Socialism vs. Capitalism

Post Reply New Topic

By equality it means equal in terms of value not equal in every way like weight or height that would be silly.



oh don't worry you don't sound stupid

Marx believed that after the workers revolt and the installment of the dictatorship of the proletariat a period of socialism would ensue leading eventually to Communism. Although it is often done it is incorrect to separate socialism from communism. calling a social democracy or dictatorship socialist or communist is by definition wrong.

Whilst I accept that the meaning of socialism and communism has changed it is important in these discussions to understand the true concepts of the original ideas. In the intervening years since the Russian revolution the meaning of Communism has moved from a world of human enlightenment to one of dictatorship and murder. It is important to decide what we are discussing here, is it the original concept of socialism and communism or the foul regimes of Mao, Stalin ect. If the discussion flows along the lines of 'socialism will never work which is why it bred the likes of stalin and mao' then the conversation also needs to address the underlying circumstances of their ascent to power which I would argue do not flow from the ideals of socialism.

For an understanding of Communism as espoused by Marx and how it differs from the earlier works of the Utopian Socialists like Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen the Communist Manifesto written in 1848 is a good start.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/mani-o14.html

I will start with corruption. I was not defending corporatist policies. I think in terms of Rupert Murdoch and such, there needs to be a freeing on info. In other words, there should not be monopolies on information, which means abolishing IP. I think if you abolished trademarks, patents, and copyrights, you would see a resurgence of small time operators in every field. I also agree with some on the left to eliminate subsidies. We need a completely free market in things. Also, if you reduce the influence of government on the economy , as well as the booty amount for raiding the sovereign vaults, then there would be more incentive to work for your keep. Also eliminate QE, and institute a gold standard. As for corruption, what do you make of all these foundations churning out hope of curing this or that, when the only thing they (the people who run them) are their pocket books. Also consider government bans on things "for our own good". There is no such thing as a collective, merely individuals coming together.

As far as the altruist, they mean well, but they ultimately fail in their goal in helping the community. They also put a local tailor out of business. And what is the point of keep on giving to them if they never grow beyond a hand out and seize their own destiny, outside the mere desires of the American government or independent actors? If they want a socialist republic in Whoknowswhereistan, who am I to judge their values? If they want to be Muslim socialist, or what not, then they have every right to self determination. But that will never happen as long as the IMF bankrupts them, the NGO complex stays, and the US and others force them into certain policy positions. In order to get beyond poverty, they need to start with what they have, and develop from there. In addition, unilateral free trade and economic liberalization (not in the Washington Consensus tradition) should be instituted. In addition, people of good will should teach them how to use sustainable processes, and encourage entrepreneurship. I personally like what Red Heifer is doing, not only making them economically independent, but helping them help their whole village to become independent. So all in all, I think encourage entrepreneurship is better than having to dole out billions in economic aid, which is usually given to multi millionaires to stash away. Take the case of the UN giving grants to build a steel factory in the middle of a desert that does not have iron ore for hundreds of miles. Does this make sense? Why the hell should we fund the rich and famous by economic aid? I say we empower the least of these to become part of the global economy.

And since you asked how we could give jobs to them, ask the Chinese. I disagree with the exact way that happened, but take China and Japan. Through trade, Japan actually became a friend of the US, and gave us many great innovations. So moot point?

I misremembered the introduction of my copy of the Communist Manifesto, as being a part of the manifesto itself:

Wrt. IP, I don't think that it should be abolished entirely, but this business of patenting naturally occurring things like plant extracts and genes or proteins is absurd, and tech patents should expire after 5 years maximum. Wrt. drugs, reformulations of existing drugs into new doses or combinations of other drugs as somehow 'new' and deserving of a new patent is basically a form of Newspeak being used to game the patent system.

edit: I absolutely agree that getting rid of most of the patents we have now would result in an explosion of innovation and industry. It would only be good for the economy.

I agree. I think that copyrights should be under the microscope. IP was meant to encourage industry, not to be corporate breastfeeding, which it has become. I would argue it is another interference in the free market. How many media companies do you have? Maybe 8 if you are lucky? No person deserves that much power told mold minds. Thus, I think reforming IP would be best ,especially in tech, but also in trademarks, since I think this has led to brand worshiping, and concentrates power in less and less hands.

Socialism. Capitalism basically excuses oppression, inequality, nepotism and victim blaming. However I don't like how vengeful socialist nations have turned out to be in so many cases.

^could you give some examples of what you mean? I'm not aware of any socialist vengeance, unless you count the NAZIs.

An insensitive post removed.
I forgot what I was like when I was young.

Last edited by noyial43 on 10 Oct 2013, 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not sure I can agree with that. The dictatorship is through the imposed philosophy. Marxism, at least as put forward within the Communist Manifesto has a pretty rough relationship with power. It seems the natural trend of a Marxist revolution is towards ideology and then towards bureaucracy; the latter is probably necessary for enforcing the former in a revolutionary environment. Marx might have paid homage to the idea of a natural development but he supported a lot of revolutions and its hard to imagine his ideas taking the shape they did without 1848. For myself, I don't really buy into teleological viewpoints of history that try to create utopias. People might be the aims of those ideas but inevitably the people become mechanisms subservient to ideology.

Are you geeks crazy. Most of you prefer socialsim. Sun of Mary mother of God!

But one them is non violent.

Non violence that you geeks will not understand ! !! !! !

Non-violence FTW !

What is wrong with socialism in your opinion? At least it promotes a certain amount of social equality and based on supporting the social-welfare system, which we as aspies should find very helpful, instead of a capitalist system that is based of generating profit alone regardless of the oppressive means through which it attains such a goal, exploiting the benefits of cheap labour in third world countries and using a deregulated free market to gain capital from recessions that ruin the lives of thousand or millions of people.

So what happens when I don't obey the orders of a landlord, on 'his' or 'her property'?

How does one obtain property?

Last edited by RushKing on 10 Oct 2013, 12:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Here is the difference between socialism and capitalism illustrated starkly. Korea at Night.

http://mathinsight.org/relationship_det ... rea_volume

You decide which is better.

Nicely said at least you get it. Ruveyn is there any danger that you might read this and get it also, Nah I thought not.