Capitalism & Socialism

[JadedWolf]

Capitalism vs Communism eh?

 

I thought that was already sorted. The Soviet Union collapsed. Russia and other states have embraced capitalism, and see how well that worked out for them. Russia is no longer a propaganda filled dictatorship that enviously eyes other people's borders.

 

... Oh, snap.

[JadedWolf]

P.S. On a more serious note, there isn't a single proper socialist country in the entirety of Western Europe. Yes, they don't have unbridled capitalism, but which country really does in practice - not even the U.S.A. can say that. And yes, they have public healthcare, unemployment insurance, pension benefits and all that good stuff, but that's not being socialist; that's called being civilized.

 

If you really want to look at a country that wants to put socialism into practice, don't look at Scandinavia, look at Venezuela. Although even what they're doing there is a perversion of socialism. Socialism is a Utopian dream with a fatal flaw: it depends on the selflessness of people.

Edited September 16, 2014 by JadedWolf

[Gorgon]

Depends who you ask. The Scandinavian model originated in the end of WW2 where people had gotten used to the notion of pulling together and of efficient management brought on by military necessity. The Blitz and all that. There was a desire and a will to lift up the standard of living for everyone. People came to expect the government to handle more aspects of society

 

 In countries that are less politically stable and with greater wealth disparity, like much of South America, the ideology is usually more pronounced and retains much of the notions competing classes from Marx.  A more pronounced underclass becomes a political base that can't be ignored. 

[Kroney]

A civilised country practices to certain standards. A guarantee of adequate healthcare. A safety net when you find yourself out of work. A reasonable quality of life once you're retired. A country that doesn't hold itself to those standards cannot call itself a modern civilisation. Western socialism believes in these things. Sometimes it also espouses unions to protect workers' rights, a nationalised transportation system and so on. A socialist country doesn't necessitate a repressive dictatorial regime any more than a capitalist one prevents it. 

 

Too many people make the idiotic conclusion that socialism = communism. It doesn't. 

[Shallow]

A civilised country practices to certain standards. A guarantee of adequate healthcare. A safety net when you find yourself out of work. A reasonable quality of life once you're retired. A country that doesn't hold itself to those standards cannot call itself a modern civilisation. Western socialism believes in these things. Sometimes it also espouses unions to protect workers' rights, a nationalised transportation system and so on. A socialist country doesn't necessitate a repressive dictatorial regime any more than a capitalist one prevents it. 

 

Too many people make the idiotic conclusion that socialism = communism. It doesn't. 

Socialism in its purest form is literally communism - the "once we control the entire world and brainwash people for a few generations we'll abolish the more tyrannical portions of our state and people will naturally behave properly" part, western socialism just isn't pure socialism.

[Gorgon]

Who decides what socialism in its purest form is, you ?. Why not deal with the examples that are actually out there in the world instead. 

[JadedWolf]

I'll just leave this here:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

[Kroney]

 

A civilised country practices to certain standards. A guarantee of adequate healthcare. A safety net when you find yourself out of work. A reasonable quality of life once you're retired. A country that doesn't hold itself to those standards cannot call itself a modern civilisation. Western socialism believes in these things. Sometimes it also espouses unions to protect workers' rights, a nationalised transportation system and so on. A socialist country doesn't necessitate a repressive dictatorial regime any more than a capitalist one prevents it. 

 

Too many people make the idiotic conclusion that socialism = communism. It doesn't. 

Socialism in its purest form is literally communism - the "once we control the entire world and brainwash people for a few generations we'll abolish the more tyrannical portions of our state and people will naturally behave properly" part, western socialism just isn't pure socialism.

 

 

You're referring to socialism in its most extreme form. Generally speaking, most people would say that extremism isn't to be encouraged. Certainly, most people in the Middle East would tend to agree.

 

There is no reason that socialism and capitalism cannot work successfully in one economy. Most of Western Europe practices this to one extent or another, with private enterprise alongside universal healthcare, welfare states, state-owned utilities and so on.

 

Calling communism "pure" socialism is a fundamental misunderstanding. In fact Marx and Engels were criticising "pure" (by which I mean the more-or-less original, contemporaneous socialism of the late 19th/early 20th centuries) when they wrote their works that were themselves debased further by Trotsky and Lenin. Communism is a product of decades of authoritarian, rather than liberal, socialism. In the West, more liberal forms were pursued. This directly led to unions protecting workers' rights, the NHS in Britain, government-funded compulsory education etc; all cornerstones of modern, Western civilisation and nothing that anybody in their right mind would consider negative.

 

I'll just leave this here:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

 

Christ, even Wikipedia's more detailed and accurate than that rubbish.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Kroney

[Elerond]

I'll just leave this here:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism

[JadedWolf]

 

I'll just leave this here:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism

 

 

A dictionary fight?! Bring it on! -Raises dictionary above him, ready to charge-

 

Oh, buggerit. Your dictionary is thicker. -Legs it-

[Kroney]

 

 

A guarantee of adequate healthcare does not necessary means that the healthcare need to be maintained by government. There could be a public insurance that covers for the basic healthcare for the poorest. But it needs to me not mandatory. You want insurance, you can go for public insurance or private. You don't want insurance, your choice.
The same thing can be done with other fields like education and so on.

 

 

Yes, insurance *could* be done like that, but then you're lumping the entire cost of one family educating their children and providing their healthcare on that family. You rapidly start producing a two tier system where those that can afford better care do and those that can't, don't. You may not see this as a problem, but people, by their nature, seek to have as much as they can and hold onto it. People are selfish. In a country where a two-tier educational system prevails, you will see far less social mobility. Those that are well-educated (i.e rich) will necessarily rise to the most influential, best paid positions. Those that earn less will receive lower quality education and will not be as successful. The elite will legislate to keep them and theirs safe. 

 

In a society with state-provided education, social mobility is higher as the government, through taxation, pays for education. Everybody receives the same level of education and has the same chances. Britain has a two-tier system. The people who can pay for schooling on average rise higher. Britain's system is perhaps fairer than others, due to a state funded accessible educational system, but you can be taken out of it and sent to be educated privately. It's not fair, but nobody's telling people what they can and can't spend their money on and neither am I. 

 

The concept that people can make money off another person's health and therefore an insurance-based health system is abhorrent to me. However, the critical thing is to provide a decent basic level of free healthcare. Beyond that, the rich can have all the quacks, plastic surgeons, and private healthcare they like so long as decent, effective healthcare is accessible to all and paid for by the State through taxation.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Kroney

[Hurlshort]

Sharp_One, I know you are new here, but personally attacking people is simply not acceptable on these forums.  Feel free to debate passionately all you want, but name calling is unnecessary.  Your post above is a wonderful one until you put that final sentence in.  It is much stronger without the ugly attack. 

 

[HoonDing]

Great thread.

[Kroney]

 

 

Instead of today system where more wealthy people can afford to pay for private treatment instead of public? Wealthy people WILL have better lives/education/healthcare etc. than poor people if not in the country of their origin then abroad. You cannot change this in any system. The only thing to do is elimination of wealthy people. Like communists did in their revolution. Do you want that?

 

*sigh* no I'm not saying that. Don't be ridiculous. I'm saying that everybody deserves a decent level of living. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with the state providing that care. I'm saying that by spreading that cost out across the nation through taxation, you're reducing the burden on those that can least afford to provide it for their families.

 

 

 

You are insulting people with those statements. In capitalism anyone can achieve wealth. How do you think the rich people have money? They all inherited from their ancestors? And those ancestors from their ancestors and infinity? They had to start somewhere. Not to mention there are literally tens of thousands millionaires made every year! Many of them born in really poor families. Yet they have succeed with hard work and good ideas for business they achieved success.

 

What you describe is a long, long gone class system where a peasant could not achieve wealth no matter what because he was a property of noblemen. But even then there was occasionally a few thousands per yer to achieve some status. But that is a long gone past.

