Why is capitalism 'freer' than socialism?

[amadeus]

Do you consider minimum wage something that adheres to the ideals of right-wing/liberalists/neo-liberalis/capitalists??????

No, I don't.

An equal society is ridiculous.

Please don't think I meant to say that communization is the only circumstance under which talent would be stifled! I am talking about many acts of government coercion.

What if the Dutch government tomorrow said it was enacting a 99% income tax on all income over 50,000 euros? You wouldn't just have capital flight, you'd have people flight too -- on permanent, one-way tickets. So in response, you say that you wouldn't enact a 99% tax, maybe just a 70% one, or a 60% one; that's just enough to squeeze them out of their money, but not enough so to compel them into migrating. I don't think that's either good policy or a good moral principle for any government to operate on.

A more equitable society is not. Thinking that the ideal right-wing/liberalists/neo-liberalis/capitalists society provides equitable opportunities to all is plain wrong.

But equal opportunities is what liberals want! I should have just as much opportunity as the man next to me to get a good job, get into a good school, buy a big house, etc.

What we're opposed to is the equalization of results; I shouldn't get that job or into that school if I'm not qualified, and neither should anyone else.

We do not live in that ideal world now and look how things are..

Those societies that exercise the greatest amount of economic freedom are seeing the greatest growth.

Btw, I am not against capitalism as an economic system. I am, however, against neo-liberalism the way it manifests itself today. Although I must admit a move in that direction was certainly necessary in the 1970/80s.

You keep saying "neo-liberalism" but never define what it is. Please do.

 

[aelf]

But isn't the kitchen a means of production?

So is a pen?

 

[innonimatu]

So is a pen?

Anyway, the issue which socialists raised was that the person using that means of production would be the one who owned it. So it's more "you sue the kitchen, you own it".

Where "owning" should probably be better described as "controlling".

The funny thing with the criticism directed against socialist aims of control of the means of production by the workers is that its main complaint, still used today, has become entirely outdated.
That main complaint, that most popular and strongest of complains, was always something like "socialists would steal the means of production from their rightful owners, in order to redistribute them". And what happened during the 20th century was that classical capitalism died out and now we are living on a world where the owners of the means of production no longer matter. The owner has no control over the large publicly-traded corporations any longer. Witness what happened with the recent bank bonus and bailouts issue: managers decided everything, and managers got the lion's share of those bonuses. Owners? AFAIK the "owners" (stockholders) of several failed banks did lost their equity there, but it was very clear that they were not in control and had never been in control over what was going on.

And so it is that the US and Europe today are very much like the 1980s Soviet Union: its economy controlled by a managerial nomenklatura which also swap places with politicians to occupy unelected offices where they can bolster their own power. Its politics and society growing more dysfunctional...

The soviets disguised the tyranny of that nomenklatura under the guise of "socialism", pretending that the system was democratic. The americans and europenas now disguise the same thing as "capitalism", pretending it too to be democratic. Both fail, because both ignore that the main issue is how power is distributed. Too much concentration always leads to stagnation and collapse.

 

[amadeus]

Too much concentration always leads to stagnation and collapse.

This only applies if the global economy is a zero-sum game, which it is not.

 

[Ecofarm]

the US and Europe today are very much like the 1980s Soviet Union

Is anyone supposed to take that even a little bit seriously?

 

[GoodGame]

Well it's "freer" because it enables the Capitalists to exploit and abuse there workers.

Also it allows the workers to buy from markets that aren't state-controlled.

 

[Nares]

"The nature of the markets" is a misnomer. Capitalism creates a particular type of market, one the serves the rich & keeps the poor (whether locally or abroad) in a hole. Sure a small percentage can climb out (and capitalist societies celebrate them to no end, as does materialistic hip-hop music) but overall people are stuck.

Hardly.

I've met plenty of immigrants who came right off the boat and worked their way up to middle or upper income brackets.

The poorest communities I've encountered are those that have been subjected to the "benevolence" of social programs the longest, especially the African-American population. I've never seen a social group cannibalize itself so thoroughly, or accept so low a standard of living for so long.

