Okay, once and for all which is better?

CP

Why are socialism and communism lumped together? That's like lumping capitalism and fascism in the same group.

They are linked together because communism is a type of socialism, a assumed communists and socialists would agree with each other here. And also, how can you compare free market capitalism to totalitarian fascism?

CP

Do you have even the most rudimentary understanding of communism or socialism? They are on the same side of the political spectrum, but one is NOT a form of the other. Your comparison makes about as much sense as saying that Red is a type of Blue.

Actually the Nazi's were a socialist party that nationalized many industries. As far from laissez-faire capitalism as "Communist" Russia.

There is no real difference between communism, socialism and fascism.

Oh, sure. There are text book differences. There are differences in how they get to the end. But the end game is ALWAYS the same. Death, destruction, economic ruin and oppression.

So, what difference does it really MAKE in the long run. It is still all evil. And NOTHING but.

Your pointed heads in the Universities may get all bent out of shape over this idea. Because they have invested their lives in defining the piddling fine points of such evils. But, in the end, it makes NO difference.

That leaves capitalism as the best by default, doesn’t it!

i always imagined socialism as a herbivore while capitolism as its opposite the meat eater.

democratic socialism is a nice idea, but like any form of goverment its open to corruption.


capitolisms danger to me, is that it depends on capitol, on so in internal and external. this can lead to all kinds of situations. one of which i fear is company control of the stock market thus the people,goverment. i dont think it will happen but it scary. another point is population vs any goverment type. i dont see how that works well in this type of setting, in that i mean the world today. the worlds movement to work together via free trade means, whats that word to decribe an international global oranization or company for short. i dont think these companies look towards any nations well or ill being but then they once again start to grab power in politics, military. i think this is well evident.

I'd come down on the side of capitalism, as long as we're talking about real capitalism with a focus on competition in a free and transparent market - i.e. not the corrupt plutocratic mess we have now where the government supports permanent advantage for some at the expense of capitalism itself.

Prezman



This is certainly not true. All the Scandinavian nations are social democracies which have had many socialist governments, and they have never once committed the atrocities which were carried out by the Nazi's or the Communist's.

There are in fact very real differences and just because you don't accept them does not cause them to cease to exist.

Editted to add;

In my opinion, unchecked capitalism is just as damaging as any other unchecked political system. I'm not an expert on the USA, but from the American documentaries we often see over here, America appears to have a serious problem with poverty.

The fact that so many people live below the poverty line, residing in 'trailers' or in 'ghetto's' indicates to me that the capitalist system does not allow for the poor to ever hope to catch up to the rich.

Essentially, America has become what it was originally designed not to be. Like old France, it is ruled by a pampered and spoiled elite who have no empathy or regard for those less fortunate than themselves.

Capitalism will always win though, because it is simply unchecked greed, and any nation which is ruled by capitalism alone is thus a nation ruled by greed.

Mr. Moif,

I am not fond of social democracies. But I did not include them in my list above because they are NOT the same thing as a socialist country. In a socialist democracy, there is a give and take between the ostensibly “left” and “right”(however that may be defined in said country) that will swing the evil of socialism back towards the democratic side every 10 or so years. Socialism is never given the chance to go the way of Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot.

As far as the USA goes, it is not nearly capitalist enough for me. I would prefer a free market economy. We have far too much protectionism going on here, far too much government intervention. But we are as close as they come for the most part.

As far as the “poor” catching up to the “rich” goes, that is simple class warfare rhetoric (you have that divisive Green Party line down pat, sir. Congrats). Capitalism is not SUPPOSED to equalize and I would not want to live a such a world. Because, if we did, then we would ALL be down on the lowest common denominator. That would squelch invention, enterprise and any who would be striving for excellence. We would all be in a mediocre, powerless and poor world.

Our “poverty line” is higher than many countries “rich”! You are considered “poor” in this country if all you own is your own home, 3 TV sets, a car, a microwave and a VCR!!! Our standard of living is higher than most of the rest of the world. Our “poor” would generally be considered “middle class” or higher in other countries. There ARE people who live in hovels, of course, but you will have that in ANY country regardless of that countries wealth. There is no such thing as 100% employment. And right now we have about 6% unemployment. 5% unemployment used to be considered FULL employment in this country until the democrats began to demagogue the issue.

