Socialism vs. Capitalism

Post Reply New Topic

You say that as if N.Korea were either a perfect example of socialism (it's a totalitarian communist regime) or the only example of socialism (it's not even the only example of a totalitarian communist regime).

Note the long island south of Florida.

For actual socialist countries, look at this:
[img][800:632]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-88gWexgF5u0/UQZtJGaDZJI/AAAAAAAACu0/fq80qsLEads/s1600/europe+light+pollution.jpg[/img]

For the record I do not think that Marx's theory of Communism is attainable, Socialism maybe, I would certainly prefer it to the profit system of economics.

For those of you advocating a form of social democracy within capitalism I think you are on a fools errand, yes capitalism has help the masses in many ways with advances in health, education, housing etc. Marx himself stated that capitalism was vital to get the ball rolling, but he also believed it would be necessary to replace it with socialism.

The rapid advances in the welfare of the working class occurred at the end of WW2, if you will permit me to be vulgar I believe the reasons can be condensed to the fact that the working class was now trained and armed for conflict, moreover prior to the start of the war they had suffered through the worst depression in living history. That Churchill was dumped from office by an unprecedented landslide poll at wars end is very telling. So here we have the ruling elites facing a post depression working class, trained in combat, and victorious in war. The advances in working conditions, housing, education, health etc were needed to maintain their control and prevent what was a very likely revolutionary period from developing, (don't forget that WW1 was effectively stopped by a sailors mutinee and was quickly succeeded by a workers revolution that ultimately failed)

So in many countries we had the installments of welfare states, reform in this era meant improvement in conditions of the working classes. Since this time what has happened, as the drive for profit has increased and the ruling elites fortunes have become threatened, reform now means repeal of those hard fought gains. Austerity is now the catch cry, all around the western world workers rights are being stripped back, wages are being reduced, nationalised health services are being reduced to rumps of what they were in their heyday and talking of heydays one of the jewels in the working class world, Detroit, is now a ghost town. They can get away with this because the betrayals of the unions and the so called democratic parties have left the masses feeling they have no avenue left to fight. Social Democracy was in the final analysis a betrayal of the masses rather than its champion.

Capitalism is what it is, you cannot expect it to be responsible for anything other than generating wealth for the markets and the ruling classes. The only time it will give the appearance of inclusiveness is when it is faced with a threat it cannot resolve through force.

Hmmm could you please point to the "actual socialist countries" as I am having a great deal of difficulty detecting them.

By American Standards, pretty much all of Europe.
Especially the Germany and the Scandinavian countries, though.

By American media standards Obama is the bastard child of Marx, But this does not make it so. Same as vicious,bloodthirsty uncaring folk calling themselves christian has the same amount of voracity as if they called themselves pink unicorns.

I think that's an excellent post.

Capitalism, as you say, is what it is.

Any democratic concessions given to the 'people' has usually come after a period of unrest - eg. the Duma in 1905 Russia, the voting and social welfare in Britain in the 19th Century, British reforms in Ireland in the wake of the Fenian Rebellion of 1968 etc. We could even go back to Babylon and a code of laws if we wanted to.

One could argue that the works of Dickens, the Rowntree foundation etc. had great influence on reform. In practice, any reform comes as sweetners to keep the proles from rebelling, and the whole system turning.

The mix of Socialism and Capitalism - it's really captialism with a more cute face, and better soundbites. Sure, some involved really believe that they are helping the people, and maybe some do in a way, but the animal is what it has always been.

But never mind, we've been paid off with various luxuries, we have our sports and our dramas, and our relationships and facebooks to keep us busy.

I find that Orwell summed it up best:

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."

And,

"The essence of oligarchical rule is not father-to-son inheritance, but the persistence of a certain world-view and a certain way of life ... A ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its successors... Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchical structure remains always the same."

Who said that the world was fair?

The (last time I checked) most widely used indicator for capitalism - the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) by The Heritage Foundation - lists the following as the most capitalist countries in the world in 2013:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Australia
4. New Zealand
5. Switzerland
6. Canada
7. Chile
8. Mauritius
9. Denmark
10. United States
11. Ireland
12. Bahrain
13. Estonia
14. United Kingdom
15. Luxembourg
16. Finland
17. Netherlands
18. Sweden
19. Germany
20. Taiwan

Source: http://www.heritage.org/index/explore
Methodology: http://www.heritage.org/index/book/methodology

In the 2013 Heritage data set, The IEF correlates with GDP per capita (PPP-adjusted) at around 0.65 (approx. 42 percent variance explained), although the variance explained comes close to 50 percent if one dumps mostly "fake" oil-based economies like Libya, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela etc. from the analysis.

^Interesting. Apparently the socialist states and capitalist states can overlap more than I would have thought; that list includes states with incredibly high marginal tax rates (again, by current US standards) and very secure social safety nets.

Personally I think Capitalism works best, but only with widespread cooperation among the people.
Contrary to some popular belief, competition is basically more poisonous to Capitalism than any other government style.

That list is well a bit incorrect Australia is nowhere near as capitalist as the United States.

Quiz is flawed. Had a bunch of ridiculous, Ayn Rand style capitalist propositions most of which sane people wouldn't agree with. Simply not checking them off, while offering no positive declarations of what extend you agreed with their contraries, was enough to label on "socialist".

Bolded countries have strong public healthcare. Probably all ranked more "economically free" (which you're using as a proxy for "capitalist") because of less protectionism when it comes to trade. Those countries are all less protectionist when it comes to trade in large part due to strong public social investments that build up the competitiveness of the work and provide a bulwark against the ravages of joblessness through a safety net. The less socially active US Government has had to be less open on trade due to pressures against job loss (which sucks in a state with crappy social support).

Looks like social democratic programs lead to "economic freedom", doesn't it?

4 bolded countries on a list of 20 and you're implying a causal relationship... are you mad? The fact that HK can sit on a list with Canada should lend itself to the more obvious conclusion that the variables of social democracy and economic freedom are probably not heavily correlated.

All rapist watch porn, thus all porn users are rapist XD . And like the above user said, it is based upon multiple factors, not just NHS. In some ways, Canada has lower taxes that even the US. Denmark makes it incredibly easy to fire someone, the UK allows CFDs (as do others), New Zealand is overall more free, Chile has toll roads, etc. . Also many countries, like Sweden and Norway are enacting free market reforms.

ETHNONATIONALISM, HYPERCAPITALISM, AND INSTITUTIONALIZED "PANTHEISM", ARE THE THREE PRIME PREREQUISITES FOR A PERFECT NATION.

You Are 12% Capitalist, 88% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed. As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power. You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.