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

Post Reply New Topic

I not really a believer in the whole, "its up the parents" saying. I gravitate more toward the addage, "it takes a village to raise a child". While we cannot excuse the parents role in raising a child. A childs perception of society is often formed independantly of the parents advice. The child can only get a structure of society from society, not the parent. While the parent may influence this perception in minor ways, ultimately, the structure of society is formed independantly of whatever the parent may say. Children usually learn from watching how people behave, not what they are told.

As far as advertising goes, check out this new study, its pretty interesting. Neuroeconomics has only recently begun to gain a foothold in neuroscience. I suspect we will see a lot more interesting studies such as this:

http://ihome.ust.hk/~ecneuro/cgi-bin/pr ... 03-26b.php

What do you think?

I am a believer of "it's up to the parents". The parents are the group that influences values and beliefs more than society. This is not to say that society has no effect at all but that parents are the group that ultimately controls the effects of society. A child's perception of society may be based upon the society that they see but still the parents control their child's environment as well; parents control what shows their kids can and cannot watch, parents control where their children go to a great extent, parents set the environment that their child developes in. Parents pick the school(private, public, home), parents pick the outside activities(mall, church, friend's house, school), parents have responsibility over what their children do and have great control over the environment that they let their kids develope in.

That is an interesting study but it does not show a negative impact on societal values. All it shows is that people prefer brand names over generic. Certainly advertising may make people want McDonalds more or something but I still assert that people have a choice over how fat their stinking behind is. If there is a problem with choice then it should be solved by both explaining to the choosers how bad the choice is and by taxing that choice to make up for the negative impact of it. Besides, I consider the view that people cannot help themselves to be degrading to the very human spirit, I think it is possible for a human's will to be stronger than the big bad advertisements.

"That is an interesting study but it does not show a negative impact on societal values. All it shows is that people prefer brand names over generic."

I don't think you read the study, is says that, "We can show that the idea of Coca-Cola activates structures in your midbrain that literally drive your behavior. That is how ideas gain control over instinct." It was not a matter of name brand over generic, but coke over pepsi, two monsters of the soft drink industry. While, yes it does not in away show a negative impact on societal values, it demonstrates the impact that advertising has on the mind, which will 'literally drive your behavior'. This is simply a soft drink experiment, to show that advertising has a negative impact on societal values one would need to set up an experiment for that, to show how advertising affects moral judgements, not soft drink preferences. All this experiment shows, is that it is possible for advertising to influence people beyond what everyone has previously thought.


"Certainly advertising may make people want McDonalds more or something but I still assert that people have a choice over how fat their stinking behind is."

The previously cited study has just shown, scientifically I may add, that people are not being driven by choice in this instance, but by advertising, which overrides your instinct and controls your behavior. An assertion cannot counteract a scientific study.



"Besides, I consider the view that people cannot help themselves to be degrading to the very human spirit, I think it is possible for a human's will to be stronger than the big bad advertisements."

I believe this is bad logic, one should never choose a theory based on the 'comfort' one receives from the conclusion. If it is a fact that some humans are unable to help themselves, then we should not ignore it because it degrades the human spirit. Where would that leave us? Also, I mention again that the previous study shows that cokes advertising overrides the will and instinct of the drinker.

Okay, I think this argument has worn itself out. I thank you though for the debate.

Umm.... they weren't describing an addicting response. I have never heard of anyone addicted to a product, only those that prefer a product. You use the study to overstate something that can be inferred from human preferences. We prefer the things that we are most comfortable with. Coca Cola is something that most Americans are comfortable with and this comfort is because we expect Coke to be the most rewarding thing. Never in the article does it say that Coke is addictive and it never said that advertising literally controls you or drives your actions, it says that it affects structures that do and the full extent of that effect. The quote is "We can show that the idea of Coca-Cola activates structures in your midbrain that literally drive your behavior. That is how ideas gain control over instinct.". The control over instinct is enough for your brain to ignore some level of responses from the body(the amount required to distinguish between different types of cola) however, I have never in my life heard of any coca cola addict nor have I met anyone that was addicted to any product. The fact of the matter is that you are stretching the data to an extent that is clearly refuted by actual life experience. I have seen dozens of McDonalds commercials and I do not driven towards eating McDonalds and I have never even heard of a person that had.

The scientific study does not back the entire point that you are backing. It only shows that people's minds are affected by advertisements. Besides, wikipedia has an article on neuromarketing that seems to mention the same study but it does not emphasize the idea that the ads are "taking over our minds" but instead rationally just states that most people like the coke brand more and that is why they chose it, it even states that part of the reason the coke did better could even be better experiences with the soda itself noting that pepsi is sweeter which is a good thing if given in small quantities(like in a taste test) but bad for general consumption as we get tired of overly sweet flavors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromarketing
Also on part of the PBS site it mentions neuromarketing too and somebody states this nice little thing. "And, says Meaux, no amount of neuromarketing research can transform otherwise rational people into consumption-driven zombies. "Of course we're all influenced by the messages around us," she says. "That doesn't take away free choice."" Although it was a statement from a biased source it is still a knowledgeable source.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/etc/neuro.html

Actually that last statement in there was a poor statement logically but I think I was trying to appeal to pathos anyway. Besides, I could have simply said that I knew that human will was stronger than advertisements simply based on my life experiences and those of close family(who have not been diagnosed but still manage money effectively). It was ultimately just an assertion that people have control over their lives, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy, the more we think we have control the more we do.

Yeah, this argument has probably worn out but I'll give up after you do.

Okay, I don't mind people refuting my arguments, but I don't like it when people attribute arguments to me that I haven't made so they have something to refute.

Never have I stated that Coca Cola's advertising creates soft drink addicts, because that would be insane. You are pushing my argument to its extreme in order to have an easier time responding. I never made the claim that we have soft drink addicts, or fast food addicts. All I said was, "All this experiment shows, is that it is possible for advertising to influence people beyond what everyone has previously thought." Nothing more, nothing less.

Also, you state, "Never in the article does it say that Coke is addictive and it never said that advertising literally controls you or drives your actions", yet in the very next sentence you qoute the article as saying, "We can show that the idea of Coca-Cola activates structures in your midbrain that literally drive your behavior".

Then you go on to agree with me, "The scientific study does not back the entire point that you are backing". I am not making the point that you claim I am, so I totally agree with you, all I am doing is to take a quote from you, is to, "It only shows that people's minds are affected by advertisements". So, you totally agree with me, yet, you vehemently deny that advertising can affect people in the rest of your argument.

I do not deny that some people are not succeptable and some are not, I will repeat that, " I believe that real debate is, not whether exposure to violence makes violent people, but rather, how much of the population is succeptable, and, should the rest of the population have their entertainment taken away because of the few who do not have the willpower to resist. I believe the same question should be posed for fast food marketing, etc."

I'm not sure wikipedia is the best place to be getting information from, as anyone can go in there and change the information to suit their desires. Also, the quote you are describing may pertain to either the blind taste test, or the revealed taste, it doesn't say which. All in all, not a very reliable source.

As far as your quote from Meaux, I'm not sure how this has anything to do with the arguments you or I have presented. I can easily quote Norm Choamsky who says the exact opposite in the film, "the corporation". Yet, I fail to see how this helps either my argument or yours. An assertion is merely an assertion, it does nothing to strengthen or weaken ones argument. It is just like the body language that a bowler will use after he has thrown the ball down the lane in order to try and guide it towards the pin. Or how one raises their voice during an argument to prove they are right. A lot of show, but really no connection to the act of throwing the ball, or the strength of one's argument. Also, you yourself also discredit your source while backing it up, "Although it was a statement from a biased source it is still a knowledgeable source." I'm not sure what to make of that.

Okay, this was a little longer than planned, but I don't like it when other people twist my arguments in order to refute them. I don't think you are seeing the nuances in my arguments. I could have easily lumped you in with the idealists, yet I refrain and take into consideration the nuances of your arguments, because if I did not, then I would be arguing against myself, and not you.

Sorry, I just took your argument to be that extreme. I guess it is because I view the affects of advertisements as small and not even threatening. I assure you it was a misunderstanding; there is obviously something lost on the internet. I did try to take your arguments somewhat seriously to be honest I just saw the argument over arguments to be one side thinks that they are bad and dangerous and I saw them as almost nothing. I probably overstated and oversimplified my side and did the same to yours but more extreme otherwise there would be no argument whatsoever. Statements such as these "While corporations cannot force someone to choose their product, they definitely influence people, up to the point that it may be 'forcing' them to live an unhealty lifestyle." Caused me to think that your position was more extreme than it possibly was. I will agree with you that adverts have an affect but I don't think that they are really a danger or that the influence that the adverts have is a danger either.

Are we debating nothing? I will acknowledge the fact that adverts have some effect but I don't think they are a danger. Honestly this whole thing could simply be out of my desire to have an argument and because I took your original statements as being too extreme. Certainly I can be forgiven for this? I do have a tendency to misinterpret people too extremely, like I said before something does get lost in the transmission over the internet. After all, if there is no major disagreement then there is no need for argument, I just would say that advertisements mainly give people information more than anything else. Meh, whatever, it was not intentional at all.

I've decided that the difference between a free market and Capitalism is in the structure. Capitalism is more of an economic structure, while the free market is more of a legal structure. It's confusing, I know, and I just had an epiphany while reading Hayek, so be patient as I try to explain myself.

I think that in a free market, government is solely concerned with protecting personal property--things like money, land, and small business. Capitalism is a way for government to make money. If a government is solely concerned with protecting a person's right to own property, then it wouldn't seize land from a citizen to build a shopping center, it wouldn't subsidize big business at the expense of small business. But Capitalism is WRONG by putting business ahead of the individual. It's actually kind of interesting, I've decided, because technically, a corporation is, by law, an individual. I suppose I should say, then, that Capitalism places the interest of a false individual above the interests of real individuals.

I also think that it is inevitable that as people try to cure the problems created by capitalism, a society moves closer towards socialism.

((Note: I haven't read the previous posts so I may be repeating what some people already said. Forgive me if so. But these are my thoughts.))


Personally, I don't think either work well in most cases. In capitalism, business gains much too much power and controls the government. There's inequality, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Free market? Hardly, when Walmart's sucking all the small businesses dry. Adam Smith was naive because he didn't understand how powerful conglamorates could become. Now corporations rule the earth, destroy the environment, and show all the basic symptoms of a psychopath/sociopath. (See the fantastic documentary "The Corporation.") I don't believe capitalism ever works, because it always becomes the same old story of rich exploiting the poor, with a tiny minority having way too much money and a much, MUCH larger majority not having enough--sometimes barely enough to afford rent. But due to the specifics of the system, just raising minimum wage will cause inflation, so the prices go up and before you know it the minimum wage might as well not have been raised in the first place.

However, socialism demands a humble people and a small society. In a small society of humble people, it could work, and in some cases it does very well. However, in a large country of diverse people, especially ones who are greedy and selfish and brought up to ruthlessly follow their own self-interests--in other words, a country like America--socialism simply wouldn't work. The entire economy would fall apart because people would be too greedy.

So I came up with a new system. Here's something to bake your noodle on. This system starts out like socialism in that the government provides everyone with their basic necessities, and machines do most of the manual labor. Technically nobody has to work, but if they don't then everything they get is pretty bad. But the point is, all of their basic needs are fullfilled--they get food, housing, water, education, a toilet, etc. But the quality ain't so great. Now, if they want to have any spare change, if they wanna buy a better house or a TV, then they gotta work, and when they do, they enter a VERY controlled capitalist-style system. There is competition and there are private firms, but they are, again, controlled so that they never become nearly as big as the huge companies of today. Advertising is limited, the biggest companies are taxed the most, etc. Plus, nobody ever goes hungry or homeless because of the way the government provides all the basic needs to such an extent that someone can live (al bit in a somewhat impoverished state) without ever having to work. Nobody gets stuck in a state where they are working 24/7 and can barely survive.

This is helped enforced by a culture and media that demand and stress morality, discipline, and the ability to be humble. People are expected to not be overly material, and to not be ruthless in a persuit of fortune. Additionally, there are strict birth control laws (no more than three kids per family--divorced parents still count as just one) so that the population never gets out of hand.

The largest chunk of the taxes come from the rich. One of the government's main roles is in providing the people with what they need, and they get what they need from machine-driven factories that are carefully supervised by people. The jobs availible are just like the ones in any society: Supervising said factories, the arts, film, music, writing, the media, journalism, gaming, electronics, sports, science, law and order, medicine, police (you have "morality" training/testing as well as phyical training/testing, in which you are given situations and must make moral decisions, that sort of thing), teaching (can't be too mean to be a teacher), politics, etc. And if you do work, then you get money so you get taxed. But people aren't taxed if they don't. Essentially, the goal is to reach a state where everybody (except those that are okay with poverty or are super super lazy) is at basically the same class level.

I dunno if this would actually work, now--it's just an idea. But something to think about, 'cus capitalism's got problems. Lots of 'em.

Now if only we could invent replicators.

Yes, when a government offers a business like WalMart or Home Depot or Ikea or anything like that a subsidy in order to entice aforementioned company to the town, that is NOT a free market, that is capitalism, and that is WRONG.



Would it surprise you that Keynes, a socialist economist, wanted the business world (i.e. corporate world) to be in charge of the social change because unlike a red-tape beaurocracy, a business knows how to make money, which is kind of necessary for the survival of any society. America is following the Keynesian . It is not just evil corporations. Adam Smith may be naive when it comes to Corporate America, but you have to forgive him...he was, after all, writing around the foundation of America. His principles are true, though.



A minimum wage is more detrimental to the worker it is trying to protect than it is helpful. If you artificially raise the price of a commodity (labor), then everything else adjusts, too, whereas if you let prices occur naturally, things have a tendency of working out. It's true that you might not be able to afford a super nice apartment or house, or own a car or the latest in technology, but that is a false equality. You might not even be able to live in New York City or San Francisco, but those kinds of bubbles are created by other socialist-leaning policies like rent control and government-subsidized housing insurance and a high minimum wage law...



I would hardly consider looking out for one's best interest to be "greedy." Socialism requires more than humble people, it requires a people to go entirely against their nature, to give up their own pursuit of happiness and hand that control over to some nice Big Brother who Knows Best. And as far as greedy goes, in any controlled society (and socialism IS a controlled society), there is a ruling class that affords itself privilges not allowed to the others.



That is socialism.

No matter how you try to spin it, Socialism is a planned society, a CONTROLLED society. I do not think capitalism works well, simply because of human nature, but capitalism works better than any other sort of economic system.

If properly constructed (and I know this is a different topic, but in my opinion political philosophy plays an integral part of understanding economic theory), but anyway. If a government is properly constructed, it derives its power from the individual. In America, we have a representative government. The government is, I think, becoming a monoply, not only because no one really understands the control they have over the government, but because everyone has systematically abdicated that control under the false belief that the government is a benign, loving Big Brother who promises to look out for everyone.

After all, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs, right? The rich are jerks who got to be rich, not by ingenuity, hard work, and talent but by subjugating the proletariat, the working class. The working class has suffered so terribly at the hands of these Capitalist Pigs! They need reparations! They need to be able to buy the same things, to live the same way, to act the same way as someone who got that way by exploiting the worker! They want new cars, great vacations, and gated neighborhoods! Those lousy Capitalists didn't do anything to earn their money; they STOLE it from the backs of the workers! So let us play a glorified Robin Hood and TAKE IT!

Seriously. Taxing the rich accomplishes NOTHING but increasing the tax burden on the middle class. The middle class ALWAYS loses when it comes to taxes. (And you know what else, it's mostly the middle class that votes to increase taxes because they operate under that same ideology, they just disguise it under labels like Social Programs.)

Anyway. Your idea scares me. Did you know how fas*ist-like, how completely controlled that kind of state would have to be? Think Na*i Germany. Think the USSR. Think China. And while you're thinking of those, read The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek. You probably won't like him, but I think he's right. Hazlitt, too, would be someone you could try reading. And the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf AND The Gulag Archipelago, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Wild Swans...the list is pretty endless.

I suppose that is the creator of this Utopia, you would be the Philosopher King who would decide what everyone got, what everyone "needed," how much everything would cost, what could be earned by doing what, what kind of object to use to distract the attention of the people from the controls being implemented (like persecuting a certain group of people, perhaps?). Would you be the one in charge of everything, of making sure everyone did what they needed to do when, exactly when they needed to do it? Would you be the Benevolent Teacher, showing everyone the WAY? Would you decide who got what job? Would there be controls on how long they had to stay at that job? How would you decide what is "too mean to be a teacher?" What kind of morals would you teach in your morality training?

And once people decide that government mandated equality sucks, and want a job in order to IMPROVE their situation (or is that being greedy?), then you tax them for working because, you can't have equal things if people are always wanting something better. And once the big companies go elsewhere, or once they are taxed to , where does all the money come from to fund this equal-things society? And what are people going to do if they're not working? Reading? Thinking? Wondering why they are so unhappy? After all, the only way to keep someone from thinking is to either remove them from society completely, or have them work so hard they are too exhausted to think.

Are you going to ban books so no one can read things like Adam Smith, Bastiat, Hayek, Jefferson, Washington, Gibbon, Hugo, Montesqieu, Dickens, etc.? No, the only way to prevent free-thinkers is to prevent them from having the opportunity to think, or by removing them from society in general. So who decides what is Good Thinking and Bad Thinking? And how does someone get in trouble for thinking? Are there secret police running around, are children going to be taught that certain things are "bad" and need to be reported to the authorities? (Ah, there it is, the inevitable ruling class of a planned, controlled economy--the authorities.)

If everyone is meant to be equal, then why is there a ruling class? And there HAS to be a ruling class because someone has to be in charge since the individual no longer can claim that responsibility.

Hah, it was just an idea. I don't consider it pure socialism, though, because the "teir" (not that I like classes--they're just inevitable) of those who actually work is very much like capitalism. Maybe I just didn't phrase it well.

That's a very good point, though. It would have to be quite controlled, which isn't necessarily a good thing, but also not necessarily a bad thing. I believe that the government needs much more of a role in the economy because if government doesn't control business, then business controls government. You just have to make sure that the government doesn't become a total dictatorship. In socialism, the potential for government dictatorship is too strong. In capitalism, the potential for corporate dictatorship is too strong. I was trying to mix the two in a way that wasn't just modified capitalism, which is what most countries have--and clearly, as we've all established, that doesn't work too well in general. If it's executed really well, capitalism isn't always half bad. But then, you can say the same thing about socialism. They're kinda one and the same.

I have read excerpts from some of those books, actually. And nah, I wouldn't have any interest in being a ruler--a Philosopher King...hah, that's Plato's belief. No, I don't agree with that at all, and I wouldn't wish to force people to do what I'd think was good for them, because I'm too ignorant about certain issues, and I'd undoubtedly be wrong about some things...and I have no problem with admitting that. ^.~ But one thing I definately wouldn't do is ban books. Maybe someone could read the ideas of these philosophers and be inspired come up with a way better system than I did.

I do think, however, that morality is something we must all be concerned with. Not Christian morality, or any kind of religious morality. I'm an atheist--I don't need a book to tell me what's right or wrong. As far as I'm concerned, if it's hurting people, then it's wrong in some way. And...well, I've met a lot of really mean teachers. I've met a lot of really sweet and awesome ones, too. I just think that there are some teachers that kind of belong in a lab, working alone, not with sexually frustrated, annoying, loud, undisciplined kids who won't shut up. And they're that way because they're a product of a culture influenced by evil corporations trying to turn us all into blubbering fools who'll just buy, buy buy. (Yeah, I blame everyone...hahah.)

The way I see it, someone's being greedy if they're exploiting someone else for their own personal gain, unless it's fair. If two equally-powerful businesses compete, and one comes out on top at the expense of the other, then it's not greedy. If a business that's obviously more powerful than the other competes with a much smaller business and, of course, comes out on top--that I see as greedy. When you have superintendents that barely work but get five times the payroll of a hard-working teacher, that I see as greedy. When you have people with more money that they could EVER spend continuing to get more money at the expense of those who have barely enough money to be broke (therefore ensuring that they have no basically no chance at bettering their payroll themselves, unless they write the next Harry Potter or something), that I see as greedy.

You put a very convincing arguement, though, and it just goes to show that it never really is about the concept, is it? It's always about the execution. Hell, maybe we'll all just drain our resources and die off, and the rest of the world will be happy without humans. Then horses would evolve or something and have history class in which we would be potrayed as thoughtful morons who couldn't agree on anything and all destroyed each other. Heh.

I also just realized--even if replicators were physically possible to make, we'd have to worry about actually distributing replicators to everyone--which would actually be easier said than done because the government of the inventors' nation would no doubt want to gain a huge prophet from it, so the third world countries would probably STILL be deprived of resources as usual.

There's GOTTA be some way around it, though. There's GOTTA be some way to make an economy both efficient and compassionate, an economy that allows the individual to rise in status but never lets the rich become powerful enough to exploit the poor. I would think that the problem is that countries are just too big...but that'd be going straight back to Utopian Socialism, an ideal that I so wish worked better. No, I think the problem is simply people. We're all just so evil.

I've been thinking more about it, and I've realized that, in terms of finding the system that does the most good for the most people, it's not the economic system itself that is important so much as the people who are behind it-which is pretty much everyone I guess (the same goes for government). All "isms" and other ideologies, no matter how good or true their intentions are, are vulnerable to corruption and just about all of them have corrupted at one time or another, it seems, and some are corrupt in and of themselves. The only true change lies within the hearts and minds of people. You can implement "isms" and change and make laws til the cows come home, but it'll only go so far unless our society itself changes. I think that if an economic system occurs in a society where the people behind a business see consumers as people first, and potential profits second, and thus genuinely care about their well-being, in which people and businesses have a solid social conscience, in which the environment is respected and cared for, in which the non-material things in life, the ones you can't put a price on, are valued most, in which the respect and dignity of every person is recognized and people are not equated with things to be bought and sold, it will do the most good for the most people. As for whether or not such a society can actually exist, I don't know, but I like to hope so. Sweden and Norway come to mind, and Canada is certainly far from perfect in respect to this, but it ain't so bad. I don't mean to imply that these countries are superior in any way and that all the others are inferior, they're just quick examples to show that maybe it's not impossible after all. And even if it is, it's still something to strive towards. There's way too d*mn much suffering going on right now.

I think Capitalism is on the way out, only because it gives people an opurtunity to engage in Free enterprise and politics. Socialism on the other hand is is unethical and is degrading toward intellectuals.

In my opinion, socialism is degrading towards EVERYONE, except, of course, the ones at the top making the rules and planning how society ought to run. But I don't see what is so wrong with engaging in free enterprise and politics...

But here's the thing: Capitalism ISN'T actually about free enterprise, because big businesses suck out the smaller ones. It's not like everyone actually has a chance. Some do, some don't. Capitalism's common execution also very much fits your description of socialism: almost everyone (say, 98% of the population) being taken advantage of by a select few who are at the top and planning how society ought to run (the corporations, the government that they control, etc.). The amount of inequality in the typical capitalist country is jaw-dropping and infuriating.

You see, in execution, both economic systems really become the same. Not much competition, not much allowance for free enterprise, and a degraded populace. Hence the need for a new system.

I know this. I agree with this. But the Big Business that REALLY sucks out the smaller businesses is the government. The GOVERNMENT is the tool a business uses to circumvent the free market by things like subsidies. Home Depot by itself can do no permanent harm to the free market, but Home Depot PLUS the United States government can and does.



What inequality? Will you explain this? Inequality in what? Of what? What is not equal? (I think this is really important to define because epistemological differences lead to so much wasted debate, whereas if terms are defined beforehand, everyone is pretty much on the same page, regardless of agreement.)



So, what are you going to do about it?

Financial inequality. Inequality in terms of quality of life, income, etc. Granted true equality is basically impossible but there's a point where it's just blatant immorality.

I'm going to think. I'm going to make theories and write them down and see what people think about them, and if I think of a really good one I'll write a book about it. Put the idea out there. Promote change. In other words, do the only things I can do--not including starting a violent revolution, of course. Not sure that'd make the world a better place, really--it'd just put America in a state of utter chaos, and then some totalitarian government would come into power, and people would love them because they'd quench the chaos and bring stability at the cost of human lives, and then we'd be right back at square one, just with a lower population. (Granted, our population DOES need to be lower, but...we just need to have less kids. I don't believe in making the population smaller by killing people....)

What are you going to do about it, though? Hopefully something....