It's amusing that you mention materialistic hip-hop music, because the dream of overnight success has been the most damaging to the African-American male. No single social group pegs itself so fully on the longshot odds of becoming a professional entertainer or athlete.

 

[Gustave5436]

And so it is that the US and Europe today are very much like the 1980s Soviet Union: its economy controlled by a managerial nomenklatura which also swap places with politicians to occupy unelected offices where they can bolster their own power. Its politics and society growing more dysfunctional...

Indeed, Corporatism is a logical evolution of capitalism. Whereas once private enterprise and the State were merely allied, they are now increasingly becoming one and the same. However, does this not only serve to lend more credence to anarchism, left-Marxism, and so forth? To the argument that private property ownership and the State, not merely one or the other, must be abolished, in order to secure the old classical liberal ideal of liberty and equality?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Anyway, the issue which socialists raised was that the person using that means of production would be the one who owned it. So it's more "you sue the kitchen, you own it".

Where "owning" should probably be better described as "controlling".

The funny thing with the criticism directed against socialist aims of control of the means of production by the workers is that its main complaint, still used today, has become entirely outdated.
That main complaint, that most popular and strongest of complains, was always something like "socialists would steal the means of production from their rightful owners, in order to redistribute them". And what happened during the 20th century was that classical capitalism died out and now we are living on a world where the owners of the means of production no longer matter. The owner has no control over the large publicly-traded corporations any longer. Witness what happened with the recent bank bonus and bailouts issue: managers decided everything, and managers got the lion's share of those bonuses. Owners? AFAIK the "owners" (stockholders) of several failed banks did lost their equity there, but it was very clear that they were not in control and had never been in control over what was going on.

And so it is that the US and Europe today are very much like the 1980s Soviet Union: its economy controlled by a managerial nomenklatura which also swap places with politicians to occupy unelected offices where they can bolster their own power. Its politics and society growing more dysfunctional...

The soviets disguised the tyranny of that nomenklatura under the guise of "socialism", pretending that the system was democratic. The americans and europenas now disguise the same thing as "capitalism", pretending it too to be democratic. Both fail, because both ignore that the main issue is how power is distributed. Too much concentration always leads to stagnation and collapse.

Brilliant post! We could use some of this sort of quality in this thread, but I fear there's far more chafe than wheat to be had any more.

This only applies if the global economy is a zero-sum game, which it is not.

You say this a lot. Explain what it means.

Is anyone supposed to take that even a little bit seriously?

Not you, apparently.

 

[Ecofarm]

Not you, apparently.

Well, I was just wondering if anyone thought that statement was anything except absurd.

I guess not.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

Capitalism, and Socialism are the same thing under a different name.

bestrfc.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

But isn't the kitchen a means of production?

Um.................................. yes but (look at quote below)

So is a pen?

argument won ^.

Double post,

bestrfc.

 

[aelf]

Capitalism, and Socialism are the same thing under a different name.

Nope.

Um.................................. yes but (look at quote below)

argument won ^.

In case you didn't realise it, that was an ironic question.

You could argue that a pen (hardly ever) or a kitchen (sometimes) is a means of production, but without context, it's meaningless. IIRC, Marx himself was quite specific with what he meant by 'production'. Certainly, making yourself lunch doesn't fall under that, neither does writing a letter to an acquaintance and etc. I don't think I need to spell out what the nature of the difference is, do I?

 

[Yared]

I meant more like having bake sale.

And I thought you meant it like writing a book, not for writing letters

 

[BasketCase]

Only if you restrict democracy and accountability to elections.

There's no other way to do it. Obviously, in order to give power to The People, you have to ask them what actions government should take; and (not so obviously) The People must be safe from outside intimidation when you ask them, which means they must be asked while within the safety of a voting booth.

The funny thing with the criticism directed against socialist aims of control of the means of production by the workers is that its main complaint, still used today, has become entirely outdated.

Then I will post some criticism that's up-to-date.

The Workers cannot have true control over the means of production because they disagree about what should be built with it. Some people think we should be producing more food; others, more housing for the poor; others still, more guns. And still others think we should produce less stuff overall in order to slow down global warming.

That's why the decision as to what a factory produces almost always comes down to a single CEO or a small group of core stockholders. That's why a nations political decisions are always made by one guy or a small Congress/Parliament/cadre of dictators in a locked room. That's why a hockey game has ONE head referee who can overrule the boos of an entire stadium of ten thousand people. Because without that decision, the system dissolves into chaos.

That's why socialism is impossible.

 

[amadeus]

You say this a lot. Explain what it means.

The amount of wealth in the world isn't fixed; I can create something that contributes to the global economy without having to first take something from someone else.

 

[willemvanoranje]

What if the Dutch government tomorrow said it was enacting a 99% income tax on all income over 50,000 euros? You wouldn't just have capital flight, you'd have people flight too -- on permanent, one-way tickets. So in response, you say that you wouldn't enact a 99% tax, maybe just a 70% one, or a 60% one; that's just enough to squeeze them out of their money, but not enough so to compel them into migrating. I don't think that's either good policy or a good moral principle for any government to operate on.

No, in your formulation it would not be a good moral principle because you say the reason to do so is to squeeze them out of their money. However, it makes perfect morale sense to have the strongest shoulders carry the heaviest burden.

You keep saying "neo-liberalism" but never define what it is. Please do.

I moved this one up a bit, because the use of the word liberal can be problematic. As far as I know Americans use it differently than... well... just about the rest of the world I know.

I use neo-liberalism to describe a political and economic philosophy that is founded on the belief that political and economic life is a matter of individual freedom (which is perfectly fine, but you will find a critique further below). It's core recommendations are the rollback of the state (privatization), economic principles in administration (deregulation, NPM), as well as a number of macro-economic policy prescriptions based on deep integration into the world market (trade liberalization; both greater opportunities and greater risks) and a switch to monetarism.

But equal opportunities is what liberals want! I should have just as much opportunity as the man next to me to get a good job, get into a good school, buy a big house, etc.

Sure they want it. But such a system doesn't provide it. We live in a mixed system of course, but can you really say that a black man in Brooklyn has the same opportunities to get a good job, get into a good school, buy a big house, etc. as the son of a Manhattan banker?

What we're opposed to is the equalization of results; I shouldn't get that job or into that school if I'm not qualified, and neither should anyone else.

Well, under certain circumstances there is a strong case for positive discrimination, but that is a totally different discussion we should open a different thread for. As basic starting point I can agree, but you must consider the pathway that leads to being qualified or not (see comment above).

Those societies that exercise the greatest amount of economic freedom are seeing the greatest growth.

Really? Is that today, this year, or throughout history? I can't remember the last time the USA or the Netherlands had a 10% economic growth like the state-controlled Brazilian economy had. Or like some of the state-controlled economies in Asia. The greatest growth seems to be linked to little political freedom, and export-oriented economic policies with only a degree of economic freedom for large corporations.

There's no other way to do it. Obviously, in order to give power to The People, you have to ask them what actions government should take; and (not so obviously) The People must be safe from outside intimidation when you ask them, which means they must be asked while within the safety of a voting booth.

How about not only asking them (and then do what you wanted anyway), but actually giving them the ability to make decisions? And before you say that such a thing is not possible I would like to point out local deliberative democracies in Brazil, Peru, England, Spain, France, India, Argentina, Uruguay, and other countries.

 

[BasketCase]

How about not only asking them (and then do what you wanted anyway), but actually giving them the ability to make decisions?

That's the way many nations already do it. Again: how do you give people the ability to make policy decisions?
With an election.

Really? Is that today, this year, or throughout history? I can't remember the last time the USA or the Netherlands had a 10% economic growth like the state-controlled Brazilian economy had.

September 2001 to February 2002.
March 2003 to December 2003.
June 2006 to June 2007.
And, finally, February of 2009 to present day.

Source: the Dow Jones.

 

[willemvanoranje]

That's the way many nations already do it. Including the United States. Is there a true socialist nation anywhere in the list you listed? No.

Am I talking about a true socialist nation? No. I don't even know what that has to do with anything I talked about.

To clarify, I am talking about participatory or deliberative local democracy. Citizens having actual decision-making power, and by preference even policy-making power, hrough spaces specially created for this. I have heard of some experiments in ecomanagement in the USA, community policing in (I think) Chicago, and Portland is supposed to be quite participatory as well although I'm not familiar with the case. Most of the countries I referred to have, on the local level, mechanisms of for example participatory budgeting.

Could you please explain to me to what institutions or mechanisms you were referring when saying that many nations already do this?

September 2001 to February 2002.
March 2003 to December 2003.
June 2006 to June 2007.
And, finally, February of 2009 to present day.

Source: the Dow Jones.

Could you give me a link, please? I can't imagine that this wasn't breaking news worldwide.

My guess is that you take either very local numbers, or the growth of the net worth of stocks... not GDP (or any other measure of aggregated income).

 

[amadeus]

No, in your formulation it would not be a good moral principle because you say the reason to do so is to squeeze them out of their money. However, it makes perfect morale sense to have the strongest shoulders carry the heaviest burden.

Do they not already, in both obligations to the government and obligations to their economic livelihoods? Even under a flat tax scheme, those with the most would still be paying amounts higher than people with less. I contend that a progressive tax rate is the government attempting to legislate morality, forcing those with more to live with less for the sake of the "greater good." I think this kind of thinking is dangerous and leads to abuses of power by people -- even by people with good intentions.

Sure they want it. But such a system doesn't provide it. We live in a mixed system of course, but can you really say that a black man in Brooklyn has the same opportunities to get a good job, get into a good school, buy a big house, etc. as the son of a Manhattan banker?

No, but I believe if you had less regulation and more competition in these areas, you'd have more equitable outcomes as far as opportunity is concerned.

If anything, the government stands in the way of the poor black man from Brooklyn; what if the Manhattan banker works for a company that received preferential treatment in getting a contract from the government? Taxpayer dollars are going to subsidize that bank, which may not have been the most efficient (for both the economy and for the sake of the taxpayers) and have the effect of propping up the rich Manhattan banker.

And what about on the poor black man's side? Let's say as a teenager, he wants to apply for a job at a shoe store. Well, if the value of the services the man provides is not enough to cover the cost of paying him the minimum wage, he's not going to receive the job, and he loses valuable skills, experience, and something to put on his resume.

In adulthood, restrictive regulations make it cost prohibitive for him to start up a business; for some businesses, the rules of the game were a lot different at their initial stages and were able to build up their fortunes in the absence of these regulations. Consider the case of Mattel, a leading toymaker; after the lead paint toy scares of a few years ago, Congress enacted well-meaning regulations to ensure that toys would be free of lead. What happened? Well, these regulations meant that toys needed to be tested, and testing is incredibly expensive -- one of the hand-held testing units that detects the amount of lead-based paint costs between $25,000 and $50,000, a princely sum for someone hand-making novelty toys in their workshop. But don't worry, the units can also be rented for a mere $1,000 per week. How do those regulations help the poor black man in Brooklyn? I'm guessing he's not going to be building custom dollhouse furniture anytime soon.

Well, under certain circumstances there is a strong case for positive discrimination, but that is a totally different discussion we should open a different thread for. As basic starting point I can agree, but you must consider the pathway that leads to being qualified or not (see comment above).

But in those cases of "positive discrimination," do we ever think about the victims? What about the more qualified person that was passed over for entrance into a university because of the quota system? The government has decided in the interests of vanity, disguised as doing good, to exclude that person from exercising his talents. In what way is that fair?

Really? Is that today, this year, or throughout history? I can't remember the last time the USA or the Netherlands had a 10% economic growth like the state-controlled Brazilian economy had.

Relative to its economic development at the time, it's natural that Brazil is going to grow at a faster rate than that of the Western industrialized countries even if the conditions in Brazil are not as optimal as they are in the West. However, Brazil at this time isn't closing their markets, are they? No, instead they are trying to push themselves forward by encouraging investment and development.