• 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

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I've always felt the argument between Socialism and Capitalism has been stupid. It's a case of moderation, and balance, where we need elements of both to succeed.

Consider pure Capitalism, in the late 1800's, with the railroad, steel, and oil industries to name a few. A few companies had monopolies over entire industries, and because there were no effective anti-trust laws, they dominated those for years.

Consider pure Socialism. The Soviet Union fell apart because the institution simply didn't work. I really don't think I need to say anymore about Socialism.

Now, consider the United States after WWII. We had a booming Capitalist society, the mass suburbinization of the country, and we had in place lots of socialist regulations and ideas. Our country flourished under this mix of ideology, and Western Europe followed in our footsteps, with varying levels of a mix between Socialism and Capitalism.

So where do you stand on this?
 
This poll is deceiving because you cannot have a socialist government and capitalist government working together as a single body. It's either socialism or capitalism, there is no idealist 'perfect' world where socialism and capitalism can work together under the same government.
 
This poll is deceiving because you cannot have a socialist government and capitalist government working together as a single body. It's either socialism or capitalism, there is no idealist 'perfect' world where socialism and capitalism can work together under the same government.

No, this isn't about government formats, but about economics. Socialist aspects like anti-trust laws, watchdogs, etc. Capitalist free markets.
 
Consider pure Socialism. The Soviet Union fell apart because the institution simply didn't work. I really don't think I need to say anymore about Socialism.
I dont want to be nit-picking or derail the thread, but what the USSR had was not pure Socialism. It was Communism which IS different from Socialism.
 
I dont want to be nit-picking or derail the thread, but what the USSR had was not pure Socialism. It was Communism which IS different from Socialism.

I was under the impression that they still had what could be considered a Socialist economy.

Even if that isn't the case, I'm just using Socialism to depict centrally-planned economies, which don't work regardless of where and when.
 
I dont want to be nit-picking or derail the thread, but what the USSR had was not pure Socialism. It was Communism which IS different from Socialism.

Not to mention the fact that "socialism doesn't work because the USSR fell apart" is a completely braindead argument to make. "It fell apart because it didn't work. I don't need to say anything else about it!" :roll:
 
I was under the impression that they still had what could be considered a Socialist economy.

Even if that isn't the case, I'm just using Socialism to depict centrally-planned economies, which don't work regardless of where and when.
The USS had a Communist style of government and economy. The state was responsible for directing and managing the economy. That is not necessarily true with Socialism (although some forms of Socialism do embrace this).

Not to mention the fact that "socialism doesn't work because the USSR fell apart" is a completely braindead argument to make. "It fell apart because it didn't work. I don't need to say anything else about it!" :roll:
Agreed, the message seems to be "if you fail, give up, dont try again."
 
Not to mention the fact that "socialism doesn't work because the USSR fell apart" is a completely braindead argument to make. "It fell apart because it didn't work. I don't need to say anything else about it!" :roll:

Would you like me to explain why it fell apart?
 
repeter said:
Would you like me to explain why it fell apart?

No, your assertions in your earlier posts in this thread have shown that you are unable to do so, so I'd rather you not try, thanks.
 
An economy with more Socialism then Capitalism, this is what I would like to see.
 
All societies with good standard of living and wealth have a reasonable combination of government and private control over the economy. Governments tend to pay for basic infrastructure and services that all other forms of commerce rest on at the very least. It also provides a legal framework for private interests to compete in a beneficial manner. Other factors like nationalization, subsidization or government backed monopolies are used in greater or lesser quantity. An economy without government is an utter disaster, while command economies only have managed to excel during times of war.
 
The whole Capitalism versus Socialism debate is absurd and I think only really ignorant people take part in it. In the modern global market, a mixed economy is essential to survival. I can't believe that there are people out there who still hold the elementary school conception that China is a communist country and the United States is a capitalist country. There are very few nations on this planet that don't have a heavily regulated capitalistic system in place. The debate is no longer about whether or not there should be regulation, but how much regulation there should be.
 
Last edited:
The whole Capitalism versus Socialism debate is absurd and I think only really ignorant people take part in it. In the modern global market, a mixed economy is essential to survival. I can't believe that there are people out there who still hold the elementary school conception that China is a communist country and the United States is a capitalist country. There are very few nations on this planet that don't have a heavily regulated capitalistic system in place. The debate is no longer about whether or not there should be regulation, but how much regulation there should be.

I think the regulation argument is contextual.

Some people (myself included) belief that basic contractual/criminal laws should be the only enforcement, while others look towards putting additional limits outside of those.

I think there is a place for "socialism" although I'd call it communalism, that is with the family and to a lesser extent your immediate local community.
Outside of that I don't think it functions very well.
 
The USSR was not communist by strict definition. Communism has never existed in its true and pure form on a national level, and never will. Human nature prevents this. Communism is essentially one level above anarchy, and the Stalinist mutation of a central authority figure is more command-socialist than communist.

Having said that, I voted for a capitalist economic system with a VERY slight amount of socialism. Capitalism actually has existed in its most pure form (anarcho-capitalism) and it failed miserably because it could not compensate for market failures. However, it only should exist to cover the most basic of welfares and really work hard to prevent having an entitlement-based society like the United States now, where people clamor that everything "is a right" when it truly is a privilege. Health care, welfare, a job...all of these are not rights, and never will be.
 
I think the regulation argument is contextual.

Some people (myself included) belief that basic contractual/criminal laws should be the only enforcement, while others look towards putting additional limits outside of those.

I think there is a place for "socialism" although I'd call it communalism, that is with the family and to a lesser extent your immediate local community.
Outside of that I don't think it functions very well.

That might be how you want it, but that isn't what it takes to compete in the world today. China is setting itself up to be the next superpower and it's far from the kind of capitalism that you would probably envision. The reality is bureaucracy doesn't function well, and that is true whether it is a private corporation or government institution.
 
That might be how you want it, but that isn't what it takes to compete in the world today. China is setting itself up to be the next superpower and it's far from the kind of capitalism that you would probably envision. The reality is bureaucracy doesn't function well, and that is true whether it is a private corporation or government institution.

I agree but my beliefs are a bit more complicated than corporatism.
I see corporatism as a result of government and business operating in league together.

My problem with modern capitalism is there aren't enough capitalists.
 
Last edited:
The whole Capitalism versus Socialism debate is absurd and I think only really ignorant people take part in it. In the modern global market, a mixed economy is essential to survival. I can't believe that there are people out there who still hold the elementary school conception that China is a communist country and the United States is a capitalist country. There are very few nations on this planet that don't have a heavily regulated capitalistic system in place. The debate is no longer about whether or not there should be regulation, but how much regulation there should be.

Actually, it's more nuanced than that. It's not just how much regulation there should be, it's how much regulation should there be for which industries?

This one of the issues we have with health care. Is it ethical for people's health to be based around profit? Or should all people have access to health care regardless of conditions or ability to pay? While it is true that we do not have a public option of clothes to help people acquire affordable clothing, clothing is not nearly as critical to a person as adequate health care is. This is one reason why some people want a nationalized health care system.

Personally, I feel that all industries and businesses should be regulated to some degree. However, regulation on business practices is not the same as socialism, just like regulation on people's behavior is not the same as authoritarianism. Regulations are there to keep businesses honest, which is important to do since the whole purpose of a business is to find ways to profit and take people's money.

So I can't even vote on any of the options in the poll. It's not just a matter of how much socialism or capitalism is applied in a country's economy but also to which aspects of a country's economy are socialism and capitalism applied.
 
I see corporatism as a result of government and business operating in league together.

That is a naive assumption. Of course corporations exist because of government. For an economy to develop beyond a barter system it needs some form of government oversight. Even within a barter system, people can get pretty steamed if they get traded bad products and so oversight of the market naturally evolves. Merchants get together and pick impartial people to judge whether deals are fair. Regulation is created by the market, not in spite of it.
 
That is a naive assumption. Of course corporations exist because of government. For an economy to develop beyond a barter system it needs some form of government oversight. Even within a barter system, people can get pretty steamed if they get traded bad products and so oversight of the market naturally evolves. Merchants get together and pick impartial people to judge whether deals are fair. Regulation is created by the market, not in spite of it.

Not to the size and extreme that they currently exist.

Big corporations love regulation because it excludes smaller competitors and they get to help write those laws.
When you ask for more intense regulation, you're asking to be hustled.
The big capitalists hate capitalism, it forces them to compete.

Basic contractual and criminal rules that apply equally are good regulations.
 
Not to the size and extreme that they currently exist.

Big corporations love regulation because it excludes smaller competitors and they get to help write those laws.
When you ask for more intense regulation, you're asking to be hustled.
The big capitalists hate capitalism, it forces them to compete.

Basic contractual and criminal rules that apply equally are good regulations.

This is exactly right. Large corporations use campaign donations to get lawmakers in their pockets and write laws favorable to the large corporations. Such laws can favor corporations over consumers or smaller upstarts competing with the established corporations.

Also, lawmakers can make government contracts with the large corporations who donate to them. This leads to a system of corporate welfare in which businesses and industries are reliant upon government contracts to earn a profit.
 
So I can't even vote on any of the options in the poll. It's not just a matter of how much socialism or capitalism is applied in a country's economy but also to which aspects of a country's economy are socialism and capitalism applied.

I agree. I think the ideologies are flawed. In reality, the moment a system is put in place, someone will figure out a way to exploit it to their advantage. We have seen that with capitalism, socialism, and mixed economies. The best system will always be a fluid system, in which regulation can change and be adjusted as needed, but the degree to which even this can be exploited is dependent upon how aware and educated the public is. The recent recession is indicative of how adjustable regulation can be disastrous if it is done via ideology rather than through calculation. I don't think I will ever forget Greenspan admitting he made a mistake by assuming that the self interest of the banks would be enough to protect the equity and shareholders. Free market ideology has no place outside of an Economics classroom. What would work in a perfect world, with all the parameters defined and respected, is not what happens in a reality where people will find a way to exploit any system for their own personal benefit.
 
I agree. I think the ideologies are flawed. In reality, the moment a system is put in place, someone will figure out a way to exploit it to their advantage. We have seen that with capitalism, socialism, and mixed economies. The best system will always be a fluid system, in which regulation can change and be adjusted as needed, but the degree to which even this can be exploited is dependent upon how aware and educated the public is. The recent recession is indicative of how adjustable regulation can be disastrous if it is done via ideology rather than through calculation. I don't think I will ever forget Greenspan admitting he made a mistake by assuming that the self interest of the banks would be enough to protect the equity and shareholders. Free market ideology has no place outside of an Economics classroom. What would work in a perfect world, with all the parameters defined and respected, is not what happens in a reality where people will find a way to exploit any system for their own personal benefit.

This is probably the best comment on how economic systems realistically work that I have ever read.
 
Not to the size and extreme that they currently exist.

Big corporations love regulation because it excludes smaller competitors and they get to help write those laws.
When you ask for more intense regulation, you're asking to be hustled.
The big capitalists hate capitalism, it forces them to compete.

Basic contractual and criminal rules that apply equally are good regulations.

Without a doubt. Big corporations can use the government to craft regulation that is very favorable to them. The problem is you can't blame big corporations entirely on government involvement. Nothing is that simple. Sometimes it is the lack of government involvement that gives them the edge. Even if you had a basic set of contractual and criminal rules, big corporations would still emerge, because all corporations really have to do is merge with some of the competition. That has nothing to do with the government or regulation, and many smaller corporations gain competitive advantage through this form of cooperation. One of the flaws is that we allow the corporations to do this to the point that their influence becomes too strong in the government and they become too big to let fail.
 
Back
Top Bottom