socialism or capitalism?

[yoshi]

The USSR was not Socialist but rather a 'Communist' (their questionable interpretation of Marxist doctrines) dictatorship under Stalin and a systemic disaster for the rest.

China was a Maoist experiment that was *ucked up from the beginning and is now an insult to what little socialism there was in that regime.

Cuba was never Communist or even socialist. They took on the role in order to maintain good relations with the Soviets (although ironically, Cuba probably came closest to fulfilling the Communist principle of promoting revolution beyond its own borders).

Vietnam probably posed the greatest threat to western interests in the form of popular governments rising against fascist regimes: namely the undertaking of major social (particularly agrarian) restructuring programs as an alternative (or one might say front) to western dominance of industry and agriculture and the very real danger of this trend spreading throughout Indo-China (the Vietnam as a Soviet base reasoning was mainly a cover). Of course, all their resources were exhausted fighting first US-backed South Vietnamese forces and later US forces. We all know the tragic result for US forces but that was nothing in comparison to the state of complete devastation Vietnam was left in following the war. Any come-back following that would be impossible.

Nicaragua and Guatemala were, like Cuba a reaction to US oppression rather than a serious attempt at a real socialist experiment.

So, real-life ‘socialisms’ are not appropriate examples of anything nearing “pure socialism.” Note that a socialist system is not mathematical thus it varies in application but it has never been applied to the extent that the specifics would come into question.

As for “pure capitalism:” it’s not a system but simply a word used to describe the process involved in the acquisition of wealth; there is no ‘Capitalist Manifesto.’ Hence, when you debate over ‘capitalism,’ you are just referring to differing levels of regulation (i.e. more or less market freedom).

The people who said it should be a combination are being realistic: a free-market system is extremely dangerous as it is unstable and not controllable by the society in which it functions therefore inevitably requiring substantial regulatory legislation to be applied to it. An ideal socialist system paints a pretty picture but would require too much control in order to maintain a steady economic flow required for true sustainability.

Russia is an example of both in a sense (i.e. jumping from very defective socialism to very defective free-market capitalism). Sweden is, or at least was an example of a light combination; using the state to provide a healthy environment for business while regulating enough to prevent the instability that results from economies that pursue laissez-faire solutions.

@Hygro: “The reason a more social government is less likely to abuse the environment is that it will place restrictions on industry to protect it, as it recognizes the value of the priceless.”
A government that does not restrict pollution output from industry is not thinking in its own interests (i.e. climactic changes will result in income losses as the market—particularly agriculture—fluctuates in response). This has nothing to do with socialism. Any system that is not guided exclusively by the interests of industry (i.e. short-term thinking) will take pollution output into account—and inevitably will be forced to become a global player as there are corrupt states that will not function this way even though they have the means (e.g. the United States).

@ rmsharpe: “War is a defense issue, not an economic one. Countries who believe otherwise are quick to be taught their mistakes (Germany, Japan.)”
The US policy-makers believe otherwise and they’re living the good life for it (regardless of how US citizens may suffer for it). Germany and Japan were just too ambitious.

 

[luiz]

Or the USA, the current largest polluter in the world per GDP and absolutely...

Firstly I'm not sure that the USA is the biggest polluter per GDP. Russia probably has this dubious honour, considering that they are the second largest polluters in absolute terms and are outnumbered 10 x 1 in GDP compared with the USA.

Finally the point is that Socialism is every bit as bad in screwing the environment as capitalism.

 

[Yuri2356]

But Russia isn't even TRYING to be socialist anymore, and they never realy were when it was the Soviet Union. The USSR came closest to being socialist under Leinin, once Stalin was in charge thengs went sharply downhill.

 

[luiz]

I should add that Marx never expressed any concerns with the environment, and neither did any of the "socialist fathers".

The notion that socialism is "echo-friendly" is modern and was developed by the european and american neo-communists as an alternative critique on capitalism. Since communists/socialists were completely humiliated on the Economical debate, they opened a new front, environmentalism, accusing Capitalism of destroying nature.

Obviously this is easily refuted by the fact that the USSR and China were among the greatest polluters on Earth.

And for those who say that the USSR and China were never communist, I say that the USA is not capitalist, and hence Capitalism can't be blamed for their pollution

 

[Yuri2356]

But there's a difference between not saying "Protect the enviroment" and saying "Rape the Earth." During Marx's time People Haddn't begun to realise the effect that industry was having on the surrounding ecosystem. The concept of ecology is a modern creation, so we can't expect a system that was created in the 18th Century to mention it.

 

[luiz]

Exactly.
What further proves my point that the merge of socialism and environmentalism is artificial and recent.

 

[Perfection]

WEll, it's been awhile since I've been here, better get crackin'

What about my favourite statement: Prevention is better than cure?

Inapplicable, socialism couldn't prevent it.

Right now, we could do with some socialist regulation to protect the environment from short-sighted, greedy businesses and consumers. The current agenda is too little, too late.

It depends on the regulations, I would actually ditch many prohibitory regulations on airborne pollutants, and just put in environmental impact fees. This no arguement for you wealth redistributionist socialist agenda!

Additionally, laissez-faire resulted in widespread poverty throughout the easilly-replaced working classes.

Justify that claim!

Again, it boils down to supply & demand. The effects of pure Capitalism are no better than those of pure Socialism. The only difference is that Capitalism results in a greater wealth devide.

Note how I said "Pure socialism is a living hell, pure capitalism is a living hell" earlier

It does, because all regulations interfere with profit. Sometimes the interference is small, but the idea of pure-capitalism is to promote profit above all else.

Actually it's the idea to not interfere with profits to promote the fruits of an efficient marketplace.

Bush is kind of an authoritarian monster, and the Republican party does not advocate pure capitalism.

Indeed, Bush betrays a lot of capitalist ideas.

I support very heavy government control over corporations. Best case scenario, they don't exist.

Why?

Only on cheap raw goods, cheap labour and a strong nanny-state to protect the privileged capitalists against the people and free competition.

If it's not free competition it's not capitalism, although I might add, that I work for a small regional company that competes just fine with corperations many many times its size.

Yes because corporations rule the world we all, also those who are against them, have to buy bad stuff for high prices. If they disappeared there would be a risk that we could buy good stuff for lower prices.

Looks like someone doesn't know the first thing about the concept of "economy of scale". As for bad stuff at high prices from corperations, what bad stuff at high prices?

 

[Red Threat]

A pure, sane, liberal european socialist democracy.

 

[thestonesfan]

Just to clarify, PURE capitalism is not a system with no government. Capitalism requires government to protect people from force and fraud. Obviously, without a method in place to combat those two undesirable factors, pure capitalism couldn't exist.

Capitalism is not anarchy.

And can we get away from the "Capitalism destroys the environment" rantings? As Perfection pointed out...that is no argument for the wealth redistribution, the fundamental basis of socialism. Socialism is not about protecting the environment any more than capitalism is. At least when a business pollutes, you can do something about it. When the government pollutes, you just better learn to live with it.

At any rate, there is nothing in a capitalistic system that says you can't sue a company for fouling up your air or water.

In my mind, the only real threat to capitalism(and not an insignificant one) is people coming to power within a company, who for whatever reason have no real interest in the sucess of the company. Bill Gates, for example, is not going to risk Microsoft for a few quick bucks in the short-term. His blood, sweat and tears went into that company. It would be like sabotaging your child. But some successor, at some point down the road, will obviously not have such a personal interest in the long-term success of the company, and will thus be more likely to make damaging business decisions for quick, short-term gain. Then you get the shoddy products, the pollution, the rip-offs, and the shady dealings. The things always associated with capitalism, but the things that are ultimately very bad for business.

That's not really a problem anyone but the consumer can fix. If anything, government involvement seems to make things worse, via pay-offs, kickbacks, whatever you want to call it.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I especially wrote that I was going to write one post on this thread. I find the whole thing with endless discussions with too young and too wise men about whether 2+2=4 or not both bland and time-consuming, but since you make yourself so tall and dark, I will restrict myself to a minimum of remarks.

If it's not free competition it's not capitalism ...

Wrong! You simply don't have any idea of what you are talking about. Free markets are not I repeat not capitalism.Even if you repeat it until your face turns blue. Or do you think there is free markets in your country? Aren't you cute!
Read some Adam Smith as a starter. Learn what is the preconditions for free markets! Learn what he thought about big corporations and capitalists.

Looks like someone doesn't know the first thing about the concept of "economy of scale". As for bad stuff at high prices from corperations, what bad stuff at high prices?

Looks like somebody doesn't know a squat about corporate monopolies and oligopolies, and pretty little about reading as well. I did not write anything about the scale of production, my point was about owner-structure (private or public, of the few or the community). About your second question, I think you will discover that almost all consumers goods could be improved, both qualitywise and pricewise if production was not targeted towards profits but rather towards people's needs.Cars, washing-machines, underwear, whatever. Very often now it seems to me that we rather like what we get than get what we like...

The rest of your post is just as flimsy, but I leave that part to stormbind to comment on. However I would appreciate a lot that you respect greying hairs that much that you don't post further "lofty" arguments on this. I have nothing further to say on the topic anyway.

 

[luiz]

Wrong! You simply don't have any idea of what you are talking about. Free markets are not I repeat not capitalism.Even if you repeat it until your face turns blue. Or do you think there is free markets in your country? Aren't you cute!
Read some Adam Smith as a starter. Learn what is the preconditions for free markets! Learn what he thought about big corporations and capitalists.

Even though Adam Smith was not the libertarian extremist that some consider him to be, he certainly was a classical liberal capitalist.

He DID support the free market, as in he wanted to get rid of tariffs and subsidies. He also wanted to limit the government's roles.

(I have read Adam Smith, btw)

Looks like somebody doesn't know a squat about corporate monopolies and oligopolies, and pretty little about reading as well. I did not write anything about the scale of production, my point was about owner-structure (private or public, of the few or the community). About your second question, I think you will discover that almost all consumers goods could be improved, both qualitywise and pricewise if production was not targeted towards profits but rather towards people's needs.Cars, washing-machines, underwear, whatever. Very often now it seems to me that we rather like what we get than get what we like...

But where is it written that consumers have the right to improved goods(I think that the current system maximises efficiency, but nevermind that).

In Capitalism we have some people who offer some services. The people are free to buy them for the asked price, or to buy from someone else, or to try to make it theirselves, or to not have them at all. But this does not mean that they are entitled to it, and that the people offering the services/products should be forced to improve the quality.

Capitalism is the only system that allows voluntary exchange, and that is precisely what generates wealth and allows progress. Is it a coincidence that since the Industrial Revolution living conditions are constantly improving, for those who industrialised, at least?

Now it's my time to recommend you some reading, since you're quite fond of telling people to read stuff.
How about you check some "Intoduction to Economics", by any modern author?
Then you go to the chapter about "Consumers and Producers Surplus" and make sure to look at what are the conditions to maximise both surpluses.
If by that you're still not convinced that a planned economy does not work, then do some reading on the "Calculation Problem".

 

[storealex]

Why is it so hard to see?

Capitalism is the best system if efficiency is what you want.
But sometimes people want more than overall efficiency. Sometimes they also wanna take care of the unfortunate that Capitalism leaves behind. Sometimes efficiency on the expense of the environment is not exactly what we all dream of.
So we throw a little Social Democracy into the jar, and woops, suddenly we still have the wealth that Capitalism gives us, only this time we have more people living good lives. Of course Social Democracy can be overdone. This is the case many places. But surely, this does not mean that Social Democracy in general is flawed.

 

[zeon252]

Hi, it looks like my topic has started a storm of controversy
Anyway, I won my debate defending socialism 2-1. I beat my opponent on public programs since pure capitalism does not have the government providing many programs and I also beat him in the fact that after the first generation of pure capitalists the race to the top is not fair, most people wouldn't even have the chance to move up classes. He did kick me in the groin in the last topic when he brought up the point that if workers get paid the same even if they bust ass what's to prevent someone from slacking off.
Of course somebody from the audience had to chime in "yeah but the US won the cold war!" Yes it did, but the US wasn't pure capitalism, and it will probobly never be.

 

[yoshi]

@luiz: “And for those who say that the USSR and China were never communist, I say that the USA is not capitalist, and hence Capitalism can't be blamed for their pollution”

Although you’re being ironic, there is truth to this statement. But anyway, capitalism is not really a system. It is simply what we refer to as the process of accumulating and transacting wealth but that’s it. Communism is a system (albeit a fuzzy one) who’s primary principles were distorted by the two regimes you mentioned (i.e. self-interested regimes just as much as the US—the look may be different but the underlying motives are the same). There is nothing ‘pure’ about any of these examples.

“What further proves my point that the merge of socialism and environmentalism is artificial and recent.”

What is this merging effect? Are you referring to the Green Party? There’s a general tendency in Europe towards environmentalism right now but I’m not sure that it’s ideologically motivated.

@thestonesfan: “Capitalism is not anarchy.”

Not in reality. Ideally (i.e. on paper), a 100% free-market system would compete until striking a balance. Companies are profit-making machines. They will pursue this goal at the cost f everything else. When you throw corrupt interests into the mix, the balance becomes distorted and bad things happen (i.e. anarchy results from the resulting inefficiency). That is why in reality, regulation is necessary; regulations are not there to prevent profit maximization but rather to maintain economic stability. Companies then adapt to the set parameters in order to maintain efficiency thus the market is artificially stabilized.
The reason why this is (i.e. capitalism) is inherently ‘bad’ is because the purpose behind this process is not the betterment of people’s lives (or event the strengthening of the state) but simply profit, nothing more. That, as a purpose is not sustainable because people are both a requirement and an obstacle.
Socialism, or a state system (this form generally being considered to best able to achieve the goal of making people’s—it’s citizens’—lives ‘good’ at this stage of human development) that (ideally) functions in terms of the interests of the people that fall under its jurisdiction, is sustainable because, and only because of that fact.

“At least when a business pollutes, you can do something about it. When the government pollutes, you just better learn to live with it.”

If government is absent or at least has very limited legislative power, business takes its place as the determining element in society. In other words, you will have the same problem. Our own world is in the initial stages of this. Ironically, the climactic changes resulting from pollution will cause the, by that time completely ‘globalized’ (you can probably imagine which version of this concept I’m using) world to collapse.

“Then you get the shoddy products, the pollution, the rip-offs, and the shady dealings. The things always associated with capitalism, but the things that are ultimately very bad for business.

That's not really a problem anyone but the consumer can fix. If anything, government involvement seems to make things worse, via pay-offs, kickbacks, whatever you want to call it.”

The reason why regulation is necessary is precisely because that’s the way it is. And consumers cannot be a regulating force because they, unlike a solid-steel government, are susceptible to being influenced. The reason why regulation doesn’t seem to work is because there is no such government in the capitalist world.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Even though Adam Smith was not the libertarian extremist that some consider him to be, he certainly was a classical liberal capitalist.

He DID support the free market, as in he wanted to get rid of tariffs and subsidies. He also wanted to limit the government's roles.

(I have read Adam Smith, btw)



But where is it written that consumers have the right to improved goods(I think that the current system maximises efficiency, but nevermind that).

In Capitalism we have some people who offer some services. The people are free to buy them for the asked price, or to buy from someone else, or to try to make it theirselves, or to not have them at all. But this does not mean that they are entitled to it, and that the people offering the services/products should be forced to improve the quality.

Capitalism is the only system that allows voluntary exchange, and that is precisely what generates wealth and allows progress. Is it a coincidence that since the Industrial Revolution living conditions are constantly improving, for those who industrialised, at least?

Now it's my time to recommend you some reading, since you're quite fond of telling people to read stuff.
How about you check some "Intoduction to Economics", by any modern author?
Then you go to the chapter about "Consumers and Producers Surplus" and make sure to look at what are the conditions to maximise both surpluses.
If by that you're still not convinced that a planned economy does not work, then do some reading on the "Calculation Problem".

Now first read this carefully, repeat it for yourself, preferably aloud: I am leaving this thread. I don't want any more comments on my posts, since I will not read them and consequently will not be able to answer them. Everybody else also please notice...
If you are such a bright boy I am surprised that you did not get the point that I am not interested in more debates in this thread , especially not with you since we obviously live on different planets. But I will grant you the favour to answer this as short as I can, and so you must please respect my request.
It is not enough to have read anybody, you must read them correctly. Just to repeat: Adam Smith was a lsophilosopher - part of the so-called Scottish Enlightenment - a historical figure from just before modern capitalism. The system he opposed was a privilege-ridden mercantilism. His vision was a society with small-scale producers, mainly family-enterprises.He didn't like capitalists and he would not have liked todays corporation, as far as I know no thinker with roots in Enlightenment or classical liberalism would(Just think abot the reactions of people like Humboldt, Jefferson, Mill, Russell and Dewey). He also supported luxury-taxes and government interventions to combat poverty.
I have read quite a lot of "modern" economy as you call it, a misnomer as far as I can see. I am even married to an economist, but even her feminine allure fails to make this pseudo-science more convincing. I have however already mentioned this in another thread and I don't want to repeat this every time you want to demonstrate how tall and dark you are. It is sufficient here to repeat that an economy which excludes politics and history, and postulates capitalism as axiomatic, is mildly speaking not very convincing...
And finally check up meta-economy, stop pretending that you don't know that politics and economy is not two sides of the same coin, and stop dropping hints about my supposed approvement of Soviet-like economical models(mentioning the Calculation problem, some old von Mises yarn).
The rest of what you write does not require any comment, I think that if you were to decide,rights as well as wealth would be even more uneqally contributed than they are today. But what else to expect from somebody with Hayek in his signature?
A last reading-tip for you, try something by the man in my signature.

 

[BasketCase]

One of my general all-purpose posting rules: anybody who says stuff like the following....

If you are such a bright boy I am surprised that you did not get the point that I am not interested in more debates in this thread , especially not with you since we obviously live on different planets.

....automatically causes warning flags to go off in my head.

 

[luiz]

My reply here is just to make th point that I'm not acknowledging a defeat in the debate. If you choose to leave the thread, fine, it's 100% within your rights. But you can't stop me from replying.

It is not enough to have read anybody, you must read them correctly. Just to repeat: Adam Smith was a lsophilosopher - part of the so-called Scottish Enlightenment - a historical figure from just before modern capitalism. The system he opposed was a privilege-ridden mercantilism. His vision was a society with small-scale producers, mainly family-enterprises.He didn't like capitalists and he would not have liked todays corporation, as far as I know no thinker with roots in Enlightenment or classical liberalism would(Just think abot the reactions of people like Humboldt, Jefferson, Mill, Russell and Dewey). He also supported luxury-taxes and government interventions to combat poverty.

Adam Smith was prior to the Industrial Revolution, which means that he indeed did not witness global-scale capitalism.
But to say that he opposed Capitalism is quite laughable, especially considering that the man, together with Ricardo and a few others are widely regarded as the fathers of Capitalism.

Quite interestingly you mention that he was a member of Sccotish Iluminism, what is of course true. If you have read the works of the other sccotish ilumnists, like say Hume, you will notice that they were the first to embrace an Evolutionist perspective in describing the social sciences. This means that they believed in a spontaneous order, and that government interference would only halt the evolution. This is compatible with laissez-faire Capitalism, and nothing else.

And I don't think that I need to remind you that Smith was a strong advocate of property rights, something that goes against your core beliefs.

Now naturally Smith's theories were incomplete, he was a pioneer after all. He acknowlged that trade could create wealth but at the same time believed in the Labour Theory of Value, an inconsistency. Therefore his theory was unable to solve the "water x diamond" paradox(and so is the marxist theory).

I have read quite a lot of "modern" economy as you call it, a misnomer as far as I can see. I am even married to an economist, but even her feminine allure fails to make this pseudo-science more convincing.

The world is richer then ever and you call it a pseudo-science?
BTW that's quite offensive to the people here who studied economics.

It is sufficient here to repeat that an economy which excludes politics and history, and postulates capitalism as axiomatic, is mildly speaking not very convincing...

Where are the axioms?
All of the conclusions of modern Economics are either the result of Empirical data or can be proved through mathematical models. Or do you consider mathematics a pseudo-science as well?

And it's a great thing modern Economics is free from the historicist fallacies.

And finally check up meta-economy, stop pretending that you don't know that politics and economy is not two sides of the same coin, and stop dropping hints about my supposed approvement of Soviet-like economical models(mentioning the Calculation problem, some old von Mises yarn).

Politics and the economy should not be the same side of a coin.

And BTW how would you solve the Calculation problem?
Yes, it is quite old, but the "von Mises yarn" was never properly answered, you know. Oskar Lange pretty much acknowldged that he failed in providing a correct answer.

What is your answer to the problem?

But what else to expect from somebody with Hayek in his signature?

Hayek is very respected even by those who oppose his views. Keyned considered him "simply brilliant". And he won a Nobel Prize in Economics.

But I understand your hate for him, after all he had the nasty habit of humiliating socialists every now and then.

 

[crystal]

Why is it so hard to see?

Capitalism is the best system if efficiency is what you want.
But sometimes people want more than overall efficiency. Sometimes they also wanna take care of the unfortunate that Capitalism leaves behind. Sometimes efficiency on the expense of the environment is not exactly what we all dream of.

I've been thinking about this issue for a while. It seems to me that environmental destruction is part of the human "nature". (yeah, cynicism emphasized) Stone age cavemen already hunted many species extinct, deforestation was already widespread in the Mediterranean region in the Ancient Age, and at least in the late Middle Ages the last major forest areas in Central Europe were levelled to gain more farming land to sustain population growth, which in turn demanded more farming land.

Then, during the industrialization, we got even more powerful tools to destroy other lifeforms. The reason why capitalism started destroying the environment at an unforeseen pace, was probably because this system was the first to achieve industrialization, not because it is the only un-ecofriendly system. Just look at what Soviet Union did to the Aral Sea, and capitalism doesn't seem to be only system that causes environmental destruction.

 

[BasketCase]

You should see some of the devastated environments in China.

 

[crystal]

You should see some of the devastated environments in China.

Environment? Is there environment still left? I'm not sure if I want to see that... probably I would just find endless areas of urban/agricultural landscape.