Okey dokey, so this all got started when I was arguing with a fairly leftish friend of mine and I said that I believe that Capitalism is, in fact, more egalitarian and fair than communism or socialism. I think I just heard the socialists' reading this hearts stop...Anyway, I'll try proving my point later, but here goes...

Do you agree with my premise that Capitalism is actually more fair and egalitarian than socialism and communism. Why, or, most likely, why not?

Do you believe that communism or socialism is a reasonable and/or better alternative to capitalism in the United States, why, or less likely , why not?

CP

The best transactions are those when two people voluntarily have a transaction because both of them, by their own standards, are better off by doing so. Capitalism supports this free will, personal decision.

Treating people as individuals with their own personal beliefs and values is more fair than a socialist system where individuality is lost and people are treated as a herd. Herds are good for cattle, bad for people.

That's kind of a silly question. Capitalism in the sense of liberty and uncoerced transactions is great. But there's also the "Robber Baron" incarnation which resulted in gross income disparity and exploitation.

The same is true for Socialism. In the J.S. Mill understanding of a socialism I would argue that "fair" is the critical element, whereas in the Cuban model, well, there are problems. How can anyone come up with a substantive answer to this question? I'll take a stab at it.

Capitalism is more fair than a biggest-footsize-ocracy.

It is not possible for it to be. As Communism is total equality. Monetarian distrubution does not exist in Communism (no money). Everyone gets equal share (or equal of what they are in need of).

Fair does not exist here. You work for everyone else, everyone is worth equal. The question is a sorta contradiction.



I do not think it would work in United States. The American People are to self-centered. After a couple of generations of information (propaganda), they could eventually think that they should treat everyone the same, and then, it could work. But in the contemporary society, no, not possible.

Small share of Socialism could work, and is slowy getting into the American System. Lets just hope it continues.

Ah, but that's my point. People are "equal" under communism in the sense that they money is redistributed equally. But it isn't fair in the sense that it allows less productive members of society to ramble on and takes the rich members of society [who are fairly productive] down a siginificant amount of notches. That may be "eqality" but it certainly isn't fair or egalitarian.

CP

Do you agree with my premise that Capitalism is actually more fair and egalitarian than socialism and communism. Why, or, most likely, why not?
While neither system currently exists in it's purest form, and both systems have their inherent flaws......I would choose life under capitalism over communism in a New York minute. Socialism has already crept into our society and market no matter what the most red blooded American believes.
Many would say that the military system that I live with is one of socialism, and to an extent I would agree, but I would also contend that military are held to a far more rigorous standard to warrant those benefits.

Ultimately it's a no brainer that under communism, achievers get punished over slackers..........and under capitalism, some are unable to break the cycle of poverty.

But I will always choose the system that will tend to reward hard work and achievement over one that states it provides equality for all. And why? Human nature. Human's are susceptible to greed and no amount of evolution will change that. You name an economic or political system, and someone in power will cheat the system and others to get more than he deserves under the system that he serves.


Then what went wrong in the failed experiments of the Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, Albania, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Laos, North Korea, Mongolia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Mozambique, Benin, Somalia, Angola, The Congo, and China?
Were they too self centered too? If communism or pure socialism really worked and was the end all be all of socio-economic systems, then the entire globe would likely be red on a political map.

Do you agree with my premise that Capitalism is actually more fair and egalitarian than socialism and communism. Why, or, most likely, why not?

It depends on what you consider fair. Capitalism grants you the freedom to do as you will with your profits, but in order for you to get rich, some one else has to get poor.

Its impossible to have a capitalist system without a whole lot of people getting screwed.

Communism doesn't work, because it doesn't cater to human greed. The same type of people who destroy both systems. Eventually capitalism will fail just as communism did. The only reason why the communists failed in the Soviet Union is because Russia was not able to compete with the USA. Had the tables been turned and the industrially strong USA had become communist instead of Russia, which was basically a land of peasants when Lenin started his revolution, I don't doubt that we'd all be 'communists' today.

A fair system is one that balances all political perspectives and takes all people's needs into account. European style social democracy is the nearest thing I have seen to that.


Do you believe that communism or socialism is a reasonable and/or better alternative to capitalism in the United States, why, or less likely , why not?

They are much the same in that they are extreme ends of either ideology. Greed versus intolerance. Ultimately whats the difference?


editted to add:

In a word: Culture.

Each culture has its own way of interpreting the way the world works. This is why Africa for example, largely remains a toilet, despite having all the benefits of western education, learning and science at the finger tips.

Culture is what seperates the people of the planet, not nations or race. The Chinese have their idea of how to be communist and its very different from the Soviet idea. What works in one culture fails in another.

I'm not entirely adverse to the concept of socialism (though I do believe well-regulated capitalism is the better option) but I think this is more than a little incorrect.

The fact is the rich do not become so by making others poor. Buying a can of Coke doesn't make a person poor. A billion people dropping two quarters for a bit of sugar water make the heads of Coca-cola fabulously wealthy.

It's a numbers game.

The fact is everyone can "win" in capitalism provided the free market isn't totally free. 7-up can't start lacing their drinks with lithium again, it's a psychoactive drug and distorts the free choice the market is supposed to engender.

Loan sharks cannot charge 200% interest rates, most people aren't accountants and the risks of defaults are too great.

America along with other nations have never embraced "pure" capitalism anymore than pure communism.

Both are disasters waiting to happen. I don't see how either is better than the other.

turnea.

Can you name any capitalist countries, apart from social democracies, where people aren't getting screwed?

I can't name any country where people aren't getting screwed, including social democracies. Just this month dozens of poor immigrants died in slum fires in France.

I don't believe it is by necessity of the economic system, but by poor policy on the national scale and poor choices on the personal scale.

Fair enough. But since the nations listed comprise the major continents except for Australia and Anarctica, does this mean that no culture can grasp or accept pure socialism? If you say yes, then I agree with you. My point was directed to EricStanze when he stated that Americans are too self centered to be socialist, and implying that socialist/communist nations treat everyone the same.......

