-->
@Theweakeredge
Applicable if you get the point.....I.Q. once again.....Thinking outside the prescribed box.
Socialism vs Capitalism is a stupid Dichotomy
Posts
Total:
141
-->
@zedvictor4
Your version of "thinking outside the box" is making non-sequiturs. That isn't being creative, that's being wrong
-->
@Theweakeredge
Socialism is a system where the means of production (factories, etc) are owned by the people as a whole.
Capitalism is a system where the means of production are owned by capitalists.
They are mutually exclusive if you are trying to follow them absolutely. Most countries are actually already a mixed market economy, with portions of the means of production controlled by capitalist businesses and portions controlled by the government which is elected by the people. Obviously this doesn't apply, in some countries the government is a monarchy or a theocracy so it can't be considered an organ of the collective public's power.
Most arguments about socialism and capitalism are actually about trying to move towards one of the ends of the spectrum (e.g. move healthcare in the USA from capitalist to socialist provision to try and make it less awful). Few people actually argue for pure socialism or pure capitalism, though I'm one of the former and believe Capitalism has inherent flaws that cannot be constrained and must be checked with socialism giving superior outcomes though I don't advocate state control as the best method for governing the means of production and prefer worker co-operatives.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Capitalism does not solve the problems of Socialism, not in a long term anyways;
Is that why there has never been a successful socialist system in its history [the record is USSR at about 70 years, but the average is about 40 years, such as Venezuela], while the most successful capitalist system is the USA, at over 230 years, and counting? If course there are winners ands losers. But who's fault is that? Not the system. When I gambled [I don't anymore - it lost the thrill] I never, ever gambled more than 1% of my net worth. Usually, $100 was played of my money, Anything I won, went in my pocket and never came out again. When hte $100 was gone, if it was, I stepped away. I invest by a similar tactic, although the percentage has risen a bit, but the same principle applies. I simply do not lose long term. It's called discipline
-->
@fauxlaw
The American system is a mix of either, and always has been, every time we try to become less capitalist, the better. For example: The ending of using children as factory workers.
-->
@Theweakeredge
What does child labor haver to do with pure capitalism? That was greed, which is a downfall of capitalism. See my post above.
-->
@fauxlaw
The USA is a total failure though. It fails to look after tens of millions of it's own citizens and it's externalities not only cause more deaths than all "socialist" countries ever combined, but the consumerist production culture it heads and embodies is literally leading towards the collapse of all human civilisation as we march inexorably towards catastrophic climate change.
Your benchmark for success appears to be "exists for X length of time" which I guess makes American capitalism less successful than aristocracy, which has numerous examples which lasted for far longer.
-->
@fauxlaw
"greed" as you put it, is an implicit goal of capitalism.
-->
@TXHG
"Total failure" would mean that everyone in America who practices capitalism fails [we all don't, by the way. I mean PRACTICE, as in, it is a daily enterprise, not an occasional hit-miss. Can everybody do it? No. Many are too greedy, invest poorly and with no discipline. Most do not engage it at all as it could be practiced. By that, I mean that most people work for money. Got to a job for which they are paid hourly/salary. And that's it; they have no other revenue stream. I don't work for anybody on a continuous basis. I work, but it's my company, and it has been for over twenty years. I'm sole proprietor. I decide who I do work for, and they pay me. In addition, I make my money go to work for me [investment], and I'm diversified. Real estate, stocks, mutual funds, etc. That's the majority of my revenue stream. But I'm disciplined about it, as noted above. I've been doing that for over 50 years, starting when I was 16. My father taught me three things: ambition, planning, and execution. I'm better at it than he was. He started late, and gave me a head start. Anyone can do it, but few do. So, go ahead. Work for the man. Work for money, and complain you're not making it, and the world is not fair. Yes, it is. But you have to know when to hold ;em, when to fold 'em. It's a better way, it's legal, and it's mine.
