed encourages individual growth which helps the society. It allows an individual the opportunity to even help to support the country and people at large since it allows for business to striving far from what it can be with socialism.

I think there are good things to pick from these economic theories. The problem is being fanatical about them even when they appear not to work in certain situations.
By the way, I prefer any economic model that is based on doing what is really good and right. What ever you choose to create or do, if it's really good, (maybe with very little disadvantage) do it... if it's bad(with lots of disadvantages) , don't do it otherwise you get punished by the law especially if you are aware of the many consequences of your creations.

[Ozero]

Socialism was good in theory, but in practice this political system of society has failed. Now, in fact, in our world there are no longer classical socialist states, such as they were conceived by the founders of socialism - Marx, Engels and Lenin. Therefore, it is safe to say that socialism has collapsed. Socialism in theory proclaimed the equality of people and the so-called democratic centralism in the management of society. However, in practice, in the name of the people, socialism in almost all states destroyed a significant part of their own people because of the stupid political theory that the development of socialism aggravates the class struggle and therefore socialist society should regularly clean its ranks.
Those who invented socialist society proclaimed that all other political systems of society are capitalism. In my opinion, such a division of society is already outdated.

[Spaffin]

The fact is that Capitalism and Socialism in its pure form exists only in the scientific works of their creators.  In any case, in almost every country there are characteristic features of both socialism and capitalism.  Although it is safe to say that Socialism is practically fatal for the country, as it drives the development of the state into a dead end.  capitalism is also not without flaws, but nevertheless it is capitalism that creates opportunities for the development of the economies of countries and the well-being of people. One of the most important advantages of capitalism is the free stock market and the electronic banking system that allows every ordinary person to invest their savings with the help of investment and pension funds, thanks to which people make a profit and at the same time attract large amounts of money for expensive infrastructure and other projects in the state.  And it is important that any person can become a businessman under capitalism and work for himself.

[abhiseshakana]

The US is very far from imitating the application of state capitalism. I don't even believe they are interested in it.

Socialist ideas are increasingly popular in America. The popularity of Barnie Sanders is proof that the ideas of contextual socialism are beginning to be of particular interest to young people in America. Sanders' socialism is a moderate variant of social democracy with free health and education proposals, financed with a higher tax on the rich while maintaining the basic structure of capitalism

How can they even start doing it if they cannot even keep their people from staying at home in the face of a highly infectious virus?

Trump's policy related to political nationalism and economic protectionism as the foundation of a foreign political economy is a sign of the threat of a free market economy between countries which has been the main foundation of the world system since the end of the cold war. So the assumption is that economic growth can occur if supported by the state. Trump also strengthens and intervenes in security and law enforcement institutions to fight the opposition, causing blurring of boundaries between state interests and political interests. The condition of the strengthening of state intervention in the democratic system leads to socialism.

I mean, I simply cannot imagine the US telling the powerful billionaires in the country that their profit-driven economic activities will now be controlled by the state.

Stagnant economic growth, an increase in foreign debt, and a pandemic that brought economic disaster and disrupted the pace of economic growth bringing unemployment and prosperity into crucial issues in society, of course, the best solution is to glance at the other direction.

The ideals of socialism are simple but truly advanced and reasonable, that prosperity can be managed and shared, that shared happiness is possible, that we can realize true democracy on earth by regulating and controlling private capitalism, where most of the ownership remains in private hand. The aim is at least to protect, and best to advance the interests of the workers in their endless negotiations and struggles with capitalist employers.

Albert Einstein argued that capitalism as a system does not make sense and is really inefficient, which will always bring various social problems that come from contradictions in it. This contradiction arises when the productive forces which are collectively produced by all of us, the working people, are hampered because of social relations and hierarchical, exploitative, and therefore inefficient production relations.
https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/why-albert-einstein-was-a-socialist