And we are far, far from France in any period of its bloody and dispiriting history.

i dont think that its the idea that some must suffer for others to have it good, more or less like soviet communism you have american capitolism. i dont know exactly how material this society has become, but i can imagine the fact people form social status aound clothing made by slave childen to be one pointer. capitolism will always beat out other goverments due to the fact someone is always looking to make a buck, thats in my opinion. but if people were to be perfect angels not amoral animals half the time, trying to get that american dream for themselves, capitolism would probally be the best goverment type on the planet. but as i see it so far, its getting corrupt without a cheack and balance system like socialism to counter it. i would like to start a thread to discuss blood money. maybe i will do that sometime.
maybe some good ol organized crime in the stock market, but we as americans have become numb against it for the most part. some form of culture shell shock.

nileriver,

I would like to answer to a few of the points you made...

“i dont think that its the idea that some must suffer for others to have it good”

Who ever said that some HAVE to suffer?? It is simply in human nature that some WILL suffer, many of them by their OWN actions! However, in socialism the GOVERNMENT makes them suffer! In capitalism they have the option to help THEMSELVES to STOP suffering! That is a big, big difference. One is called oppression. the other is called personal responsibility (or lack thereof).

“ if people were to be perfect angels not amoral animals half the time, trying to get that american dream for themselves, capitolism would probally be the best goverment type on the planet.”

That is a societal break down. We no longer have the medium of religion moderating behavior, instilling morals and giving people a “higher” plane of existence to reach for. Now we have crass Me-ism. We have also stopped teaching our children WHY we are a great country, WHY we have freedom and what those freedoms ARE and how they WORK. Suddenly we are no longer reminding people that their rights END when they impinge on OTHER’S rights! We hear all too often, “It’s MY right”, etc., etc. Instead we should be talking about what makes our society free and stop being so selfish. This has NOTHING what ever to do with capitalism. It has to do with selfishness in society.

When was the last time you consciously thanked a fast food worker for your order. Not by rote, I mean REALLY looked them in the eye and said, “Hey, thanks for getting my order so quickly.”? When was the last time you stopped to consider how nice it was that a maintenance man cleaned your bathroom at school or work. Instead of just walking past him, oblivious in your own world? When was the last time you held a door open for a pregnant woman, an older person, or a woman toting around a handful of children? When was the last time you allowed a person with only one item go ahead of you in a check out line when you had a whole basket full of stuff? If it happens all the time, thats great. But, chances are you do not do so very often. We all need to do so more often!

Prezman



Why is it 'class warfare rhetoric' to mention the difference between the rich and the poor? I didn't create these labels and I'm not using them to further a green party agenda here.

The fact is, the rich control far to much, and they have no right to do this. If you live in a democracy, and America may or may not be depending on your opinion, but if you do then it is the majority who have the right to decide.

Why should the people of a nation bother to succumb to the greedy aspirations of a few people just because they are rich? Thats is exactly what happened in France, only then the rich called them selves the aristocracy.

As far as I can see, there is no difference between those French rulers and the current money elite which appears to run America.




Most people in the world would I think. The fact is, if some people are on top, then a lot of people have to be underneath them. Currently the world is poverty stricken, and the reason is because it must support the few western nations which hold power over the world economy.

If capitalism is not supposed to equalize, then what's it good for? Just making money? Is that going to help the poor people of the world back on their feet? Some how I don't think so. The system which we today call Capitalism, requires a massive, cheap labour force. The poor will remain poor, because Capitalism is not a system which helps people grow.

It is a system designed to exploit every weakness and every possibility for own gain. There is no compassion, no charity and no empathy in capitalism.

Are we supposed to just accept the fact that America is top of the pile and the rest of the world must accept this?

NO.




Utter rubbish. Human beings do not require any one political or economic system in order to invent or discover new things! Was Sir Isaac Newton motivated by profit perhaps? How about Beethoven? do you think he wrote his music because he was hoping for a deal with Sony?

i say thank you, good day/night, and in general be as positive to people without being annoying.
more or less if you blink an eye today, in some areas more then others, life can reduce you to poverty.
one example of this need to be at such a high level of alert(stress) is this, the industry to protect injured workers here in washington striked, while they did this they also tried to find anyway pssible to cut money away from the injured people themselves as to generate the extra money that they wanted and why they were striking. i dont want to say america makes you some evil madman, but survival here is not easy, and most people know that. plus look at our poverty, i would really like to know a percentage of people who at some point can actually get away from it, and nobody wants to end up thier, so you are left with an amoral dog eat dog country, mainily evolved from capitalism. one could even go as far to say capitalism is a reality of natrual selection, but that process is fair, capialism is not, except for at a miniscule percentage.

I'm totally pro-capitalist myself, but I would characterize the current American economic system much as Platypus has. We may disagree about how to get there, but "real capitalism with a focus on competition in a free and transparent market" is what I want too.

If I had to distill what we have now to a phrase, I'd call it "corporate-state semi-fascism": "corporate-state" because the big institutions and interests (big business, big labor - especially government employee unions, teachers union, and legal and medical professional organizations, etc.) collude with the State to protect their privileges at the expense of individuals and small business. "Semi-fascism" because fascism is the economic system in which the means of production are nominally privately owned but are still controlled by the State through edicts and regulations, and to the extent that they are, they might just as well have been nationalized; if you don't think that happens here, try running a business, any business, and see how much time you have to devote to complying with regulations. This is NOT what Ludwig von Mises or Ayn Rand had in mind.

On the contrary, before the concept of the patent came into use (well before Newton), innovative discoveries were guarded in order to profit individually. Ideas usually died with the innovator, which is a direct indication that individual profit inspires the motivation to create.

Editted to add: I am convinced that there is only one way in which Communism, in its pure, unadulterated state, could work. Under a system of complete religious indoctrination. With such a system, everyone would still be motivated by profit. They would only expect to obtain their reward in the afterlife.

Actually capitalism requires consumers to buy the product, it requires, to be truly successful, a middle class. Why would capitalism. any more than socialism, require a cheap labor force? History proves the standards of living under highly capitalist systems are much higher than under highly socialist systems.

An excerpt from Jan Wong's Red China Blues

The children in the muddy hamlet wore only rags. Some lacked socks. An elderly woman, hunched over a cane, had an untreated goiter the size of a cantaloupe. A teenaged girl lay half naked on the icy ground cramming dirt in her mouth while her retarded mother chuckled. Pigs and horses and sheep defecated into the creek, the only water supply. there was no school, store or clinic.

another excerpt

At Luo Family Mill Village, it was obvious why a eugenics law was needed. Seventy-eight villagers, or one out of every three, were retarded. many suffered from cretinism, a form of mental retardation caused by iodine deficiency in the fetus. Others were dwarf-like and retarded from Kashin-Beck disease, contacted from eating fungus-infected grain. Still others had become retarded after drinking water contaminated with heavy metals.

Simple math an equal percentage of nothing is still nothing.

Excellent post, moif. I agree with almost everything you say. Almost.



I don't see this quite as an issue of personal growth - a little too warm-fuzzy for me - as sustainability. Any system which depends on an "external" resource - cheap overseas labor, fossil fuels, whatever - that we can exploit to depletion has a finite lifetime and must eventually be replaced. The cost of depleting finite resources must be accounted for and, in the American variety of pseudo-capitalism, really isn't. If it were, the companies that create methods for using resources more efficiently would be the darlings of the stock market, and the companies whose entire business model revolves around grabbing all of something before it's gone would get hammered. That clearly is not the case, because such internalization of costs just doesn't happen all by itself. What we have is mostly capitalism, but with far too much kleptocracy mixed in.



Well put. I'd also like to add that the lowest common denominator can still be a pretty big number, depending on which numbers you start with. In some countries - such as those in Scandinavia - the "floor" is higher and yet one can still become a millionaire. Perhaps becoming a billionaire is out of reach, but I'll bet the founders of Ericsson or Saab have a lifestyle hardly distinguishable from Bill Gates. Suddenly, lowest common denominator doesn't sound so bad. If we want to make comparisons of what "poor" means or which economic systems seem to be working, that's where we should make them - not indulge in self-serving apples-to-battleships comparison to somewhere in the third world. If we want to consider ourselves champions or whatever, we should measure ourselves against the best the rest of the world has to offer, not the worst.

the key word is eventually. There is no reason not to expect alternative energy sources to replace oil. Eventually new technologies will inevitably replace oil as an energy source. Already alternative technologies are narrowing the gap. Your point about depleting resources is only valid if there are no substitutes for these resources. Water would be a good example, if there is a crisis, in the next century or two, over a natural resource it will be over water, not energy, where replenishable and abundant resources exist.

"Eventually" always becomes "now" some day. If it's not oil it will be water, if it's not water it will be cheap labor, if it's not cheap labor it will be something else. A system that is not robust in the face of all resource limitations is not robust, period.

These systems permeate through our world today like the ideas of the enlightenment and romanticism. In the golden mean somewhere is a grand balance.

However if I am stuck picking between the extreme vision of capitalism and that of revolutionary communism I would pick capitalism. The end vision is much more realistic. In capitalism the ideal result is that all people pursuing their own selfish goals actually create a result that is better for everyone as if the group had sat down and tried to collectively improve society.

In communism private ownership is abolished and everybody benefits from the collective efforts of industrial society. However a huge bureaucracy of government planning is the result, generally with the establishment of a highly repressive government. People succumb to this oppression with the idea that when communism is truly attained, the state will wither away and a utopian society will come about. I have never found that end realistic. Perhaps it makes me a vulgar Marxist who doesn't get the concept, but I just don't buy the Marxist version of heaven on earth.

So Hugo, if I have to pick teams I'm playing on your side.

Prezman


Mrspigpen


Humans have striven for excellence and had the urge to create for many, many thousands of years, no matter what form their society takes.

Prezman, your historically bereft note seems to imply that until the coming of Market Capitalism, Humans did not invent anything, or strive for excellence. Yet how can this be? People around the world have been doing both for millennia.

Mrspigpen, profit can be a motivation to create, but it is certainly not the fundamental motivation. Even in some non-human primates, creativity can be found - in play, in basic tool-use. As a songwriter and musician, I have a fundamental urge to create music. While I have done so professionally in the past, I continue to write songs, even if no one hears them but me (and usually my family). I have associated with many impoverished musicians from all over the word, and most of them (all of the really creative ones) have a fundamental creative urge outside and apart from profit.

Profit has been around as long as trade has existed. There is a basic capitalism to human society. Socialism of sorts has been around as long as we have had societies. Whether our definition of the extended-self is a family, a tribe, a race, or a people, we have had mutual support systems. I think the distinction which truly matters is the level of respect for human rights and individual freedom. What we must find to ensure maximum individual liberty for all is a razor's edge balance of universal opportunity and universal sustenance. In many European countries, musicians and artists have thrived and boomed on the "Dole." There is certainly no lack or inequity of excellence and creativity between more and less socialist countries.

Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't you explain to me the difference instead of being rude about it. I'm pretty easy to get along with, but this is a little annoying to me. Anyway, moif, the whole purpose of capitalism is that if you work hard you can make as much money as you want, this is not a given option in communism and socialism.

CP

Contrast the number of inventions produced before it became profitable (I believe that was somewhere around the Dark Ages) and the number of innovations after that time. There is simply no comparison.
Profit is not the only motivation for creating, but it is a primary one.

There is a distinct problem with the political systems we have today.

They don't work as they were designed to.

Marx was not an evil man. He did not set out to kill millions. He tried, as many others have done, to design a system by which people could prosper. And on paper, its works brilliantly. Communism, in its pure form is fantastic. Every body has a job, and a house and share in the common good.
But the reality is so painfully different, that its a wonder that any one bothers to try and perpetuate the communist ideal.

Only mild socialism, tempered with other political systems has any real benefit for the society which adopts it. Communism is nothing more than a pipe dream.

And I believe it is the same with capitalism.

People make the mistake of thinking that because America 'won' the cold war, then obviously America's way of doing things is the right way.

What they don't take into account is that America is no more run to true capitalist doctrine than the Soviet Union was run to communist doctrine.

The problem lies in the fact that these political systems are naive and unworkable. They are to weak and can be hi jacked by ruthless and powerful persons with their own agenda. Such as Stalin did.

The only system which works well, is a balanced democracy that allows both socialist and capitalist elements to function with each other rather than against each other.

Scandinavian democracies do this.
They are not perfect, but they successfully combine both sides of the political divide in a system called Proportional representation which favours coalition governments. This sounds weak, but in truth in requires the political parties to work together rather than always against each other.

I don't know if it would function as well in a nation as big as America, but it works well enough in Scandinavia.

Norway has the highest standard of living in the world.

That is true, but one could correlate that growth to the broadening of science and our understanding of the mechanics of the world as well.

There is further a philosophical change connected to the idea of "self" or "ego" which, in Western culture, has led to a broadening of specific knowledge and mechanistic innovation, while ultimately narrowing and lessening the general , "broad" creativity of the people. Since my own experience is as a creative musician, I tend to see this in terms of music: when I travelled in Africa, for example, I noticed that in a village setting, every member of the community was involved in the creative expression of the culture. Everyone played an instrument, or danced, or sang. The collectivism of their creativity was much more evident and expressed than in the US. This is meat for another debate however.

The fundamental drive to create does not change; the available channels of expressing that creativity have grown with our body of collective knowledge.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not knocking copyrights, patents, or profit-seeking. I continue to get the welcome (but sadly very occasional) check from BMI for song royalties. I am merely attempting to dispel the myth some people hold that innovation and creativity as fundamental expressions are only possible or valued under a Capitalist economic system.

Here's the best analysis I can find:

THE "TWO-COW" THEORY

....A CHRISTIAN: You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

....A SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

....A REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

....A DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

....A COMMUNIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk.

....A FASCIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and sells you the milk. You join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage.

....DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.

....CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

....BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the
other, pays you for the milk, then pours the milk down the drain.

....AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

....A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

....A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.

....A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

....AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.

....A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

....A MEXICAN CORPORATION: You think you have two cows, but you don't know what a cow looks like. You take a nap.

....A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows, none of which belongs to you. You charge for storing them for others.

...A BRAZILIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You enter into a partnership with an American corporation. Soon you have 1000 cows and the American corporation declares bankruptcy.

....A CORPORATION IN INDIA: You have two cows. You worship them.

....THE TALIBAN You have two cows. You turn them loose in the Afghan mountains and they both die. You blame the godless American infidels.

Make sure you adjust for the increase in population, and improvements in communication, and the snowball effect of each successive generation haveing a larger base of prior innovation to work from. If you do that, I think you'll find that the vast differences you mention go away.

There's another major factor. Free time. Many of the inventions prior to the patent were for subsistence only. Once it became possible to engage in thought beyond simple survival, people became more creative.

There's no way for me to take into account every variable between population growth, communication growth, increased leisure time, and the effect of prior innovation. It seems logical (IMO) to conclude that because ideas before the patent (and copyrights, which commenced in 1486 in Venice) tended to die with the creator, and thereafter ideas carried on one must have something to do with the other. Humans have been around a long long time, and it is only since the availability of those innovations that we have the benefits of all the things you cited.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

At the family level, I think most of the world practices an interdependent support structure much more akin to democratic socialism than to pure capitalism. If I take all the food at every meal, merely because I am the strongest and most brutal, my family is not likely to survive for long. My children earn privileges, but they are never denied their needs.

I view humanity as a macroscopic reflection of the basic family. The whole will benefit more from interdependence, trust, and support, than from unchecked and ruthless capitalism. If my son makes bad choices, if he ####s up, I will still provide a basic support structure - I'm not going to let him starve or be homeless if I have the choice. It does not mean he will not face the consequences of his mistakes; it does mean that I will not allow those consequences to include a denial of basic needs for him (and perhaps his own family).

I see no reason to believe that this philosophy has to be at odds with Adam Smith; it is, however at odds with the "enthronement of monied corporations." Democratic Socialism is to me the essence of the idea that there are winners and losers in the market and in the quest for material success, however the losers are not going to be allowed to go hungry or homeless.

Yes, socialism does work in small groups. families, occassionally extended families and some success when individuals are united by a very strong common belief. I value my wife and son's lives greater than my own therefore I am willing to sacrifice for them. I am not willing to sacrifice for the shiftless bum down the street, who has not so much lost the game but refused to play it.

To add on to what hugo said, to the people who have genuienlly tried and failed at "the game", we have charities for them, instead of forcing people to give less fortunate people money, the gov't can convert welfare into charity.

CP

But charity is giving to those who have not earned. Haven't you been working against this concept? Why is that OK for a private charity, but not for the government, if that is the wish of the voters?

And what do you do when the number of needy is greater than what charities can provide for? The only logical endgame of your philosophy is that it is OK for those people to die from lack of food, water, or shelter. Sorry, but I'm not OK with that idea. Taking responsibility for your actions is quite different than being responsible for everything that happens to you in your life. We are each of us the sum of so many abstract factors. Every person is like a story, and every story is worth reading.

Because the gov't does not have the right to make me give someone money who I might not want to. And I'm not too high on the idea of helping people who don't give theire 100% effort to work.

CP

Does the government have the right to spend my taxes on nuclear weapons, when I do not want to spend my money on nuclear weapons?

And please answer my question, because this is germane to the topic: If the number of hungry who cannot afford food exceeds the amount of private charities' food supplies, is it OK with you if those people die?

Do you think, furthermore, that all successful people are successful due to their "giving it 100%?" Perhaps the children of the wealthy should be given zero inheritance if they give less than 100% effort. What if we fired everyone who didn't give 100% effort at their job? What do you suppose the unemployment rate would be? What about AD members who post here while at work? They aren't giving 100%.

Hugo:


The part I have a hard time believing is that whether in your philosophy you ever even bother to find out who that bum is. Instead, you assume from his appearance or actions that the bum is indeed shiftless and is totally responsible (through some sort of laziness) for his current straits.

Why would a form of socialism not work, if we were "united by a very strong common belief" in liberty and justice?

If the only motiviation for the system of capitalism is profit and the acquistion of money then I would have to conclude capitalism is a completely shallow, empty and meaningless economic system.

I'd prefer to call this free market vs. fair market. The former being dog-eat-dog and survival of the fittest and the latter being that of ensured equality for all. Now, as much as I'd love to argue the pros and cons of both economic systems, I'm not going to because I know that no one here is going to so much as entertain the notion that their preferred system is in error, myself included. Therefore, I will simply add my vote to the poll and ask that you look to the left and take notice of my pic, 'nuff said.

Some observations:

It is a common mistake (on ALL parts of the political spectrum, including the left) to imagine that socialism and communism are one and the same. The terms have been used almost interchangeably, by many different people with different ideas anbout how desirable or undesirable socialism/communism are.

Communism is, in theory, a way-station along the way to a Marxist utopia, where the state still exists, but smaller communes attempt to create the utopian idea of all wealth being owned by its creators. Clearly, it hasn't worked very well.

Socialism, as in the long European tradition of social democracy, while it shares some of the same ideas, has it roots not in the atheist, Marxist theories that gave rise to communism, but in 18th and 19th century Christian philosphy.

It predates Marxism by some years, and some European socialist thinkers believe that Marxism did socialism no favours by appropriating many of its core ideas and allowing them to be corrupted through communism.

On the effectiveness of capitalism as an economic system, and how close America is to a totally free market, I think that some people here are mistaken in believing that all that is required is a removal of all trade regulation.

Capitalism cannot exist only as an economic system with no reference to the society in which it exists. (Nor, indeed, could communism - in fact one could argue that the reason that European socialism, e.g. in Scandinavia, has succeeded where communism failed is that it takes account of the societies where it exists, and both fluorish).

I would say that the biggest barrier to America becoming a fully capitalist society is not trade tariffs or taxation, but the paucity of meritocracy. There is less social mobility now than there has been at any time in American history, or even than there is in most contemporary European countries (source: The World We're In by Will Hutton). Attempts have been made to try to give those at the bottom a leg-up, but no effort has been put into allowing those at the top to stand or fall on their own merits.

The social elite in the US lives in gated communities, sends its children to private schools, allows inheritance of massive wealth almost untaxed (by European standards), and generally entrenches its grip on the levers of power in American society.

If capitalism works, it does give rise to a small elite, a large middle class, and a larger mass of poor workers (which may or may not reside in the same country - western countries have exported some of their poor to the third world, and are making inroads on their middle class too - Indian call centres, anyone?). Any upwards mobility is necessary to maintain the 'freshness' of the top echelons, but they cannot expand indefinitely - for it to work, there have to be as many "riches to rags" as there are "rags to riches", and this just isn't happening.

If the rich want to be able to maintain their position in society down through their generations, and are not prepared to see a meritocratic downfall for some of their descendants, then they will have to continue to grin and pay their taxes to be spent supporting the people at the bottom, who might be able to rise to the top if only there was some room there.

It seems to me that, in this facet of society at least, the supposedly 'realist' capitalist system does not recognise and respond to human nature as well as social democracy does.

Defining Terminology and the Right-Wing Smoke Screens

I'm afraid i can't vote on this poll because it lumps Communism and Socialism together as one. As Joe has already pointed out, whilst they are both on the left of the political spectrum, they are not the same thing at all.

If I may requote Julian, to emphasise the point: -



Here are some definitions from A Glossary of Political Economy Terms, compiled by Dr. Paul M. Johnson of Auburn University and found at: -

http://www.duc.auburn.edu/~johnspm/glossind.html

Socialism



Communism



Socialism is an umbrella term for a range of eco-governmental policies which, like all political systems, ranges from the moderate to the extreme. As the definition itself states, socialism is by no means incompatable with democracy, and the term can be accurately applied to the Social Democracies of Western Europe.

Communism is an extrene form of econmic socialism involving the state ownership of all property through an authoritarian and undemocratic government.

Clearly the two terms are not interchangable. Communism is merely one possible extreme form of socialism, just as the system of free trade instituted by many ruthless and undemocratic Thurd World regimes is merely one possible extreme form of capitalism.

The question arises, therefore, of why pro-capitalists and right-wingers persist in lumping the two terms in together and making wild and unfounded generalisation about any and all left-wing systems, in spite of all evidence and explanation to the contrary.

Two possibilities occur: -

1. They are ignorant of the definitions of and distinctions between even the most basic of eco-political terms and systems.

2. They are engaging in anti-left-wing propoganda designed to discredit through baseless rhetoric and unfounded conjecture any and all policies and viewpoints that do not conform to their own narrow world-views

PS. DaytonaRocker - Thanks for printing the Cow Definitions. I've seen them before but not for a long while. They are brillaint!

Exactly! However, Socialism is much more dependant on ‘societal reference’. Countries composed of populations with traditionally strong work ethics, such as Norway, prosper. The opposite is true of countries with little work ethic. Look at the romantic countries, which like to siesta, and the picture is entirely different. A poor person in America makes much more than someone who would be considered middle class in Italy. Families bond together out of sheer necessity, extended families living in the same house.

We have argued on other threads that the American population is, generally, quite ignorant. I agree that this is the case. Considering the numerous European countries we can reference which have practicing Socialist systems (some successful and some not) and considering their prosperity is directly related to the work ethic and merits of the population as a whole, how do you think we’d turn out under such a system? Does our culture more emulate the Scandinavian one, or the Italian?

Well put, Julian. The US system not only rewards winners, but ensures that they and their descendants for at least several generations have a leg up in all future competitions. The first part I applaud; the second I condemn.

Inheritance is untaxed in America? For estates worth over $3 million, the death tax is 55%(federal), that does not consider the state and local death taxes.

Your argument is not completely true. If you consume, and do not produce, then eventually you will run out of money. The rich still need to produce in order to maintain their lifestyle. In addition, inflation eats away at the time value of their money, making producing new wealth that much more important.

I do agree that one of the problems of the US is the taxation of income, rather than the taxation of WEALTH. Taxation of income keeps people from accumulating wealth, with those who are wealthy are not required to pay on their previously earned wealth. Of course, no tax system can be completely fair to everyone.

So someone with $3M dies, and their kids inherit "only" $1.35M...if their parents were such idiots that they didn't take advantage of trusts and tax-free gifts and a dozen other wealth transfers that the real wealthy use to avoid estate tax. Then there's the advantage of a top-flight education and health care, plenty of free time - all luxuries denied to the poor, but let's just stick with the $1.35M for now. Don't you think that gives them a little bit of a leg up compared to someone who inherited squat - or the common legacy of debt, disease and dysfunction that those with poor sick parents tend to get? Sure, no tax system can be perfectly fair to everyone, but let's not give up. Our tax system can be a hell of a lot fairer than it is today.

I agree with your point about taxing wealth rather than income, BTW, and have made that same point here myself quite recently. It's only a matter of time, though, before someone calls it double taxation and brings up the almost entirely hypothetical example of the poor old farmer who has to sell the land to pay the taxes, so we end up with all taxes being ruled out with some kind of bogus reasoning and we're back to letting poor people starve.

Seems like we are off topic here.

So is yours Hugo...if you see an inappropriate or off topic post, please use the 'report this post' feature.

The King of Digression is right, though he should have reported it instead of posting. I'll stop participating in the drift.

I was gettting ready to comment on the migration patterns of South American fruit flies.

Enough already, hugo

TOPIC REMINDER:

Maybe we should eliminate money altogether then. Because that seems to be the problem you have with capitalism, money = food, food=life, money=house=house=life. Money is what you need to survive, capitalism allows you to make as much money as you want.

CP