-->
@Theweakeredge
bullshytye. Greed is a loser's game. Greed is applying all the wrong methods of capitalism. I give 20% of my increase to charity, but I pick them. And I never , ever buy anything over the phone, including charity, or at the door. Never. My spending is entirely by my choice and my need or want. And never when it exceeds my budget. MY budget. Capitalism, when worked fairly, honestly, and generously, is the best system on earth, bar none. Anybody could do it, but few do. And then they complain about the rich. It's simple: decide to be rich, and go do it. Is that so hard? Actually, it is. You have to get out of your own, lazy way, and that is a major obstacle.
-->
@fauxlaw
Or "Total failure" could be read to mean that not for a single second throughout it's entire history has the USA managed to produce equitable results and not cause masses of harm and/or injustice to masses of people.
Frankly the problems with socialism seem temporal and surmountable, the problems with Capitalism seem inherent to the very concept of Capitalism. You can't rely on greed as a motivating factor to drive the economy and then not also have greed impact lives in disparate other ways (High concentrations of political power in a rich elite, environmental damage, being adversarial to improving worker conditions)
-->
@fauxlaw
Using yourself as the sole expression of capitalism isn't proof, it's testimony, that famously fails as proof of anything besides the fact that you experienced something and report it to be a, b, or c.
-->
@TXHG
I believe in the principle that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day That's not much. Next day, give him another fish. That can go on forever, but what s the gain to anybody? Give a man a few lessons about how to fish, he feeds himself, and then can do do likewise for another. That's pure capitalism.
Look at the complaints you've racked up, all excuses about how unfair the rich are. So, go be rich. That's it. But it has to be your decision, and your commitment. But, when you're rich, give back. Not all rich do that, either, and that's what you complain about. So, don't be like them. But don't complain that the whole system is rigged, either. It isn't. To each their own, and that applies to what you do with your money, doesn't it. Be rich, and be charitable, but do the latter with more effort than just giving money. Charity is not giving money away, it is the pure love of Christ. It is hope for a better world, and doing something about it.
-->
@Theweakeredge
So, what I can do for myself, is of no benefit to another if I teach how to do it to another? You're saying that's not a truth. It's not a truth for you if you don't go try it yourself, and make it happen, that's for sure. But that's on you, isn't it? Meanwhile, I move on, because I know it's working for me. Believe what you will. It's your life. Just don't let somebody else direct it for you by telling you you can't do it. You know by doing, not by sitting there, thinking I'm crazy, and that everyone else who actually tried this is crazy. The world is full of crazy people, but they're crazy because they deny themselves the right to try. That's a life? I am NOT the sole expression of capitalism.
-->
@fauxlaw
That wasn't my point... my point was that you are using your expressions your proof of its successes. That was my point
-->
@fauxlaw
In that example the fisherman controls his own means of production, so by definition it'd be socialist.
If someone lent him a rod but required a fifth of the fish he caught and another person let the fisherman use a stretch of river they controlled in return for half the fish he caught - then twenty years later they decide they'd rather use a newly designed auto-fishing rod and so cancel their deal with the fisherman and leave him starving - that would be Capitalist.
Also you don't seem to have understood my criticism. Regardless of my own personal wealth, several million children will die this year because the Capitalist system which allocates commodities based on income to generate greater profits for capitalists will intentionally not distribute food to them even though we grow enough food to feed everyone on Earth. I am doing well and in terms of self-interest a completely egalitarian society would be a significant step down for me if income and wealth was shared truly egalitarianly. The focus on "Oh well if you get rich then everything's okay, please don't pay attention to all the people who don't do so" is the exact problem with Capitalism - not to mention that even if everyone were superhuman geniuses with incredible will to work hard and become rich - the owner/worker structure of Capitalism ensures that a majority of the population HAS to be exploited workers because the system doesn't work with just leeches - it needs people actually working.
-->
@Theweakeredge
@TXHG
When are you two, at least, going to stop complaining and start trying what I've been saying. Keep complaining, that's your result: Nothing. You complain, and gain nothing. I've been at this for over 50 years. It's not an overnight thing. You cannot expect it will be. And it is hard. I'm telling you it's worth it.
-->
@fauxlaw
So... do you have any evidence? Proper? Or just appeals to emotion?
-->
@TXHG
In that example the fisherman controls his own means of production, so by definition it'd be socialist.
Never read Marx. have you?
-->
@Theweakeredge
My life and accomplishments are my proof. Do I need any other? I have property, money in cash, and investments. I have many friends, some of whom I have benefitted financially when needed, and by teaching. I love them, and that is reciprocated.
-->
@fauxlaw
To prove it to us? Yes. Also, a single case isn't evidence of a whole. You have proven nothing emprically. Besides that you say you have done x, y, and z. Which, I'll grant because that's reasonable enough to believe. Now, the success, and the that this translates across all capitalism, or that it somehow solves the issues of capitalism? No, your accomplishments do not prove that.
-->
@fauxlaw
Read Marx and books analysing Marx. That you assume socialism has to be Marxist though is a major mistake on your part.
-->
@fauxlaw
Your criteria is has Capitalism worked for you specifically. No-one else cares about that, so it's irrelevant. Try engaging with people's arguments and rationales.
-->
@TXHG
Try engaging with people's arguments and rationales.
Which are, to be honest, just their personal experiences. So, what's different?
-->
@fauxlaw
Which are, to be honest, just their personal experiences. So, what's different?
Mine aren't just personal experiences, so it's different because you're wrong and making silly ads motions to avoid the argument.
-->
@Theweakeredge
In your limited opinion.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Except... you can be partially free... You can be regulated to the laws of physics and technically not be "free". You can have the right to do as is with the law and technically be "free". Clearly, there is more nuance to freedom that you do not include, to look at it binarily is like to look at lots of things through a binary, that simply isn't. It is simplistic and not the case. I could be a criminal that is allowed out of prison, but with an ankle monitor, I am "more" free than I was before unless you're saying there is no difference? Clearly, freedom is relative to your experience.
The "freedom" to which I refer is philosophical not "physical." And no, one cannot be "partially" free. When one's autonomy is subject to the decisions of someone else, regardless of scope, it renders one "un-free." For example, if I were to legally possess a slave and permit him/her to carry out the functions of an ordinary person, i.e. go to school, go to work, meet someone, marry, start a family, etc. but he/she is to report to me every night at 9 p.m., would that person be "mostly" free? Are the functions he/she carries out manifestations of his/her autonomy, or merely extensions of the privileges I've offered? How would my seeming "benevolence" make him/her any less my slave?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because healthcare is the system that allows modernization. Without ways to prevent illness, fix injury, or treat afflictions; not only would productivity plummet, but the age of living would also be reduced. Not only that but in order to have any morality at all, the state of other's beings is implicitly needed. Therefore, in order to declare anything "wrong", you must have an assumption that human regard matters, and would thus be morally inclined to take care of such things. The marketization and order for product only hinder that goal, the exploitive cost, the idea that there should be profit in the organization at all, all of that, hinders that goal.
How would "treating it as a business" or "marketization" diminish and/or hinder ways to prevent illness, treatment of afflictions, productivity, and the age of living? How does the exploitative costs and the idea of profit in an organization, as you particularly put it, diminish/hinder the aforementioned goal? How does state-ownership provide a remedy?
-->
@Conway
As you can see, the word (not just the term) was virtually unheard of until the late-1800's, around the time Das Kapital was publicized. The implications seem fairly obvious.
But not unheard of. Even if we were to restrict our tracing back its origins to just the word, "Capitalism," it still wouldn't have been coined by Karl Marx. French socialists Louis Blanc and Pierre Jospeh Prodhoun used the term before Marx did. And its alleged first English use was by William Thackery in 1854 (before Das Kapital, which was published in 1867.) If you research the etymology of the word, it originated in France (i.e. Capitalisme.)
-->
@Athias
I say virtually as I'm generally aware of some European conversations on a purely trivial note.
Even if we were to restrict our tracing back its origins to just the word, "Capitalism,"
You don't seem to understand the distinction between a word and a term. In this case, the word is actually a more expansive search.
How do you know you aren't making the same mistake of applying the term to people who simply meant, having ownership of capital (to the exclusion of others)?