How Capitalism defeated socialism?

[ariinv]

The verdict is in, and contrary to what socialists say, capitalism, with all its warts, is the preferred economic system to bring the masses out of poverty and to make them productive citizens in our country and in countries around the world. Remember this: Capitalism rewards merit, socialism rewards mediocrity. I mean, socialism talking about equality but it is just a beautiful lie , and capitalism is an ugly truth !

[1715532143]

1715532143

[1715532143]

1715532143

[1715532143]

1715532143

[1715532143]

1715532143

[jackg]

A lot of historians refer to capitalism producing poverty by enforcing things like hard land ownership and inheritible assets (for European law).

If we got capitalism with strong resets and some level of equality, there'd be less of an argument against it - but that could be closer to socialism.

[DrBeer]

The verdict is in, and contrary to what socialists say, capitalism, with all its warts, is the preferred economic system to bring the masses out of poverty and to make them productive citizens in our country and in countries around the world. Remember this: Capitalism rewards merit, socialism rewards mediocrity. I mean, socialism talking about equality but it is just a beautiful lie , and capitalism is an ugly truth !

The key problem is that the USSR and its henchmen perverted the essence of socialism, and "slipped" shit on the population instead of a croissant. Instead of equality - a "guaranteed" stable low standard of living, instead of legality - a set of restrictions, instead of prospects - a dull existence. And all this was called "socialism", although it is communist-Nazism-totalitarianism with an admixture of red terror and anti-human concepts, under the beautiful words of propaganda. So capitalism did not defeat socialism. Capitalism, as a more pragmatic trend, took and in some countries combined these two concepts!

[Hydrogen]

In the year 2022, it seems many believe a person who works very hard and makes good financial decisions.

Should enjoy the same level of success as someone who doesn't work and makes poor financial decisions.

This appears to be the definition of "equality" most believe in.

They believe Elon Musk should enjoy the same degree of wealth and success as a homeless drug addict living on the streets. And that people should not be rewarded for working harder, making better decisions and taking bigger risks.

I don't understand how that is supposed to work in the real world but people can think whatever they like

[Kakmakr]

I am not a Socialists ...and I will probably never be one, but I can tell you one thing.... Capitalism is not perfect in any way. Take this example for instance... In some Capitalist countries you will find that the Mega farmers will start to buy out the smaller farms and they will totally dominate the whole agriculture scene or parts of it. (They will then use that power as leverage to manipulate food prices)

The gap between the Super Rich and the poor are widening and the Middle Class are being wiped out. Now you have the situation where millions of people are living in absolute poverty and a few individuals own most of the land and wealth of the country. How can this be better than a more equal distribution of wealth?

Yes I know Super Rich people are creating jobs and they pay most of the taxes, but monopolies and total domination of certain industries are bad for a country. (Price manipulation and no competition create opportunities for misuse and over pricing) 

[kaseygriffin]

The verdict is in, and contrary to what socialists say, capitalism, with all its warts, is the preferred economic system to bring the masses out of poverty and to make them productive citizens in our country and in countries around the world. Remember this: Capitalism rewards merit, socialism rewards mediocrity. I mean, socialism talking about equality but it is just a beautiful lie , and capitalism is an ugly truth !

I think seeing and placing the position of each thought in each period has its good and bad points, so don't look at and evaluate the problem only in one direction. The reality of today's competitive division is not a new thing. Through the ages, society has still functioned from infancy to prosperity and then collapse. I live in a socialist country, and I am aware of the shortcomings of the current operating system, but when I look at other countries, I am proud and grateful to them for bringing a life like the present.

[so98nn]

Worlds definitely not socialist anymore. I think it’s more or less economic loving space but with more individual approach. If we start with the bottom aspects then today me or you our friends everyone would always try to focus on the incomes and how much money they have in the bank accounts. Same goes for a trader, broker, big institute and corporations. Everyone is trying to achieve that stability. That’s more capitalistic approach for sure.
I also believe it’s nothing wrong. The Deens you is only for the sake of presence of humanity. That’s all.

[Poker Player]

The verdict is in, and contrary to what socialists say, capitalism, with all its warts, is the preferred economic system to bring the masses out of poverty and to make them productive citizens in our country and in countries around the world. Remember this: Capitalism rewards merit, socialism rewards mediocrity. I mean, socialism talking about equality but it is just a beautiful lie , and capitalism is an ugly truth !