 

Nowadays a poor black girl can become a world renown billionaire hosting a TV show because she had a strong personality and charisma.

A poor single mother living on welfare can become a billionaire because she had an idea for a book.

A 15 year old dropout from school can become one of the greatest artist.

 

I don't think I have anywhere stated anything that makes the above quote relevant. I don't care where rich people got their money from. It's their money and none of my business.

 

 

 

Saying that "if you are poor you will stay poor" is an insult to all those poor people who fought their way up and achieved success and an insult for all those poor people who will try.

 

It's not an insult to poor people at all. If anything, it's a criticism of the average attitude of rich people. 

 

 

 

who thinks people cannot take care of themselves and achieve success without you

 

I think nothing of the sort. I think that while many people achieve success, many more don't and those people don't deserve to end up on the floor. Those people are still people and they still deserve a decent standard of living. They deserve a safety net. They deserve to be able to get their diseases cured, their children schooled and they deserve not to starve. In short, they deserve to be looked after by the Government they've paid taxes to and voted for. They shouldn't have to turn to private companies to provide the basic standard of living that is their right as a citizen and a human being.

[Shallow]

Saying that "if you are poor you will stay poor" is an insult to all those poor people who fought their way up and achieved success and an insult for all those poor people who will try.

 

It's not an insult to poor people at all. If anything, it's a criticism of the average attitude of rich people.

It sort of is insulting to the people born poor who managed to become succesful in spite of that, saying if you are poor you will stay poor implies poor people are completely powerless, people born into wealthy families do have a way easier time getting wealthy, but the above statement is claiming that there is no way you can manage to become succesful without always having been.

[Kroney]

 

Saying that "if you are poor you will stay poor" is an insult to all those poor people who fought their way up and achieved success and an insult for all those poor people who will try.

 

It's not an insult to poor people at all. If anything, it's a criticism of the average attitude of rich people.

It sort of is insulting to the people born poor who managed to become succesful in spite of that, saying if you are poor you will stay poor implies poor people are completely powerless, people born into wealthy families do have a way easier time getting wealthy, but the above statement is claiming that there is no way you can manage to become succesful without always having been.

 

 

Except I didn't say that. I said the poor start to suffer from less social mobility. It's a generalist term intended in a generalist sense, that of society as a whole making it harder for people to cross social boundaries. Harder, not impossible. A lack of social mobility is something I am very much against.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Kroney

[Shallow]

Except I didn't say that. I said the poor start to suffer from less social mobility. It's a generalist term intended in a generalist sense, that of society as a whole making it harder for people to cross social boundaries. Harder, not impossible. A lack of social mobility is something I am very much against.

 

I never claimed you said that, you did however say that the statement wasn't insulting at all, which it was.

[Kroney]

Oh right, I wouldn't know. I'm too busy rolling in money on my Warwickshire estate to worry about insulting a bunch of proles. As long as they keep the horses groomed and don't get too uppity, I'll hold back on the public whippings. They won't mind, they'll have their hands full climbing the social ladder getting doctorates and positions in Parliament off the back of those second rate educational hand-outs they get from disinterested insurance corporations.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Kroney

[Gfted1]

Recent read something interesting, 1 in 25 people in New York are millionaires. Sounds hard to believe.

[Gorgon]

Probably because it isn't true. Unless it's defined as all the most exepensive real estate down town or some such technicality, and greater New York is what we think of as New York.

[Gfted1]

Probably because it isn't true. Unless it's defined as all the most exepensive real estate down town or some such technicality, and greater New York is what we think of as New York.

 

The first two pages of Google search results disagrees with you.

[Gorgon]

It still isn't that odd id the real estate is super expensive, and it is. 

[HoonDing]

If you own a house you're a millionaire. It's nothing special. I'm a millionaire.

[Gorgon]

I doubt those 1 im 25 have a million bucks in their account they can take out and spend anytime.

[Gfted1]

None of the articles Ive read suggest the money is tied to real estate so Im not sure where you two are getting that. From one of the links above: "Most of the wealth is Wall Street-generated".