• 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
Goobieman said:
There absolutely nothing in that which necessitates that the workers have any control over the state.
Click to expand...

Belief that workers can have any control over the state or real shared power is a pipe dream.
 
lizzie said:
Belief that workers can have any control over the state or real shared power is a pipe dream.
Click to expand...
Oh, there -could- be -- but nothing -necesitates- it.

Its perfectly possible for a true, full democracy to be a socialist state, but its equally possible for a socialist state to be ruled by despot.
 
Goobieman said:
Its perfectly possible for a true, full democracy to be a socialist state, but its equally possible for a socialist state to be ruled by despot.
Click to expand...

Taking the general nature of humankind into account, I don't think it's possible. Maybe at some time far in the future, when we have evolved a good bit, but not now. And I do realize this is purely subjective on my part.;)
 
repeter said:
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?
Click to expand...

Soviet fell apart because of militarism, NOT because of socialism.
 
faminedynasty said:
Communism will eventually exist after a few generations of workers in power worldwide.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that people have been saying that for generations. If communism was readily embraceable by a significant portion of the population, you'd see it. You don't because communism is a self-defeating mechanism.

Workers will never be in power because there are too many. Economics works on scarcity, and you can't bend the concepts of supply and demand when it comes to capital and cheap labor.

Nobody likes stagnation. If you told an engineer he would make the same amount of money as an assembly worker, he'd tell you to screw yourself, and with good reason. That's why the worker will never be in power. If all the power is held at the bottom, you remove the desire for anyone to make it to the top, which is a vital cog in the system.
 
misterman said:
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.
Click to expand...

As we already know, dogmatic beliefs very rarely pan out.

I think that there are some benefits of communist theory and they have already been with us since the beginning.
The family unit is a communal structure and in general it's a good thing.

I see two possibilities of the future, a caste system and a system of general equality.
The caste system will be with us as long as the state divides us by arbitrary measures of income.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
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.
Click to expand...

What is the minimum that would be defined as a state by Marx?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
What is the minimum that would be defined as a state by Marx?
Click to expand...

All Marx does is discuss the state as a "classless society" and offers some weak, pipe-dreamish arguments about the power of the collective. The most realistic sample of this that you can see in real life would be if you rented Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. After all, they're happy. They even whistle.
 
Gipper said:
All Marx does is discuss the state as a "classless society" and offers some weak, pipe-dreamish arguments about the power of the collective. The most realistic sample of this that you can see in real life would be if you rented Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. After all, they're happy. They even whistle.
Click to expand...

:lol:

I think there will always be rich and poor but as technology advances it is plausible for a classless society to exist.
Although it may to something else other than income.
 
repeter said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think the difference between socialism and communism is probably that socialism can coexist with democracy. A communist system requires a total revolution in the political system, with a communist party running things, etc., at least according to communists.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
:lol:

I think there will always be rich and poor but as technology advances it is plausible for a classless society to exist.
Click to expand...

I doubt it possible because people are all different. We automatically classify things and see differences whether we mean to or not.
 
Socialism cant work because humans are different. Some want everything you have and others want to help the meek.

Socialism promises too much. A capitalistic country like the USA with ever expanding socialism ie HC is the best of both worlds. The rich work so hard that the rest of us can watch Dr. Phil and complain that we dont have room service! ha ha
 
bennyhill said:
Socialism cant work because humans are different. Some want everything you have and others want to help the meek.

Socialism promises too much. A capitalistic country like the USA with ever expanding socialism ie HC is the best of both worlds. The rich work so hard that the rest of us can watch Dr. Phil and complain that we dont have room service! ha ha
Click to expand...

socialism is a great idea until you run out of other peoples' money

Dame Thatcher

In reality socialism is a disease that should be eradicated. The uber rich favor it since it does to the poor what papistry did to the masses in medieval europe
 
If only life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were never mutually exclusive values, then socialism would never be a necessity.
 
CriticalThought said:
If only life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were never mutually exclusive values, then socialism would never be a necessity.
Click to expand...

how so

it appears socialism exists because some want to become wealthy without working for it and sacrifice others' liberty and pursuit of happiness to buy something they didn't earn
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
:lol:

I think there will always be rich and poor but as technology advances it is plausible for a classless society to exist.
Although it may to something else other than income.
Click to expand...

Okay, when resources become infinite then we can have a true classless, frictionless society.

Therefore, replicators + quantum singularity reactors.

Except that still doesn't work for land. And views.
 
obvious Child said:
Okay, when resources become infinite then we can have a true classless, frictionless society.

Therefore, replicators + quantum singularity reactors.

Except that still doesn't work for land. And views.
Click to expand...

That is true, I think replicators are a real possibility.
We already see this with information, which is why I oppose intellectual property laws.

I think there will always be a class built society unless we become highly decentralized, the classes will then dilute a great deal.
 
TurtleDude said:
how so

it appears socialism exists because some want to become wealthy without working for it and sacrifice others' liberty and pursuit of happiness to buy something they didn't earn
Click to expand...

Um...okay. It depends on how you define socialism. Most political philosophers would define it as state ownership of industry. I have no idea what definition you are using.
 
Under socialism you dont run out of other peoples money, because everything belongs to everyone. Dont you understand? American oil would belong to americans and not Cheveron or Texaco.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
We already see this with information, which is why I oppose intellectual property laws.
Click to expand...

They'll be very little intellectual property to share in the first place without those laws. But that's a new thread.
 
bennyhill said:
Under socialism you dont run out of other peoples money, because everything belongs to everyone. Dont you understand? American oil would belong to americans and not Cheveron or Texaco.
Click to expand...

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.
 
repeter said:
Yes, and if you decide to pay a doctor as much as a factory worker, there goes his incentive to work hard.
Click to expand...

Do doctors typically get paid the same as factory workers in socialist systems?
 
misterman said:
Do doctors typically get paid the same as factory workers in socialist systems?
Click to expand...

I think factory workers in such socialist countries as Germany and France have roughly the same net pay as in the capitalist US. On average better, while not as high and low peaks.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
I think factory workers in such socialist countries as Germany and France have roughly the same net pay as in the capitalist US. On average better, while not as high and low peaks.
Click to expand...

What about doctors?
 
misterman said:
What about doctors?
Click to expand...

My understanding is everyone gets paid the same, but the difference is in levels of perks. And you get perks based upon performance, but in the socialist system quality takes a drop because people can lie about performance, and manipulate numbers for more perks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom