Why is capitalism 'freer' than socialism?

[GenMarshall]

In socalism, you don't have to work and you can sleep all day. Them rich folks are forced to support by redistributing there wealth.

 

[RedRalph]

Capitalist economies tend to have things like rights respected by courts.
Countries which adopt socialist policies (USSR, Iron Curtain) in their attempt became military dictatorships

It is easy to figure out from there

Which Warsaw-Pact military dictatorships are you referring to?

And when you talk about rights being respected in capitalist economies, I presume you aren't referring to the US, what with gitmo, or eastern Europe, what with rendition, or Ireland, what with blasphemy laws, or the UK, what with internment, or Russia, what with police corruption, or Colombia, what with government-funded right-wing militias, or Australia, what with state-sponsored child kidnapping, etc etc etc...

 

[GenMarshall]

Huston, RedRalphWiggum has just gone into overload and crashed .

 

[Yared]

In socalism, you don't have to work and you can sleep all day. Them rich folks are forced to support by redistributing there wealth.

Is this a joke or are you jumping between being anti and pro-socialism?

 

[classical_hero]

Which Warsaw-Pact military dictatorships are you referring to?

And when you talk about rights being respected in capitalist economies, I presume you aren't referring to the US, what with gitmo, or eastern Europe, what with rendition, or Ireland, what with blasphemy laws, or the UK, what with internment, or Russia, what with police corruption, or Colombia, what with government-funded right-wing militias, or Australia, what with state-sponsored child kidnapping, etc etc etc...

You are making no sense there. I have no idea how these situations have anything to do with what JH said.

 

[Artemesian]

In socalism, you have to work and you can't sleep all day. The rich and powerful folks work together through government, laws, banks, to steal everyone's wealth. And why not? since everyone has given away their freedom to choose.

 

[RedRalph]

You are making no sense there. I have no idea how these situations have anything to do with what JH said.

rights being respected in capitalist economies

Can't dumb it down any more I'm afraid.

 

[JerichoHill]

Which Warsaw-Pact military dictatorships are you referring to?

And when you talk about rights being respected in capitalist economies, I presume you aren't referring to the US, what with gitmo, or eastern Europe, what with rendition, or Ireland, what with blasphemy laws, or the UK, what with internment, or Russia, what with police corruption, or Colombia, what with government-funded right-wing militias, or Australia, what with state-sponsored child kidnapping, etc etc etc...

I didn't say the respecting of rights was perfect or ideal in capitalistic countries, just that their track record certainly has been a bit better. RRW, it shouldn't have to be proven that socialist ideas and policies were used and twisted by power hungry men. So are capitalist ideas and policies. A big difference was in how MUCH these folks could get away with.

And I'm really using socialist in the USSR/China sense. Call it my "ranking of google-openess factor"

 

[RedRalph]

I didn't say the respecting of rights was perfect or ideal in capitalistic countries, just that their track record certainly has been a bit better. RRW, it shouldn't have to be proven that socialist ideas and policies were used and twisted by power hungry men. So are capitalist ideas and policies. A big difference was in how MUCH these folks could get away with.

But under many capitalist societies, individuals have got away with appalling rights abuses, as well as the state. There is no inherent leaning towards human rights in capitalist societies, there have been myriad abuses of same. I don't need to give you a history lesson but you know this is true. I shouldn't have to prove that capitalist ideas have been twisted and used by power-hungry men.

And I'm really using socialist in the USSR/China sense. Call it my "ranking of google-openess factor"

I'm not quibbling on the definition of a socialist country, I'm confused as to what military dictatorships you are talking about.

 

[Yared]

Socialism is better known though, as being the civic of - as JH mentioned - USSR and China. Two nations known for their "freedom".

- tying it in with the thread title.

 

[RedRalph]

Socialism is better known though, as being the civic of - as JH mentioned - USSR and China. Two nations known for their "freedom".

- tying it in with the thread title.

well one could easily point out that the worst of times in both countries (and I freely admit there were some appalling times), were nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with dictatorship, world war, civil wars and revolutions.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

plus, that's communism and not socialism.

 

[Quackers]

tell me, do you often travel by train, brit?

The trains work awfully both in public and private ownership. This exception just proves the rule. (I'm pre-empting you).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, I haven't, seems to have gotten rave reviews. Maybe I'll check it out at the library. Have you read it?

I own it and I've flipped through it, but haven't sat down for a full reading yet.

plus, that's communism and not socialism.

Are you referring to the supposed "military dictatorships?" If you are, then you could not be, in any possible way, more wrong in your statement of facts than that.

 

[aneeshm]

I'm not really a socialist or capitalist(don't have enough info to have an informed opinion one way or another), but why is it that capitalism is consistently seen as the choice defending freedom? Maybe the definitions I have for the two are wrong, but it seems the opposite to me.

So, right wingers in particular, why is that you think capitalism is freer? Or am I just straw manning and you don't really think that at all?

First of all, I'm not a right-winger, or left-winger, or anything definable on political spectrum of today, so let's not bother with political affiliation. As far as economics goes, however, I would be put into the "extreme right-wing" category by many people here. So you should take my views as coming from such a perspective.

Secondly, I think that the arguments (and assumptions behind them) are involved enough that it is not possible to condense them into a post which is short enough to be appropriate for such a discussion. So I'm going to recommend reading material instead, which you can peruse at your leisure. If you want to see why many people consider capitalism the basis of freedom, there is a book I can recommend: Economics for Real People. (PDF download here.) There are many other books you can find on that site, but this is the one I found to be the best introduction. (Note that all their material is available free of cost, so this is a massive unfair advantage to my perspective - you can find the best past arguments, and the best contemporary arguments and analysis, at the click of a mouse.)

I'm afraid I can't help you with the left-wing perspective, but I'm sure there are enough people here who can. (I request them to post introductory reading material, similar to the link I gave above.)

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

@Cheezy:

just pointing out that URSS and China were/are communist and not socialist. I do know that Communism is actually not supposed to be how it got applied there and they are perverting it to no ends, whereas fascism/nazism got applied pretty much by the book ( I've read the Mein Kampf and it's a crappy book indeed. never read Marx, but based on what I've studied of him he seems to be pretty much spot on, especially applied to his time. my favourite is still Goldstein's though )

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

@Cheezy:

just pointing out that URSS and China were/are communist and not socialist.

Except that they aren't and weren't, and you are wrong.

I do know that Communism is actually not supposed to be how it got applied there and they are perverting it to no ends,

Communism was never "applied" there. All that existed was deformed and incomplete socialism.

whereas fascism/nazism got applied pretty much by the book ( I've read the Mein Kampf and it's a crappy book indeed. never read Marx, but based on what I've studied of him he seems to be pretty much spot on, especially applied to his time. my favourite is still Goldstein's though )

First, Nazism and Fascism are not exactly one in the same, and Mein Kampf was not a "Fascist Communist Manifesto", especially since a Fascist state began two years before the book was even published (though some could argue that France under Napoleon III was proto-Fascist)! Second, your lack of reading Marx is evident, as is the quality of your "studies" of him, if you cannot tell a stateless society from a centralized one.

 

[amadeus]

Why? Capitalism doesn't require state coercion; there is no one with the power to strip you of your essential liberty because you did not act in a way the capitalist wanted you to.

 

[Yared]

well one could easily point out that the worst of times in both countries (and I freely admit there were some appalling times), were nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with dictatorship, world war, civil wars and revolutions.

plus, that's communism and not socialism.

Like I said, the USSR and China has given Communism - and, by proxy, Socialism - a bad name.

Cold war -> Capitalist (and free) US, Communist (not so free) USSR. Who won? USSR collapsed. By sheer association, Capitalism becomes the "freer" civic. And by sheer association, Communism becomes an inherently bad civic.

During the cold war, there was a lot of Commiehate and prejudice. That stuff lives on. It's like its in the American nature to be distrustful of Communism.
People just like to conflate Communism and Socialism, or think of Communism as extreme Socialism; an ideology in its own right, but a branch of Socialism nonetheless.
--

BTW, @OP, the right wingers you're addressing are mostly from the USA. It's just the average American nature to be distrustful of Socialism, and shower its own sort-of successful ideology with praise. No?

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

@Cheezy: we're actually saying pretty much the same thing, but worded differently. yes, yours is worded way more correctly, but I didn't exactly try hard

I did admit I have not read Marx, so do not patronize me on that please

I never said fascism and nazism are the same, although they do have in common being authoritarian/totalitarian regimes ( nazism is usually referred to as totalitarian while fascism is usually referred to as autoritharian ) . and I never said the Mein Kampf is a fascist communist manifesto. that would be pretty dumb

I can see how you interpreted my words as putting communism and fascism in the same bucket, as I worded my post poorly, but I was actually saying the opposite. "ideal" communist is very far from fascism, sure. USSR communism had much in common. I'm not saying it's communism, I'm just saying they called themselves that way. but we call ourselves a democracy so we know how that works. "Land of the free" gets me giggling as well.

plus what yared said. those 2 countries gave communism and socialism a bad name, and we all know how easy it is to use a word that's perceived as "good" in oneself's definition, while actually being quite the opposite in reality. examples abound.