Do you believe that communism or socialism is a reasonable and/or better alternative to capitalism in the United States, why, or less likely, why not?

I think the premise your question is wrong. The real division is between democratic capitalism and democratic socialism on the one hand and totalitarian fascism and totalitarian communism on the other.

A good book on this subject is Alan Eberstein’s , Today's Isms: Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism, Communism, and Libertarianism (11th Edition). It is an old book that’s now in its 11 edition. A chapter on libertarianism has been added to recent editions.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

In reality we have a mixed system. Some things like buying a new pair of shoes or a new bath mat have traditionally been done in the capitalistic or private sector. Other items like postal service and public schools have traditionally been socialized.

I know that there are some who want to privatize everything. I think that’s a mistake. The City of Fort Worth used to do its own trash collection. Although the city still does the billing, they have contracted with a private firm, Waste Management, that does the actual collection. The semi-privatization is neither good or bad. Collection times are still irregular, pick-ups are missed, containers are left upside down in the middle of the street and containers are often not completely emptied—just like when the city did it.

Wowzers. That another swing and a miss. Culture has its influence but frankly economic systems work pretty much the same in any culture.

Culture has precious little to do with economics on the large scale, scarce resources still need allocating whether you're in Nairobi or Milan.

The real reason for failed systems in Africa or the Middle East are a combination of the political ramifications of colonization and the Cold War and geographical concerns.

That's why the UAE can thrive while the Palestinians have to scrape to get by. Same culture... different place.

The Chinese Confucian culture for example is often touted as the best fit with communism but the Chinese on Taiwan are capitalist to the core.

Look at North and South Korea.

Culture is a red herring in economics.

I'm surprised by this comment moif. Do you feel "screwed" every time you spend a dollar on something you choose to buy? The beauty of honest capitalist transactions is that both parties win. Everytime I impart myself with a dollar it is because the item being purchased had greater value to me than the cash. To the vendor, the dollar had greater value than good or service. Both parties won, nobody got screwed. People get screwed if the buyer or seller is dishonest about the transaction. Government should enforce the honesty of the transaction, not dictate the terms.

Do you agree with my premise that Capitalism is actually more fair and egalitarian than socialism and communism. Why, or, most likely, why not?

I've had this same thought myself. Yes there exist poor and rich people in capitalist societies, but these populations are small demographics compared to the middle class which represent the vast majority of the population. Capitalism does more good for more people than any other economic system.

I pretty much agree but would add some nuance. Allow me to sketch a short history. Communism failed because of its rejection of democratic decision making and because of its initial rejection of markets to distribute goods and services. Western Capitalism also failed to deliver equitable distribution and suffered from periodic business depressions culminating in the great depression. In the US, a more mixed and equitable system began to take shape under the New Deal and FDR. WWII ended any additional movement in that direction. The "Middle Way" was pursued in Sweden and later in other Western European nations. (These remain as reasonable models.) A mixed system survived in the US until the power that goes with the concentration of great wealth allowed the Right to mount a counter revolution under Reagan which we see culminating in the GWB years. We now live in a society where those with great wealth or corporate power control most decisions and most of the decisions made are designed to increase that wealth and power.

I remain convinced of the superiority of a democratic socialist state that controls major investment decisions, uses efficient transparent markets to distribute goods and services, and allows for private property and small business activity. However, I don't look for one soon because even countries like Sweden have had to bend to the capitalist power of America and modify their approach. Only as a result of the pending economic crisis brought on by oil scarcity, huge double deficits, and environmental collapse, will such a system have a chance in the US. On the other hand, we are just as likely to turn farther toward a militarist fascist state.

The other thing I would point out is that capitalism is entirely dependent upon growth. So far this means more and more resources are consumed and more and more pollution and GH gases are released (world wide). If resource depletion and the collapse of natural systems force the human race to live at current or declining production levels, how will capitalism cope with the equity question? That much maligned Cuba has managed to cope pretty effectively and equitably in a scarcity environment that itself owes much to the US boycott.

Well, Eric has a point in as much as America is a nation whose culture promotes greed so socialism has failed to take a hold there, at least in the way it has in Europe...

With regards to your question, I'd say that since only a few culture's have shown to be geared towards socialism in any true form, and that even in these cultures (Scandinavia for example) socialism is balanced by capitalism, then I find it highly unlikely that nations and cultures that deviate widely from the original cultures that fostered socialism would be able to adopt it successfully. A lot have tried and failed miserably.

In Africa for example there have been great many nations that called themselves socialist, or social democracies, but all those I am aware of failed and became oppressive tyranny's wracked by poverty.


If that were true then we would have seen more successful nations in the third world. The lesson of history shows clearly that socialism has only worked in those nations whose culture produced it. Socialism is a northern European concept and thus it works best in Northern Europe.

African, middle eastern and Asian nations have their own cultural perspectives and would be far better served creating tailor made systems instead of adopting concepts alien to their people's mind set.

I could agree with you if this was simply a matter of economic systems as numbers, but it isn't and the world clearly demonstrates that European idea's of society and how to run a society imply don't translate into African or Asian culture.


True, but this has nothing to do with socialism Vs capitalism Vs some other home grown system.


Sorry but I disagree entirely.

A culture is not a recipe for success or disaster and all cultures have the potential for success or failure. Simply being an Arab doesn't mean anything in this regard.

My point is that no Arab, Africa, Asian or South American nation can succeed on the international level as long as they are following a political social ideology created by another culture.

If you take a look at UAE or Saudi Arabia, they are rich and wealthy nations, but it has nothing to do with being socialist, or capitalist. These examples are out of the equation because they have been blessed by their geographical location and not because of which political ideology they chose.

If you took away Saudi Arabia's oil in a hypothetical mind game, would they be successful? Would socialism or capitalism bring them success? I don't think so. I don't even think socialism or capitalism are what made the European (and later America) nations powerful either.

America and Europe are rich, successful and powerful because of their cultural similarities. Ultimately it doesn't even matter which political system you choose to use. What matters is the character of the culture. The history of Europe, and increasingly the history of America, shows nations that are unscrupulous in their pursuit of their advantages.

We exploit the rest of the world.
We use the most resources.
We sell the most weapons.
We divide and conquer.
This is the Euro/American culture.

There is not one part of this planet which is not affected by the industrial needs and commercial influence of the western democracies.


I think you've got it backwards my friend.

Culture is everything. It can accommodate and adapt and pervert anything. It doesn't matter which political system your using (as your examples show) its the culture that survives.

Russians today are just as Russian as they were before the Soviets took over. Communism made no impact at all on Russia's culture.

An American communist is just as American as any other American. S/he thinks and acts in a typically American way and no matter how deeply entrenched his or her ideology is, they will always remain American.

It is my belief that Africa is screwed for as long as Africa tries to copy the west. Nothing will change. In Africa they have a saying: Once we owned the land, and the white man came with his bible. Now, the white man owns the land, and we have the bible.

Its exactly the same with socialism, capitalism, catholicism and all the many other ism's we in the west have given birth to. Other cultures need to create their own ideologies before they can succeed.


editted to add:

Do I feel screwed? No of course not 'cause I'm the one spending the money. Its the people in the third world who made the thing I'm buying that are getting screwed.

This is a often used argument. Yet there are many examples that dispute this theory...like how do you explain Asia's success? Was she not also colonized? And was she not also important in the cold war?

Moif other cultures outside western ones have created their own systems. Just because one group of people have a good idea it does not mean they alone own it. In some regards things transcend culture and borders and become part of humanity as a whole. This is akin to claiming that the car is only going to be useful to Westerners since we invented it...and any other culture that tries to adapt the car to their nations needs will fail.

Also the Middle East does have a few of their own creations like that whole islamic state thing they got going on in Iran and KSA etc. ...do you believe they will find success with these systems? I don't personally.

Edited to add so I at least have some contribution to the debate topic..

I think my thoughts on this are based in my belief of the isms.. pluralism and globalism. I think once our cultures mix like a oil puddle we will all be one happy little rainbow of people

Do you agree with my premise that Capitalism is actually more fair and egalitarian than socialism and communism. Why, or, most likely, why not?

That depends on what form and implementation of communism you are speaking of. For that matter, it also depends on what form and implementation of capitalism you are talking about. I don't think anything is more fair and egalitarian than Communism in its original Marxist form. The thing is thats a utopian ideology, and the industrial countries Marx thought a communist revolution could happen, never had one. The revolution happened first in Russia, a country lacking all the vestiges of industry that hundreds of years of capitalism was supposed to provide. So, Stalin had to implement his cruel and barbaric 'five year plans' to get the country industrializing, and to build-up the military he'd knew he'd need to check Hitler. China had a similar problem, and a similar set of five year plans and cultural revolution. All across the board, Communism has been implemented in these incredibly poor, backwards places, and has failed. Capitalism is supposed to created the mechanisms for wealth, communism the mechanisms for eternal equality.

As for Capitalism, it too is, in practice, an ugly, ugly system. We don't see this. An example, thousands miners and nearby-villagers in the Congo are dying from complications due to radioactivity; because that is where Cobalt and Copper, elements used by the booming cell phone industry, is recklessly being mined without regard to the Congolese. The neither represent a substantial market, or an unexpendable work force, therefore they are overlooked. This happens all the time from Triangle Shirt Waist Fire to today.

Do you believe that communism or socialism is a reasonable and/or better alternative to capitalism in the United States, why, or less likely , why not?

I think that communism has been vilified by those that practice it. (I'd say the same about Capitalism.) If we had not been through that period of demonization, starting when the Bolshevik revolution took the russians out of WWI just when we were entering it, up until about 1947 when our international relationships hardened into a full-on cold war, I'd say it might not be so antithetical to American views. After all, many of the same people Marx thought were on the verge of revolt ended up immigrating right into Manhattan.




Who told you that, Ronald Reagan? In a world with only limited capital and resource, there are two ways to 'get rich:' Create wealth, or benefit from its reallocation. Most often, we do a little of both. Coke's a bad example, anyway, its neither a necessity nor expensive. But what about Healthcare? Think of how expensive AIDS medication is, and how that could make someone go poor. A 'billion' people paying for overpriced AIDS medication could very quickly make the heads of a drug company fabulously wealthy- right off the backs of others.

So I would say that Capitalism has equal capacity for terrible corruption and human misery as its cold-war counterpart. Regardless of whether or not Capitalism's potential to cause widespread suffering has been realized to the extent that Communism's has, I would like to cast my vote for neither. I'd rather live in the woods with hippies and reggae music.

hmmm... I don't agree with that at all. A Car is an object. Any one individual can use it any way they please.

I'm talking about national political systems. Ideologies that effect every one from the top down and are beyond the control of individuals. I don't see how this can be compared to an automobile.


Me neither.

I'm not saying that a political system is guaranteed to succeed just because its home grown either. There were plenty of failed ideology's here in Europe before social democracy took root, and maybe even that system will eventually fail as well.

My point is, the culture will survive regardless. Europe will not collapse even it if social democracy fails. We will simply replace it with another system, as is happening in Eastern Europe.

Africans are failing because they don't have a culture that can compete with the rest of the world. By and large I think they are trapped in cultural systems that were stunted long before any Europeans arrived in Africa. It was their cultural systems that allowed them to be so easily exploited in the first place. Back in the day they were happily selling each other to Europeans as slaves. Now, whilst they may not be enslaving each other, they, on the whole, still trapped in cultures which promote short term personal solutions and not long term national ones.

If you look at any images of starving Africans today you'll see a LOT of children. That has nothing to do with what turnea calls the 'political ramifications of colonization and the Cold War and geographical concerns' and everything to do with their culture. No one outside Somalia decides how many children a starving Somali family has but the average Somali woman still has 6.84 kids regardless of how much food there is. Link.

A lot of blame for the third world gets lumped on Europe, and sure, Europe has a responsibility to make up for the bad we did. But we are not the cause of the plight of whats happened in Africa. The Africans have the ultimate responsibility for what takes place in Africa.

And its the same witht he Muslims and Jews and Hindu's and what have you. These are trapped in their religion's and only the Asian cultures show any sign of being able to compete with the 'western culture'. If the worlds poor people really want success then they'll have to start taking responsibility for their lives and evolve because thats the only way they are going to get it.

Capitalism, communism, socialism can't help them and neither can blaming other people or sitting on their flat behinds waiting for the next aid package. They need to evolve their culture to survive and prosper or remain sitting in the squallor their culture promotes.


That would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath for it.

Culture isn't necessarily a red herring, but in fact plays a role. The government intervention (or lack there of) can aid or abet a plethura or lack of productivity respectively. What does the gov't have to do w/ culture? Tons... consider our views of economic theory, and how we see its relation to the constitution and what makes us "Americans".

Culture is also a factor in places like Europe, where work ethics are regarded differently than maybe here in the US or in China. Take Germany for instance, where efficiency is far lower than the States. The French take long lunches and spend large amounts of time on vacation. It does play a part. It's basically the "economic effect of contentment", as I heard it coined once. Simply put, if a country's culture is happy with a certain level of "success", output remains stagnant. The US and Japan for instance typically have a hard time reaching that "contentment".

The way this relates to Capitalism is that in a Capitalist (or form of) economy, the people that work the hardest are most apt to find the level of "success" they would find comfort (contentment) in. The irony is that true capitalism often spurs even more growth and a need for "more success"... more growth, higher productivity, more revenue, etc. "Fleeting contentment", as coined by the great Dr. Merckle.... a temporary fix in American (and often Asian) society.

Ahh... and to address N and S Korea, my favorite discussions on distribution of wealth and its subsequent risks/rewards. This is probably the easiest way to illustrate the ills of communism and its remnants of isolationism. Consider that prior to 1950 (the start of the Korean war) that both the N and S were predominantly agrarian societies, lacking in industrial production. As we all know the result of this conflict, Communism became the presiding govt in the North. The Russians spurned marginal industry and the beginnings of manufacturing in the North, but perpetuated isolationism and an impending sense of nationalism and centrally planned economics. However, in the capitalist/democratic South, central planning was limited and exports became a priority. Currently, N Korea exports nearly nothing and S Korea exports everything from chemicals to cars.

So, that being said, is it all geography? I would have to say turnea, definitely not.

Because government is a vehicle for culture/society...not a replacement for it.
I think it is a perfect example and I purposely sought it in hope of creating a particular image. Just like an automobile carries it’s passengers to their desired destination so does government. We use the government and our political systems to carry our culture where we wish it to be.

Any government or political system that wishes to ignore this fact, and instead try to fuse the two too closely in my opinion will fail. The two must coexist, certainly will mix, but I think it isn’t healthy for the government or the political structure to demand control over the other.

Also i can't use a car any way I please..I can't eat it, or fly it, or grow it, etc. Everything has it's limits.

You have mentioned a problem, coercion, with capitalism. Can not a Capitalistic economy monitor and disallow coercion ? Would such a system be egalitarian and fair?

Could you clarify what 'it' is?

This does not make any sense to me. The Capitalism model means all transactions are entered only by agreement of both parties. Why would anyone enter into an exchange to become worse off?

This does not make any sense to me. What do you mean by 'growth'? Is that population? Is that having more things and time due to more efficient use of one's time via trade? Do you mean we would be better off if any sort of transactions between people was not allowed?

------

Capitalism without monitoring for monopolies and coercion is not fair compared to a Capitalistic economy with those safe guards. Socialism treats all people the same. People are no longer individuals. Freedom is lost. While Capitalism without monitoring is less than can be desired, it is not reason to give up freedom and individuality. I can not see how one can subscribe to the notion that having everyone treated the same is more fair than providing for each to pursue their happiness in by whatever decisions they wish to make.

If you do not like a Capitalism economy because of coercion and monopolys then vote for representatives who will. Socialism is no where near the answer as it gives no hope for people to be treated as individuals. How fair is it to be treated as a moo cow?

Do you agree with my premise that Capitalism is actually more fair and egalitarian than socialism and communism. Why, or, most likely, why not?

It might be true... if capitalism was practiced the way Adam Smith described it. That is not what we have today. In today's capitalist societies, governments actively interfere on the behalf of humongous multinational corporations. We may try and fool ourselves about the 'free market,' but it doesn't exist. Not only has our foreign policy been the fist insuring 'friendly' market conditions, but the entire structure of neoliberal market philosophy has been to enforce capital flight in third world nations, and to ensure that conditions in those countries remain conducive to being a cheap labor resource for our corporations.

Philosophically, modern capitalism relies inherently on a societal hierarchy. It is a winner/loser system, one which in my opinion, is ultimately dehumanizing. It is a philosophy which encourages us to act in our own self interest, disregarding how our decisions and 'market actions' affect other humans around the world. In short, is is a philosophy that ignores the fact of human suffering.

Socialism, on the other hand, does concern itself with the problem of human suffering. It also encourages a much greater diversity within society, and a dignity to one's endeavors. Socialism also does not preclude an Adam Smith type of capitalism. Many people prefer to paint a picture of socialism as a drab, grey reality, in which human spirit is chained. This is entirely wrong. Socialism is far more participatory and democratic than corporate capitalism. Corporations are extremely authoritarian structures, it goes without saying.

Ack - I have to run... I'll finish this later.

Drewyorktimes...the Congo is hardly a good example of capitalism, it's a developing almost third world country that is just starting to embrace privatisation and capitalist tendencies, and it doesn't help that it's government is ridiculously corrupt. So, again, Congo is not exactly a good place to look at to prove that capitalism is a breeding ground for injustice.


Only if a person allows himself/herself to be turned into a brutal, cutthroat careless evil capitalist pig. Most people don't, and if some people do, that's their choice. Capitalism doesn't ignore human suffering, it just lives with human suffering. There will be people who "lose" in capitalism, that will always be the case, but they aren't loser because they drew the short straw one day, they are "losers" because they messed up at some point. Capitalism may be a "winner/loser" system, but I would prefer that to a "nobody wins" system.

CP

So when you buy a shoe made by an eight-year old, for example; it is the fault of the child for supporting a regime that does not have strong labour practices?

You're right, UJ, in believing that an eight-year old making shoes is not a good thing. However, that is neither the fault of the boy [so you're right in that respect also], nor is it the fault of capitalism. The child is working, not because he's being forced to, but because he has to, that's not good, but it's the truth. Let's take it a step further and say that this child works for Nike, in Indonesia, as is the case in many child labor situations, Indonesia, and pretty much the rest of southeast Asia, is extremely unfriendly to capitalism, and Indonesia itself enjoys very little economic freedom. So I'm not sure where the anti-capitalist point is there.

CP

editted to make labour, labor...Damn you foreigners.

There's nothing to be ashamed of Conservpat, the Queen's english is still held in high regard.



The point is that there is little economic freedom in Indonesia, despite capitalist intervention. The introduction of capitalism to the developing world has not done much to promote economic freedom in those areas. More importantly, economic freedom is a measurement index which is not directly comparable to capitalism. Most indexes that discuss economic freedom are concerned only with capital flows, not consumer or individual freedom to operate in a market. So which do mean?

The point I was trying to make is that you cannot evaluate capitalism in a vacuum because there are no vacuums. I'm not criticizing capitalism exactly, what I'm saying is that capitalism needs to be considered in its proper context. It's not the fault of capitalism you say; but it is capitalism that encourages the behaviour that drives companies to search for cheap overseas labour.

But what alternatives are there for your hypothetical 8 year old "exploited" shoemaker? I can't think of much other than starvation is he's unlucky, and pushing a plow through his family's farmland if he's very fortunate. Aren't the Chinese a wee bit better off today than they were in the 60s? Did they accomplish this in spite of the fact that nearly everything I buy says, "made in China", or because of it? Of course, the more Capitalist countries did this years before and are rich today. When I was in elementary school everything said, "made in Hong Kong" and "made in Japan". To address some of the earlier arguments regarding scarcity....are we poorer today because Japan and Hong Kong are rich?

Efficient governments that provide secure property relations encourage innovation and economic freedom. Inefficient governments like the one in Indonesia don't do this effectively. If a country's legal system is very weak, and there is no truly effective way to enforce contracts, or collect debts, or enforce regulations they are going to have problems. This isn't linked to Capitalism in any way I can think of. Would a Socialized system with the same style of inefficient government work better?

Per the cultural differences argument...The nearer people sink to subsistence level, the less likely it is that they will behave in ways we consider would maximize market efficiency. Any deviation from the status quo in a subsistence society can be deadly. You don't innovate when you are starving. You don't open a business or take any risk (like a new planting method) because the link between survival and starvation (not just for the individual but the whole family) is so tenuous. The primary investments for these people are literally human capital, and children are the largest and best investments available. They make up the family's source of labor and are the nearest thing possible to an old age pension. It isn't the capitalist sweatshops that are holding these people down, because they are offering the only real opportunity many have.

There are problems with Capitalism, for certain, and the system can be very cold. I think there should be protections (devil as always is in the details), but Capitalism is better than the alternative.

The natural, end conclusion to capitalism is to make the maximum output (profit) from the least input (costs)

In order to continue to compete, companies engaged in capitalism have to continually find means to undercut their competitors by lowering costs and maxising profits.

Thus capitalism is a direct cause of the continued existance of so many poor people because capitalism dictates that profits should always rise and costs should always drop.

The rich, exploit the poor in order to be rich.

Capitalism is a method of doing this.

In todays world, trendy shoes are made by Asian children because that is the only way that the shoe manufacturers can continue to make the maximum profit.

Just a thought, was slavery animated more by a capitalist or socialist motive? Apply the same question to running the Indians off their land. One would guess more of a capitalist motive in each of these tragedies since achieving a profit was a central reason. This hardly adds up to fair and egalitarian.

Saying this does not necessarily incline me to be a socialist. However institutionalizing profit making as the first purpose of a society has led to some pretty horrendous results. Capitalists should not have an unrestricted free hand, particularly not private corporations. I want to see a priority given to public interest planning and a return to the idea, for instance, that businesses must receive community charters to operate so the community can assess and reassess the public benefit. It wouldn't necessarily bother me if the government ran the banks or monopolized car and truck sales. I'm more a pragmatist when it comes to big corporate enterprises.

Once everybody has the franchise then capitalism often adapts fairly well I have observed to this new democratic state. Well let's say it buys its way in. No reason to be racist if you are making a handsome profit by treating your employess equally good or bad.

Socialism pretty much means government. I guess how good it is is dependent on how decent and commonsensical its purposes can be maintained. And that is up to the folks that do the electing. A well thought out mix of both capitalism and socialism seems to be the best to express both our private and public natures.

Slavery is not a capitalist transaction nor was the treatment of the Indians. Transactions must be free exchanges. These were not.

Profit is nothing more than having a wish to be better off from an exchange than you were before. All of our actions in our lives are efforts to be better off than we were before. Economics is the science of studying how we make those transactions. Capitalism versus socialism are two means to performing transactions to make our selves better off. Capitalism is based upon individuals while socialism is based upon groups. People will want to be improve their standing in both systems (greed). However, you will have to do it on a group basis in socialism. The individual is not recognized in socialism.

Capitalism is more egalitarian as it does recognize the individual. It is must easier to get the most out of people when diversity is cherished and supported. Socialism has a distain for diversity. It starts with the premise that we are all the same with the same wants and needs and should be treated the same. Such thinking oppresses people.

Capitalism has its weaknesses and unfair leverage in the economy must be dealt with but socialism is a cumbersome restrictive basis for an economy with does not permit people to flourish.

The thing to keep in mind is that under a capitalistic economy, groups of people can choose to operate on a socialist basis. I do myself with various people. I watch a friend's cat for a while, they buy me lunch sometime. My neighbor mows my yard, I help them move some furniture. This is free exchange and totally fine in a capitalistic society. We help each other out as we are friends or family or neighbors. Such freedom is not available in a socialist society. It is another example of why capitalism is egalitarian.

Ehm, did you just say that socialist do not help other people?

That quote most be one of the worst statements i ever heard. Perhaps i missunderstod it ?


So all over Socialistic Europe, people do not help eachother.. Gosh. and i had no idéa....

My comment was about the freedom to do transactions in whatever means you wish. You can act as a group within a capitalist system but you can not act as an individual in a socialist system.

Really now? Are you sure about that?

So your saying that Europeans cant do what you just said? Everyone in Northern Europe (strongly Socialistic) are not individuals, nor can they do any transactions... Was that what you just said? You said it twice now. So i would love to hear this explanation.

Feeew, my heart is ticking again, had to lay down for a minute ... don't ever scare me again like that okay!

First off, before I answer your questions I want to stress that I think both models (capitalism v.s. socialism) are by themselves not the best way to promote equality and fairness in a society. Pure capitalism has bad aspects (changing society in a dog-eat-dog world, playing into the greedy needs of people.), pure socialism or a step further communism has negative sides too (just look at the former USSR).

1.) The trick is to get a good mix of the two. You want to have the nice things of capitalism and throw away the bad aspects. The same goes with socialism keep the good stuff and throw away the rest. The result, in my eyes, would be something along the lines of a liberal social-democracy.

So in short between the two extremes I would prefer the middle. A society should always be striving for common welfare, happiness and prosperity as the ultimate goal, no matter how high the obstacles might be.

Northern European countries and there social-democratic mentality / culture are examples that it can be done. We offer plenty opportunities, good eduction and freedom/personal development for all, but at the same time we have Unions that protect us against power abuse by government or big bussiness and have developped a good (although still expensive) welfare and healthcare system.

2.) I don't know if a social-democratic mentality would ever develop in the US. The Cold War has pretty much whiped out any "leftish" (socialistic) thinking in the country, an essential ingredient for capitalistic social-democratic societies.

I love it how you could'nt say anything negative about Socialism in the Northern States, but equaited it with Communism and then spoke about Soviet.. haha. Perhaps im the onyl one noticing this?

So, what was the negative thing about Socialism? As soon as anyone on this thread spoke about the side effects of it, they start talking about "Communism" in Soviet, which was not communism.

To explain it to you guys whom seen not aware of this, Socialism is a crossing between Communism and Capitalism. To equate Socialism with communism (which you do constantly on this thread) is like equating Capitalism and Communism, it makes no sense. Socialism is the "between" model.

No, socialism is NOT the in-between model. That is a popular misconception. Socialism is an entirely distinct theory of politics from both capitalism and communism, one that predates communism (at least the Marx-Engels variety) by over a century and which has an entirely different understanding of property rights and individual rights. But lets not try to get too bogged down with facts.

Capitalism from Webster's Dictionary: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods."

Capitalism is an economic definition and doesn't imply either a democratic or totalitarian form of government and has flourished in both. There was a lot of private enterprise under Saddam Hussein.

Adam Smith's "free market" was an ideological battering ram to justify the destruction of indigenous cultures in the name of imposing a corporate system of colonial governance that maximized economic opportunities for foreign capitalist interests. Think cotton and the tie between the slave plantations of the American south and the large privately owned capital intensive textile mills of England.

When the colonial exploiters took time out to get weepy and moral about it they insisted they were doing the subjugated local folks (Those they hadn't killed off) a favor by bringing the benefits of modern civilization.

No, I think it is a perfect example. Copper is found all over the world, from Utah to Mongolia and there is a reason American and Asian based cell-phone companies are reaching into central asia: precisely because the government is 'ridiculously corrupt,' and is 'just starting to embrace privitisation, so on, so on.' The goal of capitalism is to increase profits, decreasee overhead. It just so happens that using central african labor is cheaper than paying workers a just, egalitarian wage. This is the unshakable law of capitalism. Unless you want to OH MY GOD regulate industry. But. as the unshakable rule of capitalism continues, that would hinder american industrys ability to stay on pace with its foreign competitors. So, perhaps nationalism is the true enemy of the globe.

And before I get stabbed by libertarians, I'm not trying to take sides here communism over capitalism, just trying to be honest. I happen to think that communism in its utopian form is unarguably more just and egalitarian, just wholly unrealistic in world as it is today. Beautiful on paper, barbaric in its implication.

EricStanze, all of my previous comments were directed at comparing the two models and were not intended as commentary on current governments. I can not think of any country which can be used as a direct example for either model. As has been pointed out in many posts in this discussion, many countries use a combination of free market and government administrated markets.

Capitalism requires government and is not anarchy. There will be motivation in a capitalist economy for individuals to control the government. Developing a model to limit this is important. Once individuals control government and negate the oversight function of government capitalism bad things can happen.

Governments also have an economic vested interest to become larger. Those with authority want more. More authority means more economic advantages to those in government. This motivation is constantly there to tear down the capitalist model and make it.....more socialist.

For a democratic capitalist community to succeed the voters must be vigilant to elect persons who will monitor the economy and not be in government for economic gain. We do a poor job of that in the United States. This is a primary reason the U.S. does not fit the model for capitalism.

I dont see how socialism ignores the individual. Could someone explain that theory?

Socialism is where the government administrates the market. Instead of individuals making decisions about transactions with others for themselves government makes those decisions.

I am fully aware what socialism is, I am from the Netherlands. I have been brought up in a socialistic orientated family and have been active in regional politics for the PvdA (lit. "Party of the Workers", the biggest social-democratic party in Holland).

I am fully aware that there exists a certain tension between capitalistism and socialistic/social democratic ideology in my country. Everybody knows that in this modern globalized world we live in, capitalistism is omnipresent. You cannot escape this. Stimulating free enterprise (liberal capitalism) is an important aspect in all Northern European countries.
At the same time everybody can see that socialistics aspect in our culture / society (like decent minimum wages, strong independent Worker Unions, healthcare / general welfare) form a nice counterbalance for the negative sides of capitalism, but to keep these safety-nets intact a immense portion of the GDP is needed.

In Holland there are constant talks about the friction between capitalism and old socialistic institutions. Should we pay our attention to better eductation and stimulating our economy, or should we spent more money on improving our welfare/healthcare system, money to reorganise the bureaucracy that makes these institutions so expensive.

It all boils down to making choices. I believe that we should never forget the fact that society revolves around people, not money. Whatever happens we should always try to improve and better our welfare/healthcare systems, it took decades to achieve this system, decades of hard struggle. Cutting into healthcare (reducing it) because the economy temporarily isn't going well is not an option.

It is a constant fine-tuning between stimulating capitalistic opportunities and upkeeping of the social-democratic safety-net. It is difficult and it demands a lot of the people if they do not have to resort to the safety-net anymore because they have a nice job in a big international firm, but in the end I think a strong and efficient welfare system, will lead to a better, equal and just society and an increase of overall hapiness. That is the big picture we should have in mind for the future.

1.) That ain't true!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, so rarely do I get to enjoy the opportunity to place 13 exclamation marks in a row.
2.) Because it depends on what type of socialism you are speaking of. In Scandinavia, home to CHILDREN OF BODOM, 'individuals make decisions about transactions for themselves,' the government merely taxes that transaction to a t. (and I don't equate a free, taxed, transaction as being less 'individualist' or 'egalitarian' a transaction.) if you're talking about healthcare, however, however, the government does I suppose administrate that service, but the unanswerable question is, is healthcare the stuff of markets? I wouldn't say sanitation should not belong to the free market, nor should police protection, fire protection, or terrorist protection. So, should disease protection? This is a question I honestly can't answer- unlike police or fire protection, medical care comes in shades. Shouldn't those who can't make a living wage afford to get a hip replaced? But shouldn't those who, in capitalisms perfect conditions, work hard and make it to the top be able to afford teeth-whitening surgery, a less than necessary therapist, braces and a nutritionist? I honestly do not know.

SPICKET!!

I am interested in coservpats arguments, and if he' reading this, would like to know what the beef of that argument is. If we're talking about the yet-unrealized, utopian forms of these systems, as concocted by those day-dreaming contemporaries, Adam Smith and Karl Marx, this is a good argument. I see it two ways.

Main Entry: egal·i·tar·i·an·ism
Pronunciation: -E-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1905
1 : a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges
2 : a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people

(the webster)

By definition two, socialism or communism is clearly the more egalitarian as socialism advocates at least the reduction of inequalities, and communism advocates their complete removal.
------But by definition one, we're in a bit of a word game. What is a right and what is a priviledge? You could make the case that everything from a decent doctor to a decent place to live to a decent automobile or mode of transportation is a right. By all accounts, rights are something we are always re-defining, from the civil rights of the 1960's to the rights to abortion today. None of those rights would have been considered rights a century ago, but today, many are making the case that they are indeed our inherent rights. So what are our inherent material rights? If there are any material rights at all -- Locke after all included property in his unalienable trio of rights -- communism is the more egalitarian since it ensures that no one goes with out something. Capitalism openly admits the possibility of someone losing out completely.
Then theres privileges, in which, by first glance, capitalism fares much better. After all, with limited resources distributed equally, someone is bound to want more material privileges than they can get, although that could just be the capitalist rearing talking. Perhaps, in pre-capitalist societies the concept of wanting more than the society can provide is an entirely foreign sentiment. I honestly don't know. What I do know is that both of these theories leave much to be desired when it comes to analyzing human behavior. I do not think that human beings naturally arrange themselves into systems without hierarchy, as the agovernmental marxist variety of communism seems to necessitate; nor do I think that the best and brightest of our poor will, upon realizing their potential, passionately rise to the top of the table and feast. However, I deeply wish that, as a race, we could find it in our hearts to do both.

finally, since liberals are always being confused as being totalitarian communists by silly television and radio personalities, I want to reach out across the deep national divide and say, I condone neither communism nor capitalism as means through which to properly and morally distribute wealth as both seem to be failing awkwardly in that task. So far, the best system I have discovered through which to distribute the means of production is a tailgate party or jamaican sound system.

The logic of "capitalism allows for workers to be abused...Workers are being abused in the Congo, therefore the Congo is a good example of capitalism" is fallacious. The point I was trying to make is that the Congo is hardly a capitalist country and using it as an example of the evil of capitalism would be equivilant to me taking the country of Vietnam in 1968 as an example that communism is bad.

CP

drewyorktimes, I do not know what to say. You were most excited about declaring my post inaccurate but your explanation as to why is unclear. Giving an example of a country with a mixed economy of socialism (where the government administrates the market and instead of individuals making decisions about transactions with others for themselves government makes those decisions) and capitalism does not disprove my post. I am sorry, but I could not follow the logic or thinking in the second paragraph which is providing the correction ?

I guess I would have to say your post is untrue. Do I put up the exclamation points now?

Time to drive pikes into the ground and defend the post.



That's not my logic. I'm not remotely saying the congo is a perfect example of Capitalism, and I never said that. I'm saying that American and Asian companies using Congolese workers is a perfect example of how Capitalism seeks to minimize the cost of labor. It does the same thing in America, another imperfect capitalist country, if we want to take it there. My point is not only does capitalism, in practice, create these conditions, the utopian writings of Adam Smith openly admit that many competitors will do whatever necessary to minimize labor costs- including perhaps cheat, scam and underpay workers, or, in the presence of labor laws that prohibit such behavior, go into inner african countries (or inner-city american ghettos). Smith doesn't say capitalist producers HAVE to cheat and underpay workers, and many thankfully do not. He does, however, admit that they very well might. The worker may or may not have a choice to leave for a better job and, where unskilled labor is concerned, I think the quality of a t-shirt stitched for 10$/hr is roughly the same as a t-shirt stitched for 10 cents/hr. How much do you pay your groundskeepers? Perhaps you pay them a decent, moral amount, but if your competitor, hypothetically equal in every other way, can pay them less and achieve the same results, you are falling behind.

Marxism however, a) does not dictate that the worker be told where to work and what to own, those are Leninist/Stalinist interpretations of Marxism. b.) openly declares that, in this eternal post-revolution picnic world, NO worker shall get underpaid, cheated or scammed- because the workers will be running the factory and the boss will have been expropriated somewhere.

How the two work out as systems once implemented isn't the topic. The topic is which is more egalitarian and fair in its purist form, on paper. As I said in my previous post, I think you could argue it either way, especially when you debate just what it means to be egalitarian. I just so happened to have been cornered into defending the Marxist side of the coin.

In the end this is not a debate about which system works better, but about what are our rights, (individual choice? A guaranteed meal? Property?) and what are our privileges (individual choice? rampant wealth hoarding during economically desperate times?)




so·cial·ism     P   Pronunciation Key  (ssh-lzm)
n.
1 Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2 The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Forget definition two for a sec, I'd like to focus on one. You're point was that socialism is where the government administrates the market, instead of individuals making decisions. Well, there are many different types of socialism. As definition two tells us, it can be an in-between model bridging capitalism to communism, containing elements of both. For example, you can have a socialist state where individuals are allowed to "make decisions and transactions for themselves," because, "collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet successfully been achieved."

But, going back to definition one, which is what I really wanted to talk about, there are many "theories and systems in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government." Now, sometimes this involves government administration of the market. (Or, as the definition above states, "central government... often plans and controls the economy"). But by no means must that be the case, and at times it isn't, and my apologies for the excess in exclamations. I was listening to Fela Kuti at the time.

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&s...kmu1z84ajyv3~T0

-the times.

Do you agree with my premise that Capitalism is actually more fair and egalitarian than socialism and communism. Why, or, most likely, why not?

No. Socialism (when done under a good government) is more egalitarian. Trouble is, everyones equal, but also poor.

Do you believe that communism or socialism is a reasonable and/or better alternative to capitalism in the United States, why, or less likely , why not?

To much socialism, and you destroy productivity, without which egalitarianism doesn't mean anything (as theres no wealth to distribute). To much capitalism, and you create massive disparitys, which mean productivity doesn't mean anything, as only a small elite get its resulting wealth.

The best economy is somewhere inbetween. Personally, I like Canada's model.

I don't agree with your premise. I'm new. I don't know what you said before. So I'm only going on the information here.

I don't agree because Capitalism in principle is not "fair". Those who consider it as such only begin to do so for the most part to the extent they are the one's benefiting from it. When people are the recipients of it's advantages and not of it's disadvantages, they tend to be a fan.

Capitalism is a system for the rich, so the people with "capital" in such a system tend to see it as "fair" the more "capital", or opportunity for capital, they have.

You asked if it was "more" fair. What I disagree with is that it's fair at all. However I don't think socialism or communism are fair either. It's not fair that two people of disparate abilities or disparate expressions of their respective abilities, whatever, should be treated as if this is not so.

However, a capitalist system is not about ability. It's about political power over everyone else, and it's "capital" which "buys" it.

It's like socialism or communism attempts to impose a fake equality. I believe in equality, but not of this sort. Capitalism on the other hand seeks to impose a fake inequality, as if for instance the disparities in people's "capital" are reflections of disparities in actual abilities, and this is not the case. The disparities of wealth are actually caused by political favoritism for the wealthy.

Is political favoritism for the poor the answer? No, because that too, is political power eclipsing actual life. You have the two systems presented as a choice between either enslaving the poor to the rich, or enslaving the rich to the poor. It's like Capitalism is supposed to be a system which honors the individual, but what it actually causes is a consolidation of power into the hands of individuals over the majority of everyone else. That's absolutely not fair.

But then Socialism or Communism, as the names suggest, are supposed to be about like "power to the people", and yet what this translates into is the power of the majority over the individual, and I don't agree with that either.

Not to cast myself as some dreamy-eyed utopian, but what I see is the problem is social systems charachterized by the rule of force, or you could put it "the force of law". Why I think this doesn't work is because of self-interest, that it's inescapable, and yet to tie it to the use of force in order to "institute" some particular social system, what you accomplish is a system, either capitalist or socialist of self-serving violence, wether it serves the many or the few.

Anytime I hear debates like this, or people talking about what is the best "system" what I hear is people debating what the best use of force is, as if force is the instrument of social relationships and society must be ordered by it somehow. Well, I think that capitalism and scoialism, generally speaking is all you can expect. How else is a society characterized by force, regardless of who it serves, going to work? Either the many are going to be served at the expense of the few or the few at the expense of the many. Why? Because one has to set the use of force to some purpose, and everyone is just trying to figure out the answer to this one question, of what is the "right" purpose, and yet all of history stands as example that it doesn't work however you do it. The only purpose force can serve is unfairness. Both types of systems are only different in the answer to that question of who's interests force should serve, but force, that is a "government" instituting some social policy (Capitalist or Socialist) means that somebodies interests are being sacrificed to someone elses. That's the only purpose force serves.

The debate between these two social systems comes down to the presumption that the use of force set to some purpose is what the whole of all human relationships must be based on. What if that's not true? What if that's why, however you figure it, someone is always getting screwed?

Do you agree with my premise that Capitalism is actually more fair and egalitarian than socialism and communism. Why, or, most likely, why not?
If there is fair competition in a market, then you do end up with more fair and egalitarian results, as well as prosperity, than a socialist or communist system. For example, if you put 5 restaurants with similar prices in a busy mall, each restaurant should get about the same amount of business. And at each restaurant, the owner will make a little bit more than the employee, not 400 times as much like a corrupt corporation.

The key is to have truly equal opportunities for everyone to work their way up the ladder. If people truly have equal opportunities and are left to work their own way, you still end up with inequal results but at least not the poverty and the monstrous wealth disparities that you hear about in many places.

Do you believe that communism or socialism is a reasonable and/or better alternative to capitalism in the United States, why, or less likely , why not?
It might work in smaller countries, but not the US. The US is a very big country with a very big economy to go with it. Given how the Government has messed up in many things like healthcare, education, and foreign policy, I think the US Government should step back and give the private sector a chance to sort some of America's problems out.