It hasn't. In most countries of the world, the State plays an important role due to the weight of the public sector. Obviously, Hong Kong is not the same as France, but if we look at the larger countries we see that they are far from being purely capitalist. The EU is quite social democratic, with nuances depending on the country, but it cannot be called purely capitalist by far. China, Russia, let us forget. USA with Biden and Canada with Trudeau are more socialist and less capitalist than before, etc.

If we got capitalism with strong resets and some level of equality, there'd be less of an argument against it - but that could be closer to socialism.

If we were to do a reset and distribute the wealth absolutely equally, it would not be long before there would be rich and poor again, so we would continue with the same song that the rich have privileges and unfair advantages and that it is necessary to distribute.

[cabron]

Socialism is somehow mixed with communism which we all know where it goes. I don't see China to be a land  of free but people there seem to be free though. Heck some people are even cooking meth, it just a matter of when they are going to get caught. And we see lots of Chinese already own big companies as much as we see Us citizen owns big companies particularly tech companies.

So I don't see any difference in Capitalism but at least in China people know what and who they need to avoid getting tangled with. You don't wanna mess up with Communist party.

[Furious 7]

When we talk about ideology like this of course there are positive sides and there are also negative sides.
You say as if Capitalism is very good but there are also many problems there such as about Freedom which in my opinion is very worthy to be questioned because indeed in the capitalist system we are all free to do as much capital as possible to develop their power even though it is quite fair because it belongs to us but when we coexistence is certainly very opposite.

In addition, Capitalism also creates social inequality and high individualism because indeed those with this sect think they are capable of doing it themselves, even though this is quite wrong because when talking about humans, they always have limitations and this is very reasonable because the system is from the capitalist system indirectly. makes us seem to continue to have the principle of collecting as much wealth as possible without caring about others.

[paxmao]

The verdict is in, and contrary to what socialists say, capitalism, with all its warts, is the preferred economic system to bring the masses out of poverty and to make them productive citizens in our country and in countries around the world. Remember this: Capitalism rewards merit, socialism rewards mediocrity. I mean, socialism talking about equality but it is just a beautiful lie , and capitalism is an ugly truth !

Yet there are 60 million of poor people in US, around 45 if you choose a lower poverty line. Even Mexico has lower gap. This is not something you see in the news, nevertheless it is true.

There is a middle way, it does not have to be capitalism or socialism in the radical sense. Society has to reward merit, provide opportunities for all and care for those who honestly cannot care for themselves.

[TheNineClub]

The verdict is in, and contrary to what socialists say, capitalism, with all its warts, is the preferred economic system to bring the masses out of poverty and to make them productive citizens in our country and in countries around the world. Remember this: Capitalism rewards merit, socialism rewards mediocrity. I mean, socialism talking about equality but it is just a beautiful lie , and capitalism is an ugly truth !

Capitalism rewards merit? Ok, then tell me about numerous single mothers working two jobs in US who can't afford basic healthy food and a decent living for their kids. Tell me about Amazon workers having to pee in a bottle to keep up with a mandated schedule. Delivery men in South Korea who can't keep up with unrealistic delivery mandates. People living in RWs on the west coast of the US because they, even with a job, can't afford housing. Are they just not good enough and don't deserve adequate compensation (merit)? Why aren't they being brought up from poverty like you said? By that logic, their bosses definitely do more quality work, better work, and are therefore rewarded much more? Right? Bezos works 30 hours a day and risks more so he needs far more compensation, unlike his lazy workers?

So what I am getting at is, that you are against equality? Bold statement, what a nice life it must be.

[DrBeer]

Socialism is somehow mixed with communism which we all know where it goes. I don't see China to be a land  of free but people there seem to be free though. Heck some people are even cooking meth, it just a matter of when they are going to get caught. And we see lots of Chinese already own big companies as much as we see Us citizen owns big companies particularly tech companies.

So I don't see any difference in Capitalism but at least in China people know what and who they need to avoid getting tangled with. You don't wanna mess up with Communist party.

Socialism has nothing to do with communism. These are two diametrically opposed regimes. The idea of ​​socialism is a model of the economic development of the state, in which the production and distribution of resources is controlled directly by society or the government. In other words, we can say this: socialism is an option in which all people work and contribute to the common cause, after which the benefits obtained are distributed among all citizens. It goes without saying that those whose work is more complex and significant will receive more benefits, but this should not cause a class imbalance in economic terms.

Communism is a utopian philosophical idea about the ideal economic and social arrangement of a state where equality and justice flourish. In practice, this idea turned out to be unviable and unrealizable due to many reasons. At the same time, all attempts at implementation were based on the Leninist theory and practice of "red terror" or "terror of the proletariat", which involved the destruction of both groups and entire classes of the population, in order to achieve one goal or another.

Communism is always trying to disguise itself as something else, posing as a "philanthropic regime" although in fact it is the bloodiest, most inhuman regime. And that is why it seems to you that communism and socialism have something in common - looking at the historical examples of the USSR, Cuba, etc.

[fiulpro]

The verdict is in, and contrary to what socialists say, capitalism, with all its warts, is the preferred economic system to bring the masses out of poverty and to make them productive citizens in our country and in countries around the world. Remember this: Capitalism rewards merit, socialism rewards mediocrity. I mean, socialism talking about equality but it is just a beautiful lie , and capitalism is an ugly truth !

There was a political cartoon in our civics book when we were small, a one we did not understand a lot but it stated how : rich gets richer and how poors get poorer and that's how the whole system works especially in countries which are filled with not only corruption but also disparities between the masses where education is the only thing that can get you onboard on the race but to win you would have to work 1000 times as hard.

I think cryptocurrencies can bridge this gap to an extent, some of them are proving to be an amazing trading opportunity for most people and some people became millionaires investing some money in certain Altcoins as well.

At the same time it's important to have education as a tool to encompass the monotonous routine as well.

[teosanru]

The verdict is in, and contrary to what socialists say, capitalism, with all its warts, is the preferred economic system to bring the masses out of poverty and to make them productive citizens in our country and in countries around the world. Remember this: Capitalism rewards merit, socialism rewards mediocrity. I mean, socialism talking about equality but it is just a beautiful lie , and capitalism is an ugly truth !

I think capitalism is obviously the only way to prosper because capitalism thinking actually matches with the inner instinct of every human. Capitalism was once considered a problem and the reason for that was everyone wasn't given an equal opportunity to mint their way in capitalism, if you are born as a slave you'll be a slave and a son of rich capitalist will always be richer, but sooner with every person trying to make their own fortune these definitions have changed, infact capitalists now themselves make sure to do enough charity in society, it's just about giving equal opportunities, we need government or socialist intervention to give everyone equal opportunities and over that it's your merit, you can't just distribute everything equally.

[Gyfts]

The verdict is in, and contrary to what socialists say, capitalism, with all its warts, is the preferred economic system to bring the masses out of poverty and to make them productive citizens in our country and in countries around the world. Remember this: Capitalism rewards merit, socialism rewards mediocrity. I mean, socialism talking about equality but it is just a beautiful lie , and capitalism is an ugly truth !

Yet there are 60 million of poor people in US, around 45 if you choose a lower poverty line. Even Mexico has lower gap. This is not something you see in the news, nevertheless it is true.

There is a middle way, it does not have to be capitalism or socialism in the radical sense. Society has to reward merit, provide opportunities for all and care for those who honestly cannot care for themselves.

How many of those 60 million are victims of capitalism, or victims from their own personal decision making? There isn't a perfect economic system that's ever created 100% prosperity. There never will be. There has to be "losers" in every economy within a particular moment. That's not to say someone from the lower class can't build themselves up to a higher economic level over time -- in fact that's what the tradition normally is as time goes on, wealth increases. Capitalism is the simplest system to help propel someone from a lower class into a higher class, just requires time.

[kaya11]

I am not a Socialists ...and I will probably never be one, but I can tell you one thing.... Capitalism is not perfect in any way. Take this example for instance... In some Capitalist countries you will find that the Mega farmers will start to buy out the smaller farms and they will totally dominate the whole agriculture scene or parts of it. (They will then use that power as leverage to manipulate food prices)

The gap between the Super Rich and the poor are widening and the Middle Class are being wiped out. Now you have the situation where millions of people are living in absolute poverty and a few individuals own most of the land and wealth of the country. How can this be better than a more equal distribution of wealth?

Yes I know Super Rich people are creating jobs and they pay most of the taxes, but monopolies and total domination of certain industries are bad for a country. (Price manipulation and no competition create opportunities for misuse and over pricing) 

The roots of evil is in the government officials, if they don't do something about monopoly then it is a burden to the people of their country. Look what is happening back then in our country. My example is the internet Service Providers, there are only two and these companies makes it harder than ever merging together, limiting services. The leaders of the countries should be wise, like what the recent one did (president), he open an opportunity to other big Telcos to enter and invest in the country, and it did not stop there. The new Telcos could not be merge by other existing ones, it is a brilliant idea forcing these guys to compete for real. So if the government officials are somehow taking bribes from the evil ones, the mass will suffer and it could also lead to the country's fall.

Capitalism isn't perfect but it gives you freedom, it depends on the people, their evil desires puts them in that(being greedy) situation. I'd rather be in a capitalist side than in a socialism one, just look at how their country runs, and see if want to live in there with equality they are telling you about. There are bad sides on both, and there are good ones too, in the end it relies on the people who holds the power to decide for the best. If there is goodness in ones rulers heart, his subjects should be living in harmony, see how countries with good leaders do. They are somehow in one body, if one parts hurts the others feel it too, we just need to be good humans that is all.

[Silberman]

In the year 2022, it seems many believe a person who works very hard and makes good financial decisions.

Should enjoy the same level of success as someone who doesn't work and makes poor financial decisions.

This appears to be the definition of "equality" most believe in.

They believe Elon Musk should enjoy the same degree of wealth and success as a homeless drug addict living on the streets. And that people should not be rewarded for working harder, making better decisions and taking bigger risks.

I don't understand how that is supposed to work in the real world but people can think whatever they like

That is a tendency that bothers me as well, I mean I understand that we should be equal in front of the law and we should strive to get as many opportunities to grow to the majority of the population, however to try to strive into an equality of outcome regardless of the decisions that we take with our lives is a mistake, those that take better decisions need to be rewarded, and under a society with no restrictions the rewards come by themselves, because even if you are not Elon in terms of your potential taking the right decisions will bring you a happier, healthier and wealthier life than if you took the incorrect choices, but for some this is somehow something that needs to be corrected.

[Cnut237]

we should strive to get as many opportunities to grow to the majority of the population, however to try to strive into an equality of outcome regardless of the decisions that we take with our lives is a mistake, those that take better decisions need to be rewarded, and under a society with no restrictions the rewards come by themselves, because even if you are not Elon in terms of your potential taking the right decisions will bring you a happier, healthier and wealthier life than if you took the incorrect choices, but for some this is somehow something that needs to be corrected.

Enforced equality of outcome is certainly a terrible idea, as it disincentivises everything. But equality of opportunity is an ideal that we should strive for, and one which unfettered capitalism actively works against. Many people have effectively zero chance of becoming wealthy or even owning their own home, due to the inequalities of opportunity within the system.

In the year 2022, it seems many believe a person who works very hard and makes good financial decisions. Should enjoy the same level of success as someone who doesn't work and makes poor financial decisions. This appears to be the definition of "equality" most believe in. They believe Elon Musk should enjoy the same degree of wealth and success as a homeless drug addict living on the streets. And that people should not be rewarded for working harder, making better decisions and taking bigger risks.

I've never met anyone who thinks this way. Does anyone at all really believe that talented, driven, innovative entrepreneurs such as Musk should have the same outcome as someone who never even tries? I think you'd struggle to find a single person who believes that. But we also need to consider your homeless drug addict, why is he homeless? Is his situation entirely his fault? Is he more likely to have been born the son of a billionaire, or the son of someone struggling to survive at the lower end of society? Might this affect the opportunities he has in life?

Democratic capitalism is the best system we have, because it involves greater accountability for the people at the top. Unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism would lead to monopolies and cartels and unbridled exploitation of almost everyone, and be little better than the most autocratic communist regime. Democratic capitalism works better than anything else because the government acts to rein in the wildest excesses of corporations. The biggest issue is that governments nowadays have drifted too far to the right, and are becoming more like enablers of these excesses, and not working for the benefit of the people they represent. Equality of outcome is a bad idea, but also inequality of outcome is only fine up until the point that it impinges on people's equality of opportunity. Many of the ultra-rich realise this, and are actively campaigning to pay more taxes.

The issue with people saying "the rich deserve to be rich", is that really big numbers just don't make sense to the human brain. I'd agree that it's fine for the rich to be rich, but not as rich as they are. For some more context, have a look at this thread, but in particular the link below. It's a visualisation that I've shared many times over the last couple of years. I challenge anyone to scroll all the way through that visual, and then come back here and argue that Musk/Bezos etc really should be as rich as they are.

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

[bocyaj]

The individual interest is the thing had changed the socialist to capitalism.Capitalism had created the huge people to earn less and individual to earn more.The individual again start to earn more.At the last equality will be fly.The main thing of the Socialist economy is,government will treat all the people equal and give food to all.If they are contributing the government or not.