To the people who would debate it. Socialism VS Capitalism.

Post Reply New Topic

I'm glad that muddling gets it.. I'm glad that the debate between two monetarian economies... socialism and capitalism. I'm glad it ended the debate between ideologies even though so many of you argeed it is a religious persuit. you see, if such forces which negatively represent the positives is a religious persuit, then I burn every bridge I must cross. I decentralize myself so far the only thing you can learn how to do is swim. and I don't even know how to swim... like my ancestors, like your ancestors, swimming is not an existential behavior that I think draws and positive consequences.. so, all of life itself is internalized, and polarized.. but which is illusion and which is real? We can debate this as far as you can tell me you can see because I'll always think you are slighting yourself..
the worker is nothing but a greeding hording pig at the trough. and he will bite off your ear just to watch you bleed. this world that we live in, makes no sense to nature. any nature. this is like the glitch in a machine being worked out by machine mechanics. We are all just machinists. Workers. if that is your world, all I can say is the slave can only take so much.. if there has ever been a mistake to history it has been digging up the graves to glorify their fight. to make the slave a righteous endenturement. I am not endentured. My hair is of the same wind that blows the trees.

I'll have a double of whatever you're having.

Not insulting your claims, rather i'm commenting on the tempo of your writing. I found it a little hard to follow. And you sound like you passionately believe whatever you actually stated you believe. So I think you should take some relaxants. There are people - stupid people - who have an uncanny ability to tell when they're being f****d economically, who will get pissed for you at whatever policies the government is enacting to change the economy. So you can relax.

Ummm.... I don't really understand the original poster too well either. Maybe there needs to be much much less figurative language. I really don't understand this statement

It is just a really weird statement.

Anyway, I think a capitalist system is the best for most things.

Capitalism works off of supplies and demands and reacts to those relatively efficiently due to the fact that people have money at stake in the economy. Because everyone is working towards their own best interests they will all try to settle agreements that will benefit them the most and this will result in compromises that create an effective system.

The supply and demand nature of capitalism means that companies will work to supply as much demand as is efficient for them to do. If companies set prices too high then nobody will buy and they will lose money, if companies set their prices too low then they will lose money from that, and if companies beat their competitors in the price competition they will get more customers and make more money, this competition encourages efficient industries.

Competition also makes sure people are paid what their skills are worth. Many companies compete for the same amount of labor, each company really wants to pay the lowest amount to get the most but each individual wants to get the most money and benefits possible so ultimately they agree on a price based upon the need for these skills and because it is a willing agreement no group is coerced into their job(no zero sum but mutual benefit).

The major problems with capitalism comes from a lack of regulation. At least any environmental problems do. Problems exist with any economic system if laws are improperly made. Heck, the soviet union, a state run economy, now has really really bad pollution problems showing that state run economy might not be better than capitalism. State run economies are not encouraged to be more efficient because no personal interest is on the line that pushes for efficiency. As such, prices can be bad and won't match people's desires for certain goods and bureacracy would reach very high levels and have no incentive towards reduction.

I think there is a difference between capitalism and the free market. Capitalism seems to focus entirely on the business/money making end, while a free market is just free, it just follows the natural order of things. I think it is human nature that turns the free market into capitalism.

Hmm... that is sort of true, a free market is considered to be a defining aspect of capitalism but not vice versa. However, the terms are used somewhat interchangeably by non-economics people because of the fact that the free market is perhaps one of the defining qualities of the ideal capitalist system. I mean, capitalism is an economic system and the free-market is just a condition within an economy.

I have a question, can there be a non-capitalist free-market? I mean, you pointed out a distinction but I am wondering if the free market can be a separate entity because it is not defined by capitalism necessarily like capitalism is defined by having a free-market.

I've been wondering that myself, and I've not found an answer that satisfies me. I think that it can, I just haven't been able to define it yet.

I think that a free market turns to capitalism when a government subsidises a business in order to lure that business into the city. It is subsidised because the cities think it will bring more jobs and do more to enhance the city (i.e. increase tax revenues). The tax breaks and subsidies put small business at a disadvantage because they can't offer what a huge company can. But the thing is, and I'm probably not explaining myself very well here, is that a government subsidises a company that under normal market conditions would move to a town because it couldn't support itself, thus negating (or severely handicapping) the invisible hand of a free market economy.

