• 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!

Are we seriousl debating Capitalism vs Socialism - Again?

Bullseye

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
47,722
Reaction score
16,576
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Seems so, far more seriously than in many years. This essay boils it down nicely.

Socialism is a movement not of the working classes but of the elites, born of arrogance, snobbery, and preposterous pretense, kept alive not from lived experience but the astonishing capacity of an ideologically soaked brain to live in denial of reality.
Click to expand...

But what about this term capitalism? The case against it as a description of the market economy is that it was an invention of the Marxists, and for a reason: it was supposed to describe an economy ruled by the capitalists. In fact, capitalism is nothing more than the working out of the advanced stage of a society that respects private property, peace, and freedom of association and trade. It is not an imposition or even a system; it is a description of what happens when violent actors bow out of the process of social evolution.
Click to expand...
 
Socialism works in plenty of thriving democracies. It works for Scandinavia, much of Western Europe, the UK, Australia, NZ, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and yes in the United States: what are Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, public schools after all?

It's a false dichotomy to hold up dictatorships like Cuba, failed kleptocracies like Venezuela, authoritarian goliaths like the USSR and pretend it's either that or the free market. There's a perfectly functioning western model that other countries thrive on and America has already adopted to no small extent.

So you're correct if you want to point out there's no need to wrangle over the ideology of it anymore - it's settled in the sense that those who've made up their minds one way or the other won't budge. Fortunately society has moved on from that and what is at stake here is the extent to which it is implemented in reality, because it's already here.
 
Capitalism is why we have to have the SEC.

Socialism is just a dirty word. We should change it to americaisgreatism. Same policy; better marketing.
 
uptower said:
Socialism works in plenty of thriving democracies. It works for Scandinavia, much of Western Europe, the UK, Australia, NZ, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and yes in the United States: what are Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, public schools after all?

It's a false dichotomy to hold up dictatorships like Cuba, failed kleptocracies like Venezuela, authoritarian goliaths like the USSR and pretend it's either that or the free market. There's a perfectly functioning western model that other countries thrive on and America has already adopted to no small extent.

So you're correct if you want to point out there's no need to wrangle over the ideology of it anymore - it's settled in the sense that those who've made up their minds one way or the other won't budge. Fortunately society has moved on from that and what is at stake here is the extent to which it is implemented in reality, because it's already here.
Click to expand...

Let's examine those (bolded above) assertions a bit.

Medicare and Medicaid while they are publicly funded, the government does not own or control the private providers of medical care goods/services. Those providers do plenty of outside business and many of them are quite profitable. There are currently those who wish the entire medical care industry to be placed under federal government control - aka converted to socialism.

Veterans benefits are indeed 100% publicly funded and VA facilities are under government control and ownership so I would consider that to be socialism. The trend as of late has been to allow veterans to use outside medical care service providers because the purely socialist VA system was seen as being unable to meet the demand (needs?) of veterans.

Public schools are indeed 100% publicly funded and their facilities are under government control and ownership so I would consider that to be socialism. There are certainly calls to allow for more school choice, including issuing publicly funded vouchers which may be redeemed at privately controlled and owned educational facilities.
 
Last edited:
uptower said:
Socialism works in plenty of thriving democracies. It works for Scandinavia, much of Western Europe, the UK, Australia, NZ, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and yes in the United States: what are Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, public schools after all?

It's a false dichotomy to hold up dictatorships like Cuba, failed kleptocracies like Venezuela, authoritarian goliaths like the USSR and pretend it's either that or the free market. There's a perfectly functioning western model that other countries thrive on and America has already adopted to no small extent.

So you're correct if you want to point out there's no need to wrangle over the ideology of it anymore - it's settled in the sense that those who've made up their minds one way or the other won't budge. Fortunately society has moved on from that and what is at stake here is the extent to which it is implemented in reality, because it's already here.
Click to expand...

Did you read the definition the article gives for socialism? Hint it's not a collection of social services provided by the government; those aren't even "socialism lite". Most of the Scandinavian countries say they AREN'T socialist.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Let's examine those (bolded above) assertions a bit.

Medicare and Medicaid while they are publicly funded, to not own or control the private providers of medical care goods/services. Those providers do plenty of outside business and many of them are quite profitable. There are currently those who wish the entire medical care industry to be placed under federal government control - aka converted to socialism.

Veterans benefits are indeed 100% publicly funded and VA facilities are under government control and ownership so I would consider that to be socialism. The trend as of late has been to allow veterans to use outside medical care service providers because the purely socialist VA system was seen as being unable to meet the demand (needs?) of veterans.

Public schools are indeed 100% publicly funded and their facilities are under government control and ownership so I would consider that to be socialism. There are certainly calls to allow for more school choice, including issuing publicly funded vouchers which may be redeemed at privately controlled and owned educational facilities.
Click to expand...

So we America already has 'some' socialism and many western countries function well enough with 'some more'. As mentioned by d0gbreath, the real problems is its use as a dirty word and a prop, not the way it is actually implemented and functions on a practical level.
 
Sooo... can we conclude that the US, like many other countries, is a mix of socialism and capitalism, conceding that SOCIALISM!!! is also a clever campaign theme by republicans?
 
uptower said:
So we America already has 'some' socialism and many western countries function well enough with 'some more'. As mentioned by d0gbreath, the real problems is its use as a dirty word and a prop, not the way it is actually implemented and functions on a practical level.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is some socialism in the US and some desire for there to be (much?) more of it. The problem is that socialism has limits since, in order for the government to own some industries, it must allow for enough of a privately owned tax base to fund them.
 
Last edited:
Nickyjo said:
Sooo... can we conclude that the US, like many other countries, is a mix of socialism and capitalism, conceding that SOCIALISM!!! is also a clever campaign theme by republicans?
Click to expand...
Most of what defenders embrace as "socialism" lies nowhere in its definition.
 
uptower said:
Socialism works in plenty of thriving democracies. It works for Scandinavia, much of Western Europe, the UK, Australia, NZ, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and yes in the United States: what are Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, public schools after all?

Cougarbear: Scandinavia is not socialist. They are quite capitalist. The people own their own means of production, distribution and ownership of their businesses and property. What they have that confuses people is a large welfare system with high taxation to pay for it. What Bernie Sanders and the others running for President in the Democrat Party want is government ownership of businesses and private property which is socialism. Obamacare was an attempt to have the Government control the production, distribution and ownership of all healthcare. Medicare for all would be socialism of the healthcare industry.

Uptower: It's a false dichotomy to hold up dictatorships like Cuba, failed kleptocracies like Venezuela, authoritarian goliaths like the USSR and pretend it's either that or the free market. There's a perfectly functioning western model that other countries thrive on and America has already adopted to no small extent.

As stated, you are not understanding what socialism and capitalism are. And, Sanders is holding up dictatorships (Communist countries) as the model to follow. He says he doesn't want totalitarian dictatorships. But, the very essence of Socialism means heavy armed tactics have to be maintained to keep the people from developing and wanting the freedoms of liberty and the rights to own our businesses and property. Socialism has always ended in dictatorships because of it's very nature of full control.

Uptower: So you're correct if you want to point out there's no need to wrangle over the ideology of it anymore - it's settled in the sense that those who've made up their minds one way or the other won't budge. Fortunately society has moved on from that and what is at stake here is the extent to which it is implemented in reality, because it's already here.
Click to expand...

What? Who says society has moved on and is excepting Socialism? I think most people still want liberty and freedom of thought, mind, speech and religion. Sanders will be rejected by the majority of people in the November election. Thank God that he will be rejected. We don't want a dictatorship with Sanders leading it. Or, Schiff, Pelosi, Shumer or any other Democrat Socialist.
 
I prefer a blending of Capitalism and Socialism, a prosperous society should be able to help out those in need and a free market helps the society as a whole. Heck why do think China morfed into the society they have today, they discovered that Capitalism pays.
 
Bullseye said:
Did you read the definition the article gives for socialism? Hint it's not a collection of social services provided by the government; those aren't even "socialism lite". Most of the Scandinavian countries say they AREN'T socialist.
Click to expand...

So do right wingers in the US.
 
Nickyjo said:
Sooo... can we conclude that the US, like many other countries, is a mix of socialism and capitalism, conceding that SOCIALISM!!! is also a clever campaign theme by republicans?
Click to expand...

No. The right wing prefers to both, appeal to ignorance and appeal from ignorance, sometimes, at the same time.
 
Bullseye said:
Seems so, far more seriously than in many years. This essay boils it down nicely.
Click to expand...

You'll have to re-debate this over and over as long as everyone gets to write their own definitions. It's like two people who speak different languages arguing over how to describe something when neither one knows the first thing about the subject.
 
Bullseye said:
Did you read the definition the article gives for socialism? Hint it's not a collection of social services provided by the government; those aren't even "socialism lite". Most of the Scandinavian countries say they AREN'T socialist.
Click to expand...

That's because they aren't.

They don't want socialism. It is destructive.

We have seen what socialism does over & over & over. Venezuela being a recent example. That's what socialism does. Destroys.

It must be rejected.
 
danielpalos said:
No. The right wing prefers to both, appeal to ignorance and appeal from ignorance, sometimes, at the same time.
Click to expand...

I came across this portentous paragraph only today! A fascinating article.

ERppweqWAAAlaEN


Three Cheers for Socialism | Commonweal Magazine
 
I'm sorry but the idea that capitalism respects peace is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Capitalism respects profit. That isn't always bad, but let's not act like it's anything other than a profit machine. It can generate ultra safe baby cribs or bombs just as easily.
 
Bullseye said:
Most of what defenders embrace as "socialism" lies nowhere in its definition.
Click to expand...

That must be a terrifying prospect for practicing pedants.

I guess conservatives should stop calling them socialists?
 
danielpalos said:
No. The right wing prefers to both, appeal to ignorance and appeal from ignorance, sometimes, at the same time.
Click to expand...

Hmm... says someone who elects not to work and loafs his life away while his mother supports him. The terrible right wing controlled government of CA refuses to pay you UI benefits to simply (endlessly?) loaf - the horror!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... says someone who elects not to work and loafs his life away while his mother supports him. The terrible right wing controlled government of CA refuses to pay you UI benefits to simply (endlessly?) loaf - the horror!
Click to expand...

That is your appeal to ignorance of economics in favor of the simple but ignorance of bigotry. You need plain reason and legal axioms to convince me.
 
danielpalos said:
That is your appeal to ignorance of economics in favor of the simple but ignorance of bigotry. You need plain reason and legal axioms to convince me.
Click to expand...

Plain reason dictates that UI benefits are to be paid to those recently laid off as they actively seek new employment. Nothing will convince you that you are not entitled to endless public support while you elect to loaf your life away and therefore must rely on charity or *gasp* get a job. Legal axioms have nothing to do with your fantasy of endless loafing on the dole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom