General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCapitalism and Socialism have differing aims and cannot really criticise each other...
And the criticisms aimed at each from the other side about how one or other of them "doesn't work" almost always take the form of an attribution of failure to meet a goal that was never part of their avowed purpose in the first place.
"Capitalism doesn't look after the poor". No, it indeed it doesn't, and unsurprisingly so, because that's the stated goal of SOCIALISM. Fans of capitalism will never care that capitalism doesn't look after the poor because as far as they're concerned they don't owe the poor jack shit as it is self-evidently morally wrong to force human beings to be their brother's keepers because it's morally wrong to force people to do things they don't wanna dooooo, no fair, Daddy!.
"Socialism doesn't generate wealth". No shit. That's the stated goal of CAPITALISM. Fans of socialism will never care that socialism doesn't generate as much wealth as capitalism because as far as they're concerned they don't owe the "super-talented with a chance to achieve their LIFE GOOOOOAALS, man" jack shit because they don't regard human reality as a fleshspace video game where your worth is measured in yachts and it is self evidently morally wrong to let people die of starvation in the streets.
Quibbling over the extent to which each system fails to meet the other goals is incidental point scoring. We live in a world where the principles behind the goals of these models are, to some extent, and in most significant arenas of human political experience, mutually exclusive.
You choose a side.
Extreme as the following metaphorically couched dichotomy may seem, the questions stands and requires an answer if you're going to have a consistent and meaningful political philosophy:
What do you want? Lots of yachts and corpses? Or not very many yachts and fewer corpses?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)when people start discussing these 'isms, rarely do they even know what each system truly stands for.
I blame our educational system and still the effort to red bait.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)It doesn't seem to matter how many times I explain to people what these terms all actually mean and in a lot of these discussions they start saying stupid shit like "Well it can be DEFIIIINED that way" or "That's YOUR opinion" or things of that sort.
I just want to grab their heads and poke their noses in a book, sometimes...
I used to try to convince myself that as long as the concepts that these terms represent are firmly understood, even if they have a different label, then it might be OK, but then I realised that the blurring around these terms is necessary for toxic capitalism to flourish, correctly termed political processes that clearly work in other countries have to be placed beyond the reach of the American punter so that they have to do extra work to understand their own left wing ideology.
It's really fucked.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)why we really have no left in this country.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It is a religion, and some people will never let go of their belief in the true virtue of Capitalism.
As the saying goes, you can't reason people out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Confusing all money with capital (it isn't), describing systems which are clearly state capitalism as socialist, etc.
Socialism is more complex than "state owned means of production."
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Unfortunately what a lot of people online are talking about, even on this board, is "SOOOOSSHALLIZZZUM hwiiiick PTH" about which I know nothing. It's a fascinating subject but dull for me as I live in a country that makes use of the far more prosaic philosophy of socialism that doesn't rely on talking your babies away at the age of 3.5 and brainwashing all sense of identity out of them and turning them into little state-guided production units bleating out the Internationale at milk breaks.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)nm
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)That is the basic premise of the system. To create a program where the self-interest of individuals creates a net positive economic effect for the population.
Not only is that the long-stated theory, it is still a very popular belief.
Rex
(65,616 posts)And believe they are one and the same.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Presumably everyone now imagines me lining up outside the Government Milk Depot for milk.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)I water the lawn with them. It's a milk lawn.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)You are confusing a politicized take on talking points with the real goals of the systems which is, in both cases, the greatest net benefit of all in society.
And the modern "mixed economy" also has that same goal, and is the system employed by most nations today because neither capitalism or socialism has shown itself to be optimum in achieving that shared goal.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)ANY belief structure purporting to be of value to human beings, Xtianity, Buddhism, anarchy, whatever, claims to be the one to confer the "greatest net benefits". The MO of socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive, clearly, as it is the NATURE of said benefit that is under discussion in their dispute.
Xtianity wants "greatest benefit" to be "most likely to meet the sky fairy"
Buddhism wants "greatest benefit" to be "people not being perturbed by shit generated by their own natures"
Anarchy wants "greatest benefit" to be "nobody telling me what to do"
Et fucking cetera
Your observation is akin to suggesting there's no unresolvable conflict between creationism and evolution because deep down they're both just trying to explaaaaaain stuff, man...
C'mon.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)what it does is allow hording and storing of wealth generated from the labor of others by Capitalists.
What socialism does is transfer that generated wealth back into the hands of the laborers who created the wealth. Capitalists do not exist in this system. (Edit - I guess in a Socialist system, the "Capitalist" would be the Labor pool collective)
sibelian
(7,804 posts)... where it's been implemented.
I live in Scotland. We were heavily shielded against the recession by our large public sector.
Norway was barely affected.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)But you're not wrong, I'm just saying. It's the reason we have oligarchs, plutocrats, and elites in this world.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)To say that "socialism doesn't generate wealth" is absolutely idiotic.
The question is whether you are for grow or die or for equality for all. Really. That's the end result.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)The US is the most obvious example of what capitalism can do. But people forget, the USSR under extreme socialism took a completely backward nation and turned it into the #2 global superpower.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)First MACHINE in space.
Silly old communism.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)No space program? A lot less money funneled into scientific R&D? Would there even be transistors, semiconductors, computers with GUIs, etc? One could argue the two economic systems were co-dependent.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It wasn't any of that, it was....alien tech, really.
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)stillcool
(32,626 posts)But I thought that capitalism at it's core was a good model. If we all started out at the same level, rather than some born into all, and some born into nothing. If competition and superior products dictated value. If monopolies or 'too big to fails' were not allowed to force out all competition, and leave the few to dictate terms according to their whims with threats of destruction If laws were not written with loop holes forcing most to follow a law, but allowing others to break it. Someone once said "show me a fortune, and I'll show you a crime.' If the rules were the same, society would benefit from business, and business would benefit from society. I guess I think any system of government has merit, until human beings get involved
sibelian
(7,804 posts)They both involve PEOPLE.
So, there. There's a pithy bit of wisdom for you, huh?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)While I don't think of myself as a "pure" socialist, here's my criticism of capitalism: its goals are wrong.
I can do that quite easily.
Well, that was more or less my point.
But you seem to have made it rather better than I did...
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Loved the final paragraph.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Thank you, thank you, kind sir, or ma'am...