Ok, right, in capitalist systems there is inevitably a deviation from laissez-faire as governments intervene in order to get their own benefit and in doing so disrupt the free-market. Yeah, that makes sense. However, I have heard of the ideal of laissez-faire capitalism more than any other system. I don't think that laissez faire could ever really be reached or anything though especially when governments have to decide what constitutes an externality in order to adjust for it. Government intervention is a given in the system, it is just the extent is what we don't know.

Without it the economy will end up like a Monopoly game where one player crushes the rest and they all walk away.

In Monopoly once one player gets the upper hand on the others,they don't stand a chance,even small children can quickly figure out it's futile to go on playing the game. They will never make a come back and just get crushed so they quit playing the game. Even the winner don't complain,he/she see's there is little point in taking every last piece of property from the other players and taking every last cent they have,he/she can see it's just a waste of time to continue the game knowing it's just a matter of time before they totally crush the other players.

You can't even win when you do win,the game just ends and whats the point of owning everything when everyone else walked away and says you win,take it all.

In therory something like Cuba should work,everyone works together for the greater good,but it hasn't worked anyplace yet. Nobody has any incentive to figure out how to be more productive. Time just stands still once the commie types take over,there is no longer is any incentive to do more than the minimum to get by if nobody gets nothing out of it. The harder somebody works, the more the others slack off, it's pointless to produce more for no real gain.

Yes, it has happened before, right around the beginning of the industrial age when people first realized the enormous profitability possible under the free market.



I believe this, too. So what happens when the government is the monoply, pushing competition out of the picture under the name of Tax Revenues and More Jobs?




Even in theory, I don't think a communist/socialist government could practically function in the long run. The flaw? Lack of free will. If you ignore that bit, if you ignore the fact that EVERYONE s to be forced into doing something, then yeah, those types of forced socio-economic equality work great. But you can't ignore free will, it is an integral part of every human being, one of those basic rights every man was born with.

Socialism may work for a while because no one really understands or knows what is going on, they just see less and less of their paychecks and more social programs that make them feel better about themselves. But eventually, people will understand and one of two things will happen: a revolt, or a forced socialist economy that will lead to a dictatorship.

When I debate the merit of capitalism vs socialism, I always reduce the economies to the most prevalent medium, money. most existing economies are monetarian, the capitalist and the socialist share this pivotal concept in common and so, this is the point at which I try to understand them both.

The problem arises in the capitalist interpretation of the market that lacks the metaphysical third party role that money plays, merely representing it as capital.. and the socialists adherence to this economic principle while creating their own ideological polarization. this is a false polarization as neither economy has coherence without this choice of medium.

To the real communists amoung you, I realize money doesn't have to be included in the purest marxian interpretation of the market, though you will notice all marxists through history have adhered to it.. this is why I didn't include it in my debate. nor did I include the people like kropotkin and the similar anarchists who have theorized the free economy.

While studying money and the metaphysical/ idealist role of money in society I made two distinct realizations, that money isn't capital it is an abstraction and that money as an abstraction forumlates the concrete world. That money has autonomy over the medium of economics and therefore all monetarian economies react and grow based on the same principles that apply money and form the concrete world.

money is the realization and diversion of civilization and the destruction of civilization.

The greatest growth in the economy has been provided by globalism and the military industrial complex, this has two reasons.. because only so much value can be extracted nationally, because industrialization and the technocratic world can only be adapted so far before the boom goes bust. and because to extract value from something which has lost value, the national economy, the infastructure, the worker, the old aparatus must be destroyed to make way for the new.. this has been the basis for the growth of civilization since the begining, and the pivotal legitimization of both of the monetarian economies. Warfare has done little else than economically restructure the urban/industrial re-development. but warfare has become the means by which economic and industrial redevelopment begins, from the technology which is reapplied to secure the nation state or enemy, or the manpower which utilizes this technology to reinforce the medium of money.. I can barely look around and find something which can't be reduced to the third party role of money and the world.

Though the argument can be made that we are better off than those who came before us, never has so much labor or warfare been not only accepted but possible. never has the nation state (another abstraction) had so much relevence. Never has the world been so polluted. Never has the existential choice been so obviously a choice already made. Never have so many positives created so many social, psychological, and ecological negatives... and never has the world been so structurally reinforced by these dynamics as to make our continuing persuit seem enevidible or the consequences of our actions been so ignorantly excusable. I am definately not above this criticism, though I would rather realize the abandoned wasteland and toxic enviroment around me than contend that this is "social evolution" or "progress"... or that the construction of such an aparatus will ever result in the global liberation of people, the technology which will save the enviroment or qualitatively improve our lives..

I also do not believe that the intellectual property imposed on society, both to create economic growth, to stabilize the market, and to regulate our movement is anything but adherence to a religious doctrine.

below I have included section one of my newest pamphlet... for anyone interested in finding a contrary opinion, though not ideological, read below..


Urban Rewilding - by - troylloyd21@hotmail.com

The diversion is always actually polarized by the active movement against it. The primitivist though often polarized by for warfare, have been best described with words like savage or feral. as being the warfare by which man struggled to form the civilizations. the bloodshed prior to civilization, the vulnerability to the wild and the killer instinct have all been most commonly applied when attempting to contrast the civil from the uncivil.

Civility itself has come to represent a rational way of thinking and the unification of society by a global march forward in their dependency on abstractions.. the state, their rights, the worker, their property.. "nothing less is civilized" came to be cliche of the aristocratic nature of society and our endengered struggle to become pretenious, though I doubt there is a person reading this who hasn't justified the convience of their lives because otherwise you couldn't survive. we do not understand nature and that is why it seems chaotic.

In the monetarian economy the religious person invests their money in the information. the religious masses doesn't understand why or how money grows, though they have equations... the religious masses don't ask where the money is? or why the money is? just that in god we trust. the religious masses live by and as and through numeric quotes and apply parables provided by their profitable prophets of the stock market. The only thing we can be sure of the monetarian economy is that such faith has enabled the destruction of the planet. that the idealist and dogmatic have collided and solidified the state words as scripture. This confined space existence leaves human history explained through the narrow-minded spheres of state worship. our social existence within the nation state has made the suppressor reinforced by nothing more than the mentality of slaves.

Very few of us can be absolved from history. I have reinforced the destructive forces for years. even as I write this I am a part of the diversion. I am not above any criticism I could ever make. I am the murderous anti-natural hierarchial suppressed individual, that is my commonality with anyone reading this.. it is as a slave.

to call a slave a slave is not a criticism in my opinion though it has ignited the intellectualism of false polarization. I am without proof for slave is just a word embodied by the person. perhaps the slave is merely rational. then I would say the slave has an opportunity to realize themselves as a part of the diversion. if the slave does not exist, it is merely an evolution of language, not of society and not of our conditions. Now the slave is called "worker" and "citizen"...

The modern nation state has strengthened itself not on the globalization of the world but through the realization of globalism. The strongest nation states are the weakest against the real antagonist of economic growth. the strongest nation state is established through obedience and adherence not only to the forces of the market but adherence to the direction of those with "global vision".

The global vision is to see the world with actively extended ideas produced through extreme separation producing action from inaction. The computer task has produced and stored and secured our identity but the identity is an entity depended on the diversion.

The warfare starts upon the synapse of a computer task. From the keystrokes of the nationalist comes the destruction of the world. on down in sequence we are soliders. falling in step we march behind the hearts and minds and times are left in the sphere of information and necrophilantic interpretations. on down by rank we maintain the diversion. the nation states do not provide freedom, protect freedom, or persue freedom, freedom has been diverted and it exists in the subversion.

What is left is ours to be shared between those who even know it. all property was created through theft but what is left, the abandoned space which just takes up space will be filled with nature. there are people who have lost control. The night becomes the day and transience provides a hundred homes. free it is not a garentee it is an opportunity. the only equality of mankind has been overtheorized and defaced of all its truth. there is no truth as functional as cynicism. even if the cynic is wrong they are always prepared for the worst. then when the cynic over thinks the worst is realized and the individual is humble.

I will not think or try to predict the future. I will not theorize where or when or how the things I say have merged with a world that is diverted with words. That is the best criticism that anyone could make at this point. I should be criticized for having to reduce one of my ideas to a chart and pamphlet..

but, what type of world would treat this view-point with such defense if they didn't feel threatened? My ideas are in no way ideology. Anyone who feels threatened by my words should first realize my intentions are the negation of these words from history. When reading this becomes a waste of time people won't spend time reading this. though, oppositely, if all time were free this WOULD be a waste but anything I've written would be a diversion. the nation state is nothing but a name. the nationalist pretends to have intellectualized property over all the land within their borders. Any sort of freedom woken by alignment to confinement is fictious.

all the accomplishments of humanity.. in all this intellectual progression, technological advance, and civility, the best freedom we can attain is representative. even the representative is represented by the entity which is the state... this sphere of thought which is above the people who transcribe it, identify and align with it.


When all of space is controlled and compromised by metaphysical divergence. The system emulates nature because nature is symbiotic.
If this generation continues to reinforce the diversion, if we actively support the destructive forces, we will be the first generation of the last... we will set in motion what will strip the planet back to nothing. This is ground zero.

Those of us without obligations should not be taking on any social obligation. We have the unique opportunity provided by the rot. In the most advanced civilizations the opportunity to survive and socialize exists to the nonworker. There is no reason for a tribe that should be inspired by me or that I sorround myself with has a reason to use money. there is no reason that we need the diversion, money, the state, or an identity.

There was a time when our species was here. we are of the nature we repression and now we are a product of false polarization. I am not natural. this life is not natural.

For anyone who cares I am starting a tribe. My interest as a tribalist it to rewild the urban abandonment.

I think any tribe which would wish any success in the civilized world would have to abandon all relations with the hierarchial model which reinforces the image of civilization and keeps it eating better. We will eat whatever otherwise would have been tossed away and I assure you, we will eat no better... our food will taste the best. it is free-food. "slave or feast" will be a slogan which will starve the slogan writers...

In my opinion, and that might not mean much, any tribe I align myself with cannot obligate me in the false polarization of struggle, of freedom, or of revolution. Those of you who would covalesce in search of that I just want to say I am not looking to struggle to be free through, for, or because of a future revolution. I am free of that.

Freedom has become so misrepresented.. the things which arent free were willingly paid for. the most suppressed and repressive personalities are the ones directing the consciousness of this pseudo-freedom. None of this together might make sense to any of you, and my advice is to stop reading and IM the hot chick on your MSN list.

the hierarchial roles don't apply anymore.

the naturality of that freedom is dependent upon the functionality of nature. I can't contend that there is only one absolute sort of freedom. I can conclude that the freedom represented in the democratic world, the freedom of the monetarian economy, is only ever truely appreciated through the autonomy of abstraction and the delegation of responsibility. all information has a source and the very means of our mediation have become a partnership of all free space and free thought with a dictatorship. If information space can be objectified and modified than money begins fill the gapping rifts in reality. you are being visually bribed by diverted reality. the focus on the progression of a nation walking in succession towards the same weak branch extension of social advancement. hard work is ethical. We live to have what those before us had and look to change the world. we overlap the lination of time then we find that history really does begin to repeat itself.

In the concentration camp the gas chamber is escapist optimism. Now, like forests grow ontop of forests. buildings grow ontop of forests and grow forests of buildings.

Our reliance on the modern world has caused us to believe these times are evolutionary... sometimes even that these sterile conditions are revolutionary..

civilization, inhabitation, cohabitation, was merely self defense from the alienation of the large vacant spaces. It didn't seem as big or scary, if we kept just a few steps from our clan we could be safe anywhere we went. Primitive people roamed further than anyone who came before them, this was evolution. we are the civilized man in an unexplored wilderness.. amazonic sewage systems. Mountains of buildings. The structured streams of roads unwined into the most unsafe of all the aparatus though they are travelled like the first tracks out of africa.

We live inside the mountains so they can watch out of the watchtower. the hierarchial structure of the world is represented by fantastic architectured mountains of the earth. of every city... even down to the competiting houses of the suburban streets.

Outrageous amounts of space sit in abandoned industrial zones in every rural town in ontario. some sitting vacant for years with no hope for a use and no occupancy as a house. the conditions of the bittered cold and left alone opposing forces of reality.

in all the adjustment to the free world we never lose control. labor is the dispute... end the argument!

Hey, I am sure you are trying to say something important, but I can't find it. Can you be a little less obtuse, esoteric, cryptic, and figurative? I am interested, I just can't decode.

Right well, I am not an anarchist and I don't believe that anarchism offers a logical solution to this world. Anarchism destroys the concepts necessary for this world including hierarchy and anarchism destroys the power structures necessary for a group to thrive. Power and power structures are a necessity for human existence at this complex level, without either human society collapses due to internal forces seeking power or external forces seeking power. The ideal of freedom submits to the need for power. Anarchism fails because it refuses to recognize the influence of power and the need for it.

If men were angels then no government would be necessary. If men were perfect then society would not be needed. Men are territorial, they are vicious, they are lusitng and covetous, they have much in terms of sin and I haven't even begun talking about women.... Ok, that was just lame but still, I read the 5 pages of information that you gave and I don't believe in it and find its ideology one that I disbelieve. Let whatever fool reject society if they so choose but realize that society has created modern comfort and represents the pinnacle of human progress. Certainly you have every right to disbelieve this but still I assert that man was never meant to be free and free man should never be. This is not an assertion against the level of freedom that we have but only against anarchy.

Anarchist communes may work because they are small and unimportant but anarchist nations and worlds fall before focus and strength that is provided by more powerful systems.

Yeah, DeboardisDead does not speak in a very straightforward manner. I tried to decipher what he said but I am not completely sure I got it. The thing is that in internet conversations it is usually to your benefit to type out stuff that is sort of short, stated simply and tries to hit the points. Most people don't want to read essays, especially not highly figurative ones simply because they want the facts.

Besides, if an*rchists gathered together in a group wouldn't they, by principle, have to desolve and disband immediately?

I am not an an*r*hist either, for the same reasons Awesomelyglorious delineated so nicely above. An*r*hy may be against control, period, but because it refuses to recognize that control is necessary, any attempt at that sort of "freedom" fails. An*r*hy leads to chaos, chaos leads to a need/desire for control, and that need for control leads to despotism and dictatorship. It is inevitable. Someone has to be the leader, and in a society where there are no rules, a leader maintains power by sheer brutality.

A few years ago I watched a movie called Fight Club. I was an angry, confused, and helpless-feeling college freshman who just walked out of a political science class because the professor was spouting falsehoods as absolute truth. I loved that movie. I watched it at least 20 times. It spoke to this disenfranchised, rebellious part of me that wanted immediate action, an immediate, big-bang take down of the oppressive Man (plus, it starred Brad Pitt, which only added to the appeal.)

I then found a book called Essays on Political Economy by Bastiat in the library. This led to other books on political economy and economic theories. This material spoke to the rational, logical tactician part me. I then watched Fight Club again. Now that I understood what it was about the System that I disliked, I realized that a complete take down of the System would lead to even worse conditions than existed at the present time. I thought the movie presented a terrible message.

I grew up. I'm still an angry college freshman (God, but having AS does cause problems, eh?), but I know now that in order for change to be lasting, it needs to be a widespread idealogical change, not an an*rchist coup.

But this is not a debate about socialism and capitalism, is it? Where did that go to? I think that is a great debate topic.

Well, I am assuming he is an anarchist because of how he seems to dislike current structures and calls them false and because another thread he started focused a lot on anarchism.

I really don't like anarchy myself, I tend to think that structures are extremely important even some at the cost of free-will. I did switch over to the idea of a capitalist economy because of how it naturally developes its own structures and organizes itself in a manner that creates great progress and efficiency. I like order and think that it is incredibly important for societies and well... everything. To a certain extent disorder seems threatening to me so I tend to like order and oppose attempts to remove order that don't offer another order to replace it. Pretty much I see the chaotic tendencies of society as the problem that I face rather than the repression of society.

The problem isn't capitalism, but unbridled capitalism. Without limits, capitalists will naturally seek to create monopolies, either by buying the competition our by using loss-leaders to drive the competition out of the market. Once a capitalist is in a monopoly situation the consumer (and therefore citizen) loses because there is no longer a free market. As Microsoft has proven time and again, you don't even need to be a real monopoly to disrupt the free market ideal, as long as you have enough market share to threaten your distribution chain into voluntary restraint of trade.


I think there is a possibility of free market action involving non-capitalist entities, but only in cases where the government regulations create and maintain an equal footing for all competitors. For example, I work for a "non-share-capital corporation" in a federally regulated industry. The company has no shareholders, but raised its capital via a bond issue. The board of directors is made up of representatives from government and some of the major customers. Because we have no shareholders, we are driven to deliver our service on a no-profit basis since there's no way to distribute the excess. We provide quite a few different services and hold a monopoly on some of them, but private enterprise is able and willing to compete on the provision of some other services. It's very difficult to compete with a no-profit juggernaut but the freedom of the market does exist.

The problem is worse than that. The suppression of the free job market means that there will always be an incentive toward corruption as that's one of the few remaining ways for people with ambition to get ahead. This is coupled with an inherent reward for laziness. Why be a surgeon when you can earn the same salary cleaning rooms at a tourist resort and get tips on top of that?