Socialism vs. Capitalism

Post Reply New Topic

If unfettered capitalism provides the greatest benefits for society and the USA is the most capitalist nation in the world, why doesn't the USA have the highest quality of life?

HDI ranks the USA third, behind Norway and Australia. The OECD Better Life index ranks it sixth, also behind Sweden, Canada and Switzerland.

It seems an economy with more socialist influences actually provides a higher quality of life.

Exactly

First to The_Walrus, I wouldn't care to live in any of the higher ranked countries simply because I value individual freedom and RESPONSIBILITY over a marginally better quality of life for a relatively small portion of the population. There is a price to pay in either case. I am willing to accept the probability that those unwilling or unable to produce will have a lower quality of life to protect the rewards and resources of those that do.

To Alexius848, all of the public services you mention would included in a true capitalist society because they are necessary to protect and nurture the market place. The individual using the services would pay for them directly instead of through taxes. Elderly and disabled would be taken care of by family or charity.

People are still people. Creating a bureaucracy to administer a societies resources won't result in better or happier society. The same forces that you believe make capitalism unworkable will effect socialism. There ain't no free lunch and there ain't no such thing as perpetual motion.

The point I was trying to make was that capitalism works, mixed systems are a reality, and that altruism should not be valued over creativity.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I take this quote from the US declaration of Independence to heart. We don't have right to happiness only the right to pursue it. Government ,in my opinion, should be limited to protecting these rights and avoid the temptation to try to make everyone happy. There ain't no free...

Last edited by noyial43 on 08 Oct 2013, 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I was lucky enough to eventually be home educated. And the cost is actually quite affordable (about the same amount as Netflix per year).

I agree. I just was explaining how crappy it was, and how public schooling is not the social bond everyone makes it out to be. If I had the resources I would get the heck out of here.

48% Socialist 52% Capitalist

While you are definitely sympathetic to a free economy, you also worry about the less fortunate.
Wealth and business is fine, as long as those who are in need get helped out too.
You tend to see both the government and corporations as potentially corrupt.

I apologize for my error directing my response, zacb. I have edited the post.

No offense taken. If I had the money, I would consider relocating. In the mean time, I need to finish college, and save up to maybe buy some properties. I am thinking alternating in SA between two countries, perhaps Paraguay and Uruguay or Bolivia. I just hate how collectivism is on the march. I am against violence, so sticking it out in the US is off my list. I am thinking of somewhere that is not gringoiszed (it seems when there are gringos, big brother soon follows, see Uruguay, Costa Rica, etc. ) . Thailand seems good, but the pairings seem kinda limited (Philippines maybe, but not sure about that). Any thoughts?

Firstly that definition omits that a socialist or workers state needs to come about via the political overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the working class and the working class maintain control of the state (which is one reason the iron curtain states were erroneously called socialist)

This did happen in Russia, not so much in China as it was the peasantry which carried out the revolution.

Up until the death of Lenin, Russia can quite correctly be called a fledgling workers state and it ticked all the boxes of a socialist state. with the death of Lenin and the usurping of power by Stalin this ceased to be the case.

To quote Trotsky "Perhaps this is a workers’ state, in the last analysis, but there has not been left in it a vestige of the dictatorship of the proletariat. We have here a degenerated workers’ state under the dictatorship of the bureaucracy"

How can you call socialist a state which murders over 30 million workers who were trying to wrestle power away from a dictator, To put it another way a socialist state is one where the masses (the proletariat) dictate to the bureaucracy not the other way around.

You may say that I am guilty of "not a true Scotsman" but I think it is clear that the dictatorships held up as socialist cannot by definition be socialist.

Since when did you invent capitalism, oh wait you didn't, the general view of capitalism among the great capitalist theorists is that the government shouldn't own anything or have anything to do with the lives of the people it's only job is to protect the property rights of the people (the wealthy ruling elite of course)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism



That's very subjective I and a lot of other people believe that it will produce a better society, we believe it is the logical option, You obviously don't believe that but what gives you the right to say your opinion as if it is an established fact and please don't use the North Korea excuse it's getting old..



Could you explain this further it makes no sense as it is, it is wrong, how will every problem in capitalism appear in socialism it's like saying the same problems which appear in the soda factory appear time and time again in the local newsagents and schools, it is merely just your opinion don't treat your own opinion as fact.





True capitalism has never been tried yet just as true socialism and communism have never been tried either and yes capitalism may work but so does socialism just look at the Scandinavian and other European countries they are very socialist and their doing well and look at America the worlds most capitalist society it's government has shut down, it has the lowest life expectancy and standard of living in the developed world and it will soon most probably default on it's debts bankrupting the country and making sure no one ever lends money to them ever again. And you say altruism as if it's a bad thing being altruistic is a good thing and socialism is not just a good thing it is the most logical thing in my opinion and when does socialism stifle creativity may I remind you about patents and to a lesser extent copyrights which stifle innovation and creativity, socialism values creativity it allows you to be an artist, musician, writer, philosopher, teacher, intellectual or many other careers which require creativity without you making you destitute it awards innovation and learning in fact writers and philosopher are far more important than stock brokers so why are they paid less.



The above quote conflicts with capitalism lets deconstruct it shall we



Then why are different classes treated differently social mobility is next to impossible for the poor of America while easier for the more wealthy this quote sums it up "You have to have money to make money", why was slavery instituted it's about as capitalist as it gets, why do the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, why do different classes get different levels of both education and health care (if they even get any of the above in America) which the UN has said both are fundamental human rights, why is it that the poorer people have to work themselves almost to death just to survive when their are people (for example stock brokers) who can work for as little as a couple hours a day, the list goes on and on but I think you guys get my point.

[/quote]that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."[quote]

What kind of a live is wage slavery (almost identical to normal slavery), how is an exploited worker who must work for 2 dollars an hour who must work 12 hours a day 6-7 days a week as well as overtime just to make enough money to barely survive and if he complains (about anything even not being paid or wanting to go on a holiday) or misses a day due to sickness or injury (even if the injury is cause at work) is fired on the spot, how is that liberty? And now we move onto happiness if you were the above worker would you be happy, if you were an unemployed homeless person would you be happy, if you were disabled and couldn't make any money and was forced to just die quietly and slowly would you be happy, the answer is NO YOU WOULD NOT BE HAPPY!

[/quote="noyial43"]I take this quote from the US declaration of Independence to heart. We don't have right to happiness only the right to pursue it. Government ,in my opinion, should be limited to protecting these rights and avoid the temptation to try to make everyone happy. There ain't no free...[quote]

How can you take a quote to your heart I don’t want to have open heart surgery just so I can shove a piece of paper into my heart (which would not be safe and would most likely kill me) I don't like your insult at all. So moving on happiness is a human right here is a quote "Yes, it is a fundamental need of the human individual and therefore, I think, certainly, an inalienable human right that must constitute the most important function and responsibility of any government and any leader. " [by Prime Minister Jigmi Y. Thinley of Bhutan] happiness is most certainly a human right the right of the pursuit of happiness is a stupid right and a lie it doesn't define what the pursuit of happiness is and not everyone lives in America noyial43.

Governments main job is to protect and take care of the people as well as protecting the rights of the people any government that tries to make it's people happy is a good government in my book, it is the governments responsibility to keep the people happy how would you like a government which doesn't care about the people so doesn't try to do anything to benefit them which would consequently make them happy.

The problem with altruism, is that it leads to corruption, behind the veil of "caring". I remember Jim Rogers talking about how much of the clothing Americans donate to Africa actually end up being sold. So much for brainless altruism. You should have given those people jobs, not a handout (yes, they will need fed in the midterm, but long term the issue is jobs).

You talk as though Australia, Benelux, Switzerland and Scandinavia are countries of irresponsibility... And it isn't "a marginally better quality of life for a relatively small portion of the population". For a start, the quality of life index includes disposable income and actually gives quite a high weighting to it. In the previously listed countries where disposable income is lower, there are significant improvements in other areas that make the average person significantly better off than in the USA. These countries also have better human rights records than the USA, so you would not be lacking freedom there.

There are serious issues with your "true capitalist society". We know, because for a long time most societies operated on a similar basis (and today that is still the case in much of Africa). Most people couldn't afford to send their children to schools, so their children were uneducated. Most people couldn't afford healthcare, so they died prematurely. If they couldn't find a job, then they had to resort to crime to keep their family fed. Taxes existed to pay for policing and the upkeep of roads, at least, but I suppose a society where you paid G4S etc. to solve crimes is plausible, but it wouldn't be as good at keeping order as the current system.

Don't act like the ideal capitalist society is a glorious paradise we've been struggling to reach. It is a cesspit we've spent centuries trying to escape, and we shouldn't blindly jump back into it. Those who ignore history blah blah blah.

This is a critique of charity, not solidarity or altruism itself.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_TXpiq_6aU[/youtube]

I am really confused on this issue and must say that at the moment I am torn equally between socialism and free-market economies. I agree with those who have said that Maoism or Stalinist is no way an exponent of communist, socialism or the works of Marx. Karl Marx was very specific when he said that communism would arise organically rather than enforced by the state and that murder would be an unacceptable means of attaining such a goal. He also stated that there would be no one person ruling over the masses of society but rather everyone would live in a state of complete equality. Of course, equality is hugely difficult to define and I do not believe everyone is equal in terms of intelligence and creativity and so forth. As for the capitalist vs. socialism debate. I'm torn. I believe socialism to better so that those within our society who are weaker can be cared for and given the opportunities and services they need to live an existence of content. Such services I believe would be affected detrimentally if we saw the rise of corporatism and private businesses, as we are seeing now with the tories in power and therefore limitations being placed upon the welfare state. National healthcare is also fantastic and although people complain about its quality every single american that i have personally spoken to has been highly impressed by our healthcare. Saying that though, I suppose competition could lead to companies working harder to keep their customers satisfied and increased creativity and productivity. Although in the times in which America's economy has become completely destabilized, it has led to banks behaving highly irresponsibly. Sorry for the vague answer, I probably sounded stupid

Oh yes they starved to death but at least they have jobs. I can't comprehend how stupid this comment is, if someone is starving to death giving them a job isn't going to feed them, food is the type of job this person would be forced to do would exhaust and already malnourished and exhausted person, giving people jobs won't eleviate poverty there people in America getting paid less than 15, 000 a year which I think should be illegal, why wonder there is so much crime in America there minimum wage is 7.25 USD an hour that’s 290 USD a week it should be illegal to pay that little but it isn't, it's been proven that the most effective way to reduce crime is making sure everyone has an education and enough money to survive, give these Africans a world class education and guess what the entire African continent will improve in wealth not just these people, helping people who are less fortunate is not just the good thing to do it's logical because it the whole of society and it's our responsibility to be a good global citizen and care for one another because where all equal.

Marx was explicitly a communist, not a socialist. For modern socialist countries, look to northern Europe.