• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Socialism vs. Capitalism

Which do you Prefer


  • Total voters
    57
My understanding is everyone gets paid the same,

So go look it up. There are socialist systems out there, you can just go find out.

I think you'll be surprised at just how completely mistaken you are.

There is nothing in either socialist theory or reality that says everyone gets paid the same, in salary or perks. Only a few extremist communists try to do anything like that, and that involves sending doctors out to actually be factory workers (or collective farmers, or whatever). And the even the commies don't do that anymore since it failed so miserably.
 
Last edited:
What about doctors?

Dont know, I think American ones get paid slightly higher(doctors are on average the best paid job in American - justifiably).

I have seen some figures for different European countries, and they are quite similar to the US numbers, but I dont have a clear view of the average, also it varies within Europe. My impression judged on memory of a rather weak basis of data is that European socialist countries pay their doctors slightly better than the more capitalist economies, and also have more doctors per person.
 
Dont know, I think American ones get paid slightly higher(doctors are on average the best paid job in American - justifiably).

I have seen some figures for different European countries, and they are quite similar to the US numbers, but I dont have a clear view of the average, also it varies within Europe. My impression judged on memory of a rather weak basis of data is that European socialist countries pay their doctors slightly better than the more capitalist economies, and also have more doctors per person.

Wouldn't surprise me. Thanks for your responses.

I was responding to the crazy idea that doctors and factory workers get paid the same under socialist regimes.
 
Yes, and if you decide to pay a doctor as much as a factory worker, there goes his incentive to work hard. Thats the problem with socialism, it takes away personal incentive to excel. Traditionally, the only way to get somewhere is by climbing ladders in the party system, and only liars and manipulators can do that.

I'm don't intend to be offensive here, and this is not directed at you personally, but I think when people start discussing capitalism vs socialism, they tend to see the issue through a rich vs poor objective lens. This really isn't what makes capitalism vs socialism a subject worthy of discussion. It's not rich vs poor, good vs evil, and other opposite value terms. It's the idea that a system of economics and/or politics can give everyone access to success, by whatever means he can, be it by ingenuity, industriousness, determination, persuit of higher education, or sheer luck of being in the right place at the right time with the right product or opportunity, and this is what capitalism tends to facilitate. Some people actually believe that socialism can create equality of masses, but what it actually does is create two distinct classes: the poor working class (the vast majority), and the party class that rules. It does not really allow for a middle class, lower-middle, upper-middle. It does (as you stated well) destroy the will to succeed, and breeds an atmosphere of mediocrity.
 
They'll be very little intellectual property to share in the first place without those laws. But that's a new thread.

I think that is certainly debatable, particularly if you note the freeware that is widely available on the market.

If you notice that the easier things have gotten to reproduce the more stringent IP laws have gotten, when it should be the opposite.
 
I think that is certainly debatable, particularly if you note the freeware that is widely available on the market.

You think you can run everything on freeware?

And that's just computers.

If you notice that the easier things have gotten to reproduce the more stringent IP laws have gotten, when it should be the opposite.

Why?
 
You think you can run everything on freeware?

And that's just computers.

Yes, but take a look at books still in publication a thousand years after they were released.
They are still hot on the charts because of the quality.

I'm talking about Republic and similar texts.



The pace of technological changes, a program becomes obsolete quite quickly these days, not to mention the fact that they are virtual machines that should only be patented.

Another reason is that replication of texts is dirt cheap with the combination of immediate market access.
Things are moving to faster and cheaper with the same or better quality, they should be released earlier to inspire new works.
 
Yes, but take a look at books still in publication a thousand years after they were released.
They are still hot on the charts because of the quality.

I'm talking about Republic and similar texts.

But they aren't copyrighted. They make no money for their authors or anyone else who owns them.

Copyright benefits people who are alive and creating things now. Many wouldn't bother working so hard to create if they couldn't make money on it. Why should they?

The pace of technological changes, a program becomes obsolete quite quickly these days, not to mention the fact that they are virtual machines that should only be patented.

Why does that matter with regard to the law? If a technology is obselete, you move on to a new one. Where do you think the new one came from anyway? From tinkerers in their basement? Or from people who want to make money who invest in pushing the envelope?

Another reason is that replication of texts is dirt cheap with the combination of immediate market access.
Things are moving to faster and cheaper with the same or better quality, they should be released earlier to inspire new works.

How does that inspire new works? Anyone who owns a copyright can release their work any time they want to take advantage of market conditions. No change to copyright is needed for that.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't surprise me. Thanks for your responses.

I was responding to the crazy idea that doctors and factory workers get paid the same under socialist regimes.

No way.. I know Germany quite well, doctors make far more than factory workers in this socialist economy.
I can say the same with certainty for the other socialist European economies as well.
 
But they aren't copyrighted. They make no money for their authors or anyone else who owns them.

Copyright benefits people who are alive and creating things now. Many wouldn't bother working so hard to create if they couldn't make money on it. Why should they?

No one owns them but the people who publish them make money.
I think it is more important to spread the information than make money but that is just me.

Copyright lasts the life of the author + 60 or 70 years, I can't remember exactly.
Every revision of copyright law has made things that were in the public domain go right back to private ownership.

You know the song "Happy Birthday"?
It's owned by Time Warner but it was created a long while ago and not by them.

It assumes though that without copy protections, that no one would buy the product, which I think has proven untrue when you look at the revenue of artists even when their product is free on the internet.

Why does that matter with regard to the law? If a technology is obselete, you move on to a new one. Where do you think the new one came from anyway? From tinkerers in their basement? Or from people who want to make money who invest in pushing the envelope?

It comes from both, some people like to create for the sake of creating things.
Take Windows for instance, they have a decent product but they have become a behemoth and are slow to phase out or fix obsolete designs in their system, they are also allowed to keep prices artificially high.

Then look at Companies like Mozilla or Ubuntu, they are both free and Ubuntu is open source which allows people to bug hunt for fun in their free time.
Fixes for it come quicker than fixes for Windows.
 
No one owns them but the people who publish them make money.

Well, yeah - but the authors don't make money. See how that works?

I think it is more important to spread the information than make money but that is just me.

So people should work for you for free?

You know the song "Happy Birthday"?
It's owned by Time Warner but it was created a long while ago and not by them.

And?

It assumes though that without copy protections, that no one would buy the product, which I think has proven untrue when you look at the revenue of artists even when their product is free on the internet.

That's because the only artists who give away their stuff free on the internet are the few who can make money anyway.

Nothing is stopping all artists from giving away their stuff. If they can make money by doing so, why don't most of them do that?

It comes from both, some people like to create for the sake of creating things.
Take Windows for instance, they have a decent product but they have become a behemoth and are slow to phase out or fix obsolete designs in their system, they are also allowed to keep prices artificially high.

Yes, and there are free alternatives now, though they likely wouldn't exist if Microsoft hadn't paved the way.

But again, this is computers. One program can replace another. Not the same with creative works like books, music, etc.
 
Well, yeah - but the authors don't make money. See how that works?

The authors are long dead, they can't make money.

So people should work for you for free?

That is not what I said but many people assume that low or no copyright law means that authors won't get paid.


It's freaking ridiculous.
Technically, anytime a person sings that song in public they are supposed to pay a royalty to them.


That's because the only artists who give away their stuff free on the internet are the few who can make money anyway.

Nothing is stopping all artists from giving away their stuff. If they can make money by doing so, why don't most of them do that?

They aren't giving it away for free though, people are putting it on the internet without their consent but the artists are still making money.

Yes, and there are free alternatives now, though they likely wouldn't exist if Microsoft hadn't paved the way.

But again, this is computers. One program can replace another. Not the same with creative works like books, music, etc.

Microsoft wasn't the first, Unix based systems came before them.
I'd say that if people were allowed to adapt Windows and Dos the programs could of spawned many shoot offs with higher quality and better stability.

They can't do that for at least another hundred years or so.

Creative works are just as replaceable, anything is replaceable.
 
socialism would work if people would think on others instead of themselfs. If people followed Jesus words, then we would have socialism on earth. Yeah one could argue Jesus was the first socialist!
 
socialism would work if people would think on others instead of themselfs. If people followed Jesus words, then we would have socialism on earth. Yeah one could argue Jesus was the first socialist!

I think Germany is one of the best functioning economies in the world, perhaps THE best. And it is a socialist economy. But then again, Germans also have the highest average IQ in the world, that could be the reason, or the model they have could be the reason they have the highest average IQ.
 
Last edited:
The authors are long dead, they can't make money.

Exactly.

Which is why the publishers can make money on them - they don't have to pay the authors.

See how that works?

That is not what I said but many people assume that low or no copyright law means that authors won't get paid.

It does mean that nearly all the time.

They aren't giving it away for free though, people are putting it on the internet without their consent but the artists are still making money.

But alot less money than they would. The artist didn't agree to it. Do you think that's right? How would that change without copyright laws?

Creative works are just as replaceable, anything is replaceable.

That's absurd.
 
Exactly.

Which is why the publishers can make money on them - they don't have to pay the authors.

See how that works?

Anyone can make money off of them if they are marketable products.

It does mean that nearly all the time.

No it doesn't, do you know that they sometimes release copies of movies on the internet through torrent websites to judge it's popularity before they release it in theaters?

Now they won't admit to it but they do it.

But alot less money than they would. The artist didn't agree to it. Do you think that's right? How would that change without copyright laws?

Erm no, artists have seen there pay go up while the recording industry has seen their profits go down.
Artists make very little on cd/song sales and make the most on touring/live shows.

Check the graphs out, I cant seem to link them here.
Do music artists fare better in a world with illegal file-sharing? — Times Labs Blog

That's absurd.

Why?
Any creative work can be replaced by a superior version.
 
Anyone can make money off of them if they are marketable products.

Why pay for something if you can get it for free?

No it doesn't, do you know that they sometimes release copies of movies on the internet through torrent websites to judge it's popularity before they release it in theaters?

Now they won't admit to it but they do it.

Oh, so they won't admit it, huh? How do you know this big secret?

Erm no, artists have seen there pay go up while the recording industry has seen their profits go down.

What does that prove?

Artists make very little on cd/song sales and make the most on touring/live shows.

So why don't they all give away songs for free now? Nothing is stopping them.

And that doesn't apply to books.

Why?
Any creative work can be replaced by a superior version.

Artistic works are unique. But hey, where's the superior version come from anyway?
 
socialism would work if people would think on others instead of themselfs.

Precisely why it fails. You can't actually know better than me, exactly what I want, and for what cost I'm willing to trade for it.
Likewise I cannot know what you want, as precisely as you do, or what costs you are willing to sacrifice to get it.

Once you accept these basic facts of reality, and simultaneously accept that individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness are ideals to hold dear, then proposing socialism is absurd.

And given human nature, history has taught...some of us...that once others have your liberty, you are:
1. a fool
2. in trouble
 
Why pay for something if you can get it for free?

People do it all the time.
A lot of comes from emotional reasons, other times its convenience or quality reasons.

Like how you can get your Federal taxes completed for free but a lot of people end up paying for it.

I like to watch movies before I pay for it to see if it's worth buying in the first place.
I use it as a filter as many other file sharing people do.
The major movie production companies don't like us to look before we buy.

I could download it and burn it to a DVD but if the movie is good I buy it.

Oh, so they won't admit it, huh? How do you know this big secret?

I'm trying to find the news article on it but it was told by an industry insider supposedly.

What does that prove?

It proves that the artist lose very little if anything from file sharing.
The main loser is the industry production corporations.
They are failing to adapt to the new market place.

So why don't they all give away songs for free now? Nothing is stopping them.

And that doesn't apply to books.

Some do and some don't.
Like yourself, some people still believe that people won't pay for it when it is free to download.(That's not meant to be insulting.)
It's a psychological barrier.

They don't realize that airing the content is just a part of the larger campaign to earn money for your work.
Most notably are live performances which generate the best revenue for music artists.

Artistic works are unique. But hey, where's the superior version come from anyway?

Almost all art is built in prior works and/or inspiration.
 
People do it all the time.
A lot of comes from emotional reasons, other times its convenience or quality reasons.

Would you go in business and take risks to sell a product anyone can have for free?

Some do and some don't.
Like yourself, some people still believe that people won't pay for it when it is free to download.(That's not meant to be insulting.)
It's a psychological barrier.

Most won't. Not enough will to support lots of artists, who will give up and become truck drivers instead. Waste of talent and lack of good art will result.

They don't realize that airing the content is just a part of the larger campaign to earn money for your work.
Most notably are live performances which generate the best revenue for music artists.

What about writers and poets, screenwriters and playwrights? Visual artists? Photographers? Writers of music and songs? Film-makers?
 
Would you go in business and take risks to sell a product anyone can have for free?

People do it all the time.
Selling hamburgers has been done over and over again, yet people still do it.
The goal is to put a new twist on it, to innovate.

Most won't. Not enough will to support lots of artists, who will give up and become truck drivers instead. Waste of talent and lack of good art will result.

Not true, before the time of major patent law, artists had good lives and a great many copied each other over and over, of course they put a new twist on it.

Check out all the copies of the "Madonna."
Same basic concept, many different variations.

What about writers and poets, screenwriters and playwrights? Visual artists? Photographers? Writers of music and songs? Film-makers?

There are a great many ways to adapt their works for sale.
We are thinking too much in the box.
 
People do it all the time.
Selling hamburgers has been done over and over again, yet people still do it.

If hamburgers were suddenly easy to find lying on the ground, you wouldn't sell many more.

The goal is to put a new twist on it, to innovate.

Why should I?

Not true, before the time of major patent law, artists had good lives and a great many copied each other over and over, of course they put a new twist on it.

Uh, patent law (and copyright) has been around since before recorded music was invented.

There are a great many ways to adapt their works for sale.
We are thinking too much in the box.

Why should I though?

If people are willing to pay for music, why make it legal for them not to in the first place?
 
Back
Top Bottom