• 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

  • A purely Socialist economy

    Votes: 3 5.3%

  • An economy with more Socialism then Capitalism

    Votes: 7 12.3%

  • An economy with equal Socialist and Capitalist ideas

    Votes: 10 17.5%

  • An economy with more Capitalism then Socialism

    Votes: 26 45.6%

  • A purely Capitalist society

    Votes: 11 19.3%
  • Total voters
    57
Politics101 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Canada has a socialist infrastructure with a capitalist economy. So did Argentina during the Peron years. So do Sweden, Finland etc. No. You don't know what you're talking about. Our own economy is a balance of "socialist" oversight within a "capitalist" system.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Canada has a socialist infrastructure with a capitalist economy. So did Argentina during the Peron years. So do Sweden, Finland etc. No. You don't know what you're talking about. Our own economy is a balance of "socialist" oversight within a "capitalist" system.
Click to expand...

Socialism is the antithesis of capitalism. Socialism opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government.
 
I think it's best to have the vast majority of the economy run by capitalist laws and ideals with just a very small amount of socialist regulations. For instance, rampant capitalism leads to monopolies and workers being treated like dirt. We need a very small amount of socialist regulation to have a capitalist economy that is good for the nation.
 
Politics101 said:
Socialism is the antithesis of capitalism. Socialism opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government.
Click to expand...

Just so I understand... a socialist type policy then would remove control from the free market say, and reassign it under the control of a government body. So for example:

The removal of Student loans from private banks, and putting the control of those student loans under the Department of Education.

Did I get that right?
 
digsbe said:
I think it's best to have the vast majority of the economy run by capitalist laws and ideals with just a very small amount of socialist regulations. For instance, rampant capitalism leads to monopolies and workers being treated like dirt. We need a very small amount of socialist regulation to have a capitalist economy that is good for the nation.
Click to expand...

I thought you said the two can't co-exist.

Regulation isn't socialism, by the way. It's regulation.
 
Ockham said:
Just so I understand... a socialist type policy then would remove control from the free market say, and reassign it under the control of a government body. So for example:

The removal of Student loans from private banks, and putting the control of those student loans under the Department of Education.

Did I get that right?
Click to expand...

That's exactly right! Except under socialism, the government may also try and takeover the production and control of say, the largest auto manufacturers, the banks, and definitely health care. I wonder if there's anywhere in the world right now where we can see this process taking place, moving from capitalism to socialism...
 
Ockham said:
Just so I understand... a socialist type policy then would remove control from the free market say, and reassign it under the control of a government body. So for example:

The removal of Student loans from private banks, and putting the control of those student loans under the Department of Education.

Did I get that right?
Click to expand...

Except student loans were already backed by the government, and therefore not really provided solely by private banks anyway.
 
Politics101 said:
That's exactly right! Except under socialism, the government may also try and takeover the production and control of say, the largest auto manufacturers, the banks, and definitely health care. I wonder if there's anywhere in the world right now where we can see this process taking place, moving from capitalism to socialism...
Click to expand...

The government has temporarily taken over one auto manufacturer, which would be out of business otherwise, and will divest it when it is healthy, just like it is starting to do with banks it took control of. It is a temporary measure. The government does not want to own a bunch of businesses. It...is...temporary.

The government did not take over health care by any stretch of the imagination. That's ridiculous.
 
misterman said:
I thought you said the two can't co-exist.

Regulation isn't socialism, by the way. It's regulation.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I was the one who said the two can't co-exist.

And regulation is regulation, but how would you define regulation that prevents monopolies or increases worker wages/treatment? It may not be socialist in the strictest sense, but it certainly isn't raw capitalism.
 
misterman said:
The government has temporarily taken over one auto manufacturer, which would be out of business otherwise, and will divest it when it is healthy, just like it is starting to do with banks it took control of. It is a temporary measure. The government does not want to own a bunch of businesses. It...is...temporary.

The government did not take over health care by any stretch of the imagination. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

This brings another great point. Under socialism, failure is rewarded with forced taxpayer funding, 'temporarily' of course. :roll:
 
One could argue that the auto maker failed because of socialistic policies (unions and auto regulations). If the company fails than it fails, let it die and another will take its place on the market. We shouldn't bail out any struggling or failing business at the taxpayers expense.
 
digsbe said:
And regulation is regulation, but how would you define regulation that prevents monopolies...
Click to expand...
This is evidence of the proper role of govermnemt -- that is, protecting the rights of the people from those that would abuse them.
 
digsbe said:
One could argue that the auto maker failed because of socialistic policies (unions and auto regulations). If the company fails than it fails, let it die and another will take its place on the market. We shouldn't bail out any struggling or failing business at the taxpayers expense.
Click to expand...

You have a lot of common sense. I like it. :)
 
Politics101 said:
This brings another great point. Under socialism, failure is rewarded with forced taxpayer funding, 'temporarily' of course. :roll:
Click to expand...

No, it's not socialism when it's temporary. That's the point. If it were socialism, the government would keep these businesses permanently, and would buy up every failing business out there too. It's not doing either.

The government is going to MAKE money on the sale of the banks, and maybe GM too. And lots of jobs will be saved.

If you want to call it temporary socialism in extreme times (to hold off what could have been the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression), you may. Just don't forget the "temporary" part.
 
digsbe said:
One could argue that the auto maker failed because of socialistic policies (unions and auto regulations). If the company fails than it fails, let it die and another will take its place on the market. We shouldn't bail out any struggling or failing business at the taxpayers expense.
Click to expand...

99.9999% of failing businesses are still allowed to fail.

The largest auto manufacturer in the world (I think, maybe not any more) was an exception. So were banks and insurance companies, which could have caused a total meltdown of the entire economy and bring down many many more businesses if they failed. The rest are being allowed to fail just like before. And this is temporary, and the government could actually make a profit for the taxpayers from it.

Hardly a socialist transformation of America. Not even close.
 
digsbe said:
I don't believe I was the one who said the two can't co-exist.
Click to expand...

You're right, sorry.

And regulation is regulation, but how would you define regulation that prevents monopolies or increases worker wages/treatment? It may not be socialist in the strictest sense, but it certainly isn't raw capitalism.
Click to expand...

It's regulated capitalism, as opposed to laissez-faire capitalism. It's certainly not socialism though. You can oppose regulation if you want, just don't call it socialism.
 
misterman said:
Except student loans were already backed by the government, and therefore not really provided solely by private banks anyway.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that removing the private bank therefore provides no change to the method and therefore, the student loans were actually a part of a socialist policy from the start?

How about the auto makers. Did the government also back the auto makers? AIG? Banks like Wells Fargo?
 
misterman said:
No, it's not socialism when it's temporary.
Click to expand...

Ah...so what's the minimum and maximum time frame then? We need to define what is and is not temporary.
 
Ockham said:
Ah...so what's the minimum and maximum time frame then? We need to define what is and is not temporary.
Click to expand...

How about when the government buys the majority of the stocks in corporation say Citi, and then sells it a few years later for an $8 billion profit?
 
repeter said:
How about when the government buys the majority of the stocks in corporation say Citi, and then sells it a few years later for an $8 billion profit?
Click to expand...

I'll be eagerly awaiting my portion of the profits from the 8 billion. :roll:

So you're saying temporary = a few years? Is that >1 but less than 3?

And what if (since we're working in hypotheticals) the government doesn't sell the majority stock in >1 but less than 3 years and continues to own it for say 9 years, with a promise to sell it in the "near future" (another nice vague qualifier).

And why does the government buy, with tax payer money, a majority stock in a private company in the first place? What's the end goal and strategic plan?


My point, if you didn't already know, is that there's a separation between private and public sectors. Using a vague term like "temporary" without defining what temporary is - or, defining what is temporary and then RE-DEFINING it every so often so that "temporary" has no consistent or definable meaning, would be a socialist policy move.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
And why does the government buy, with tax payer money, a majority stock in a private company in the first place? What's the end goal and strategic plan?
Click to expand...
Seems to me that if the stock was bought with our money, we should receive the profit.

Sure, across the population, its not a lot, but so what?
 
I stand right in the middle. And I dont think of it so dogmatically as Socialism. This is no longer the cold war.

I believe certain things should be run by government. Because at least in this country, government is accountable to us. Private corporations are not. Although we have better government regulation here so I'm not entirely against corporations running certain things. For example to lay out a comparison

In Nova Scotia the government use to run the energy firm and provide the electricity to Halifax. They had an army of workers and whenever the power went down they could bring it up really fast. Then they made it private. Saved the province alot of money BUT such things as a small hurricane a few years back, knocked out power for some people for weeks because there wasn't that army of workers to fix the stuff. There are +'s and -'s to everything.

But personally I prefer healthcare in the hands of my government so I can get rid of their handling of it, if they mess up. I can't exactly get rid of the board of directors of a greedy Health Insurance company.
 
misterman said:
The government is going to MAKE money on the sale of the banks, and maybe GM too.
Click to expand...

:rofl GM won't make a profit, the unions won't allow it because they want their socialist pension plans to keep pumping out entitlements for workers no longer working. Both GM and Chrysler have been suffering, which worsened after the bailouts.
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

Naturally large corporations are a rare occurrence when you remove government favoritism.
All the subsidy and favorable laws should be removed to level the playing field.
Almost every mega corp that has ever existed has been a direct or indirect cause of the government and business partnership.

The point is to push to provide that level playing field.
When we stray from that, we are asking for problems.
Most people would not want to stomach this change but in the end I believe it is naturally destructive anyway.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
Are you saying that removing the private bank therefore provides no change to the method and therefore, the student loans were actually a part of a socialist policy from the start?
Click to expand...

In a way, yes.

How about the auto makers. Did the government also back the auto makers? AIG? Banks like Wells Fargo?
Click to expand...

Nope, not them. Just the student loans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom