Capitalism or Socialism

[redgrassbridge]

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution, and other trade of goods and services for profit in a market.

Socialism, as an economic system, is often associated with state, community or worker ownership of the means of production. It is a general term refering to several systems where these means may be owned directly, through community collectives, or indirectly, by the state.

These two systems are often put at odds, even though many other systems exist. Both touch heavily upon philosophical views such as the right to the ownership of property and the motivation of a population's workforce. Which do you think is the better choice, assuming that you are starting an entirely new country with a full population and without outside interference?

[marrow]

this is a good'un.
You can have a capitalist society with a degree of socialist ideology- or did you mean capitalist or communist?
I believe that a society will function at its best when there is sufficient incentive to better one's position both financially and relatively, provided that there is sufficient provision for those who are UNABLE to do so. (ie those with restricting mental/ physical problems).
During my studies of economics (many moons ago) i learned that many communist countries did not have this incentive for self development, this led to inefficient markets & demotivated populations. I acknowledge that the rapid growth of China as a world economic power probably wees all over that particular argument.
Wholly capitalist societies can suffer from the problem of an elite class of extremely wealthy people getting richer and an impoverished class who are unable to create a better life for themselves due to a lack education development or initial financial backing.
Even the middle road of socialism has its drawbacks- people playing the benefits system because they are smart enough to take advantage, but too lazy to work.

To sum up, if i was starting my own country, without outside influence, i would go with something similar to the UK system, but whith far more rigorous monitoring. Anyone found chav-ing it up, abusing the benefits system, would be publicly executed as a warning to the rest of the population. I would be a dictator, but a reasonable one.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-3.25&soc=-2.10
but not according to this.

[jackattack502]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

you need this

post the image of your compass in your post after you take the quiz

[Mercer]

interesting...apparently i'm lightly on the libertarian right. Precisely where I expected...

But in response to the topic at hand:

Capitalism is a great way to motovate a propulation, however, it can break down by introductions of policies and such from the other side of the spectrum. Now, this isn't to say you can't have a stable medium between the two, but you certianly don't have the advantages of either side.

Communism is certainly possible i believe, however, you have to do away with the idea of scarcity to get it to work. Communist socities can semi-sucessfully interface in an economic sense with Capitalist systems but the Communist system has to work very fuildly and as a whole to do it...

[hoboman725]

well, I end up here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-2.50&soc=-3.64

right about where Ghandi was, haha

my answer: I would try to find a good balance between the two. I would most likely let buisinesses do as they saw fit, I believe the term is lez a fair or something like that...It's French. But in addition to this there would need to be a government to regulate the buisinesses. the government would have to be more directly controlled by the people than say, the US is.

[DarkFlood]

I didn't take a picture, but I was in that same area with ghandi too.

[Flarty]

while communism is a nice idea it just doesnt work, it gives no incentive to ppl to excel as they will only be on the same level as a garbage man,
Thats why captilism does work, because people get what they earn, so some people are willing to put the effort in for the reward, and some people dont, thats why doctors drive round in aston martins and dustbin men catch the bus,
while in the soviet union they would of both drove lardas.

[lubbe]

Hm. I appear to be an anarchist. Fascinating.

Anyway, any political system has its winners and losers, but there are more losers than winners in some. Capitalism is working pretty well for the countries themselves, so it's good. I guess.

[Raminator]

There's a difference between communism and socialism, so you guys need to stop using the terms interchangeably. Anyway, while I support some of the notions of a socialist government, I can't condone communism (as we know it) because of its inherent flaws.

I'm all in favour of the government owning and operating public infrastructure, and I oppose the capitalist approach of privatising hospitals, water supplies, power grids, telecommunications and the like. These are the kinds of things that need to be maintained in the interest of the people, not in the interest of making a profit. It's going to create a problem where only the elite classes in society are able to afford the healthcare, sanitation, and other supplies necessary for existence. Unfortunately, under current capitalist governments, huge sectors of the public sector are being sold off to multinational conglomerates in a bid to make money. The purpose of a government is to serve the citizens, not the shareholders.

Naturally though, there are a number of problems inherent to a socialist system too. It's open to abuse from governments since most examples we've seen thus far are usually one-party systems. Again, maintaining public services requires taxpayer funds, and most socialist countries are notorious for their proclivity for military spending in lieu of bettering public services.

Ideally, a Utopian government would be a democratically elected meritocracy, where the government controls the public sector. The government and corporations should be subservient to the general populace, not the other way around.

EDIT: According to the political compass, I'm a collectivist anarchist like Gandhi and Mandela.

[DKR1138]

I look up the the Dalai Lama alot, compassion and wisdom in a box.

[marrow]

well, I end up here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-2.50&soc=-3.64

right about where Ghandi was, haha

my answer: I believe the term is lez a fair or something like that...It's French.

laissez-faire (non- literal translation "leave it be")

yeah, any capitalist economy needs some regulation, otherwise we little people get squished by corporations in their quest for profits.

[Dr.Aaron]

Capitalism will bring us victory!-Chinese fraction upgrade from C&C generals: zero hour. :P

[Raminator]

They say "Nationalism will bring us victory".

[jackattack502]

Funny, I ended up with Hitler

[Ares]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/middle_cross.gif

I'm just about where Ghandi is too.

I believe buisness needs to be regulated. A buisness' first goal is profit, and profit alone, they don't care who is squashed, what is destroyed or ruined, only about how much in the green they are...

[Delphic]

Echoing what quite a few people have said, Captialism seems to work but buisnesses need to be regulated so that the little people aren't forgotten. I think, that quite simply a captialist system appeals to human greed, so is quite effective.

Oh yeah I was gandi-ish too

[M60]

Correct me if I am wrong but didnt russians invented socialism? then it turned into a comunism and it started to spread around the world so I think its impossible to say which is better because we have never seen a true socialism. But I personally think capitalism is better. You would have to live in a socilalistic country find out how it really is. Because it sounds nice, but only teorethically.
BTW, my political compass: http://www.mg60tvorba.szm.sk/polcomp.JPG

[jackattack502]

MArx invented socialism- lenin implemented communism

[redgrassbridge]

Socialism was created in western europe as a reaction to the cultural conflict developing between the working class and the new high class of factory owners and business tycoons (the Bourgeoisie) after the industrial revolution. Communism is one specific system within socialism.

[amd2800barton]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/middle_cross.gif

I'm just about where Ghandi is too.

I believe buisness needs to be regulated. A buisness' first goal is profit, and profit alone, they don't care who is squashed, what is destroyed or ruined, only about how much in the green they are...

I believe that it is not so much Business that needs to be regulated, but Human beings. The corruption and "squash who gets in the way of profits" comes from people running them. Obviously, in cases of corporations it is easier to write law governing the actions of the corporation, but fundamentally, you are writing law saying that no PERSON within that corporation/running it can allow or is required to allow such n such thing to happen.

So, for ease of law writing, businesses often must be the ones regulated; but what people need to know is that it is actully the people running the business that have to obey the law that governs the business. Otherwise the enron guys would never have been brought to court. Technically many of the bad things they did "the company" actually did. However, the law applies to them since they were running Enron.

Plus a company cannot function without human beings. Without humans to at least start it (eg program ComputerEarnProfitsNoMatterWhat.exe (a program i just made up)) it requires human input. Companies dont just come from nowhere, so humans must be regulated in what they can/cannot do in the corporation.

this is to provide basic law and order among human beings. that is why i believe that SOME regulation of business is required.

EG, a toleration policy - humans often naturally prejudge oneanother on a myriad of different things: race, sex, age, even things as seemingly stupid as hair color or clothes worn to work. To maintain fairness (of opportunity) one must make sure that these human prejudices have as little impact as possible on the actions of a company.

[geekofalltrades]

MArx invented socialism- lenin implemented communism
That's not quite right... Marx actually co-wrote (and is often projected as the main author of) "The Communist Manifesto." Communism, as it is outlined in the manifesto, is a system of government in which there is no government (in the formal sense). All land, businesses, and utilities are owned by the people, and nothing is privately owned or run.

This thread should probably be called "Capitalism or Communism," as these two systems are the two extremes. Socialism falls in between the two. Socialism is not the same as communism, though many people use the two interchangeably: in a socialist form of government, most businesses are privately owned and run, while public services (health care, utilities, etc.) are provided by the federal government.

The Fifty Nifty United States qualify as a modified capitalist system, somewhere around here on the spectrum:

Capitalist------------U.S.-------------------------Socialist------------------------------------------Communist

(Just in case anyone is wondering.) Most European nations qualify as Socialist, right in the middle of the spectrum. Frankly, as a citizen of the US, I feel that's the direction that our country should take. Who knows, maybe with the democrats in charge we'll finally start going that direction.

[redgrassbridge]

I named the thread Capitalism vs Socialism because both of these philosophies are applicable to a wide array of individual systems, and each has moderate and extreme examples (Communism being an extreme Socialist system, just as the various governmental privatization systems are extreme Capitalist).