• 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
lizzie said:
I'm working for the benefit of me. If the corporation happens to benefit because I am part of the workforce, they benefit as well, from having a good employee. I'm not there to make the corporation better. I'm there to make my life better. Sometimes, both things happen, but it's my life that I wish to improve.

The way I view it is they are fortunate to have me for an employee. I have good credentials and am very good at my job. They cannot replace me easily.
Click to expand...

All of that may be true. But you are still working for the benefit of the corporation. You are an at-will commodity for them. As long as you are producing for them you are of value to them. If you were not benefitting them, they would terminate you without any thought.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
There's nothing further to discuss. Her definition of socialism is based on what people believe, not what it actually is. My entire argument was that her definition was invalid, and she proved it very blatantly by appealing to popular belief. So she actually proved me right, which means that the discussion is over.
Click to expand...

Well done.
 
KC said:
The labour-process, resolved as above into its simple elementary factors, is human action with a view to the production of use-values, appropriation of natural substances to human requirements; it is the necessary condition for effecting exchange of matter between man and Nature; it is the everlasting Nature-imposed condition of human existence, and therefore is independent of every social phase of that existence, or rather, is common to every such phase. It was, therefore, not necessary to represent our labourer in connexion with other labourers; man and his labour on one side, Nature and its materials on the other, sufficed. As the taste of the porridge does not tell you who grew the oats, no more does this simple process tell you of itself what are the social conditions under which it is taking place, whether under the slave-owner’s brutal lash, or the anxious eye of the capitalist, whether Cincinnatus carries it on in tilling his modest farm or a savage in killing wild animals with stones.
Click to expand...

Really? This is a counterpoint?

I know you want to use humanism as some sort of driving and connecting force when you put together simple economics and tendencies of man, but this proves nothing. It's essentially a big "que sera, sera" with regards to the evolution of market economies. It's a giant red herring, and essentially along the lines of a distraction point by attempting to pit "nature" against an obvious progression of human thinking. Economics acts through human action, not feelings, speculation, and wishful thinking by those who sit the sidelines and ponder stupid crap.

That's why Marx loses. He'd have been a great capitalist if he kept his head out of the clouds and tried to predict human action instead of manipulate it.

Uh, nah. It's a little more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

Not by much. It may fork and branch off at places but all roads ultimately lead back here.

Your definition of capitalism is laughably absurd; it's so vague that it's completely meaningless.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you believe that, just like I truly believe that if a "Marxist" ever actually sat down and read things like The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital (which I have), you'd have much fewer angst-ridden 15 year olds violently masturbating to posters of Lenin and Trotsky in their parents' basements.
 
Gipper said:
You act as if capitalism is a 20th century invention.
Click to expand...
It is! Almost any capitalist will and must admit this. Fuedalism existed. It was not capitalism. Slavery as a mode of production existed, it was not capitalism. Primitive agriculture as a mode of production was not capitalism.

My dear Gipper, that was nothing short of adorable. Thank you for illustrating the other side of my point. Whereas other posters are only so immersed in and defined by capitalism as to project it permanently into the future you take it a step further and project it backwards into the past in spite of the fact that there is a historical record available to all of us which thankfully can indicate conclusively, in depth, or merely even at a glance that your idea is terribly silly.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
My entire argument was that her definition was invalid, and she proved it very blatantly by appealing to popular belief. So she actually proved me right, which means that the discussion is over.
Click to expand...

Well, it means that your discussion is over with me, but there's plenty of others here who don't mind putting forth their ideas, opinions, and thoughts on a wide range of subjects. It's really not a pissing contest for me. It's fun and it makes some of us think about and question our views.
 
Gipper said:
You act as if capitalism is a 20th century invention. Capitalism has been around sime time immemorial and has just evolved through the progression of man. Be it feudalism, mercantilism, corporatism, or pure laissez-faire free market, you're not talking about a recent invention. The concept that someone can be king of the mountain is indeed a driving force not just in economics but in almost any aspect of society and mankind-driven philosophy. Nobody strives to be "equal"; nobody wants to be just adequate - at least not on a large-scale level. Capitalism drives itself because of the simple and perpetual Darwinian theories it exudes. To be the man, you have to beat the man - and if you ever fall from grace, someone will be there that's bigger and better. Communism and socialism both strive to stifle the collective masses and not reward any sort of ambition or independent thought, which is the innate reason why it fails universally. The Soviet Union failed because it was broke, period. Its economy was absolutely stagnate, and could not compete against a free-market juggernaut.

If you think capitalism causes a lot of ruckus and in-fighting, I challenge you to find a significant population who think they really embrace communistic values. You'll find them revert mentally and physically to almost a carnal level, and when it's time to back the talk up with action, it's nowhere to be seen.
Click to expand...

Communism has existed along side capitalism forever.
They are not mutually exclusive concepts and can/have worked well together.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Communism has existed along side capitalism forever.
They are not mutually exclusive concepts and can/have worked well together.
Click to expand...
No. Communism is a classless society which can arise only after the workers have seized power. Capitalism is class society ruled by the bourgeoisie.
Modern capitalism has existed since the 20th century. Communism will eventually exist after a few generations of workers in power worldwide.
 
Last edited:
faminedynasty said:
No. Communism is a classless society which can arise only after the workers have seized power. Capitalism is class society ruled by the bourgeoisie.
Modern capitalism has existed since the 20th century. Communism will eventually exist after a few generations of workers in power.
Click to expand...

It's evident you don't understand capitalism nor communism.
 
faminedynasty said:
Well I'm coming at it from a Marxist perspective. And you are coming at it from... a made-up one?
Click to expand...

Reality, both have existed together forever.

What your talking about is statist economies which will never develop past dictatorial quasi-command economies.

You have to recognize the the good that both have and then look at the real world to see how they can coexist together.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Reality, both have existed together forever.

What your talking about is statist economies which will never develop past dictatorial quasi-command economies.

You have to recognize the the good that both have and then look at the real world to see how they can coexist together.
Click to expand...
Statist? Along with being Classless, Communism is necessarily a Stateless society.
 
faminedynasty said:
Statist? Along with being Classless, Communism is necessarily a Stateless society.
Click to expand...

I understand that.

It still depends on what you call a state though.
Is a community a state?
They operate on mutually agreed upon principles, the earlier societies where communal but also capitalistic.

They worked together but traded their wares/goods for other items of perceived higher value.
There may have been a town elder or group of elders to act as representative.
These types of groups are still possible but it will take time to develop.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's evident you don't understand capitalism nor communism.
Click to expand...

He understands communism quite well, at least as invented by Marx. Maybe there's some communism out there now that coexists with capitalism, but classical Communist theory says communism eclipses capitalism. If that hasn't happened, it's not really communism. Perhaps it's socialism.
 
Gipper said:
Really? This is a counterpoint?

I know you want to use humanism as some sort of driving and connecting force when you put together simple economics and tendencies of man, but this proves nothing. It's essentially a big "que sera, sera" with regards to the evolution of market economies. It's a giant red herring, and essentially along the lines of a distraction point by attempting to pit "nature" against an obvious progression of human thinking. Economics acts through human action, not feelings, speculation, and wishful thinking by those who sit the sidelines and ponder stupid crap.

That's why Marx loses. He'd have been a great capitalist if he kept his head out of the clouds and tried to predict human action instead of manipulate it.
Click to expand...

That's the problem right there with what you're saying. You think that if society has an economy it must invariably capitalist, which is just silly and broadens the definition of capitalism to meaninglessness. The point of the quote I posted was that capitalism is a historical epoch, that was preceded by other systems and (here I am not referring to the quote) will be superseded by further systems.

The rest of this quote is just rambling.

Not by much. It may fork and branch off at places but all roads ultimately lead back here.
Click to expand...

Alright well if you think that then I don't really want to discuss it with you because that's a completely moronic view to take and shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I'm sure you believe that, just like I truly believe that if a "Marxist" ever actually sat down and read things like The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital (which I have), you'd have much fewer angst-ridden 15 year olds violently masturbating to posters of Lenin and Trotsky in their parents' basements.
Click to expand...

ZING!!!! :roll:

Harry Guerrilla said:
I understand that.

It still depends on what you call a state though.
Is a community a state?
Click to expand...

This is why we define these concepts, and don't just say that we're coming from "reality" (whatever that means). I mean I could quote you the Marxist definition of state but then you'd just counter with your "reality" definition of it.
 
disneydude said:
Don't fool yourself. They are working for the benefit of the corporation.
Click to expand...
The only one foolling yourself here is you.
They work, sometimes for a corporation, to benefit themselves.
The corporation, should they work for one, may alsso benefit, but that's not the reason they work.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
If the workers don't have power then it can't be socialism because socialism by definition is the dictatorship of the working class.
Click to expand...
Except that there's absolutely nothing about socialism that necessitates that the working class has any control over the actions of decisions of the state.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The definition of socialism is working class power.
Click to expand...
False.

Socialism is the state ownership/control of the means of producing and distributing wealth.

There absolutely nothing in that which necessitates that the workers have any control over the state.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
No it's not. That's state capitalism.
Click to expand...
No, its not.

Webster:
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2:
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Because the dictionary is such a good source of political theory.
Click to expand...
Well, if -you- want to use self-styled and agenda-convenient definitions to suit your purposes, that's fine -- but it necessarily means that your arguments are flawed. Carry on.

Meanwhile...
Socialism is the state ownership/control of the means of producing and distributing wealth.

There absolutely nothing in that which necessitates that the workers have any control over the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom