[Zeke]

I think the title speaks for itself. So support your case. And I'm going to get my popcorn.

P.S. I'm actually torn 'cause personally I can't pick one. Socialism would promote equal opportunity for everybody. In the other hand, Capitalism would encourage most of the people to be the best of the bests. I'm a little curious to what you guys think, so please fulfill my thirst of other people's perspectives in this one. Thanks!

 

[Bradwarden]

Wrong question !
I got a better one: What is better than those two ?
or: What is Socialism ? What is Capitalism ?

HF, I'm out.

 

[Zeke]

Yeah. That's better. So guys, which is better Socialism or Capitalism?

 

[Agelastos]

When you say capitalism, you mean...? Free market/lassez-faire capitalism?
In that case, they're both equally flawed.

 

[Transience]

I personally like Capitalism. Socialism seems a bit too boring to me. Capitalism is brutal, a quality that I like about it. It strives to create a better world. Only the strongest have a right to survive. So yeah, if you want a near-'perfect' world --> Capitalism. If you want community --> Socialism. But then again your perception of 'perfect' might be completely different compared to mine.

 

[iwrite]

Neither, honestly.
I think capitalism would make more sense with a dictator. Chain of command, flowing from nothing at the bottom to all power at the top. It's a cruel system that leaves millions starving.
Communism is something that claims to be for the people, but in the example of the USSR, Stalin and his successors had far too much power. Extreme democracy would make more sense.
However: humans are greedy and selfish. Anyone who takes power will become corrupt.
I think both are extremely flawed systems, but they were created to manage a flawed species.
I honestly do not care for either.

 

[MissAverage]

Capitalism with regulation.

 

[Vandrer]

Pure free market capitalism is dumb in its nature, ignoring all else for the sake of money. Pure socialism provides no drive for people who care about money and status eventually making society stale and without freedom.

I am probably in the sustainable socialist liberal capitalism category. (my very own xD ) Have society take freedom from the people to a minimal degree, while introducing hidden cost to the faulty free market. (triple bottom line) I am for a Milton Friedman and Piketty inspired taxation system, rather than the current system with the worst of Friedman and the worst of Keynes. Tax is needed to provide free mobility between social classes, education and healthcare as the most important parts of this taxation. This taxation would give a net higher amount of freedom for society, compared to abhorring tax in an anarco-capitalist way.

 

[Scelerat]

The question is flawed. Socialism is a full system of governance as it is proposed by Marx & Engels that has an economic system component attached to it. Capitalism by large an economic system.

 

[Agelastos]

The question is flawed. Socialism is a full system of governance as it is proposed by Marx & Engels that has an economic system component attached to it. Capitalism by large an economic system.

That was communism, a form of socialism. Socialism predates Marx and Engels. It goes back to the French revolution. The term 'socialism' was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, one of the founders of what Marx and Engels would later call "utopian socialism".
Also, I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about socialist economics.

 

[Derange At 170]

Pure free market capitalism is dumb in its nature, ignoring all else for the sake of money.

Not really, money is the the product of a capitalist economy. Something cannot be about a later, incidental development. Money exists in a capitalist economy because of other, preceding factors.

Profit motive is in part the reason. And again, this is something that people mystify and turn into this weird abstraction that seems to exist in a sphere of its own. But anyone who acts in a capitalist economy, both producer and consumer, enters into contracts (trades) where they both believe the subjective value of what they themselves are trading, is less than what they're getting. Meaning, everyone, even the consumer has a profit motive.

If you buy a chocolate bar at the store, you, in that particular moment, feel like you're making a profit. That chocolate bar, in that particular time, is worth more to you than your money that you're trading, To the store, it's the other way around. They believe they make a profit by giving you a chocolate bar and receiving money. They value your money more than they value their chocolate bars.

Capitalism is thus about creating win/win situations in environments with scarce resources. You can't really disagree that you're entering these agreements with a profit motive, or that you value your groceries less than you value your money, since your actions speak for themselves.

But this is why money exists. Because not everyone has everything someone else needs in the required quantities and vice versa. So people settle on something everyone derives value from: enter, money.

The reason there is money isn't just for the sake of it. It exists because each of wants to enter in deals where we stand to make a profit.

Anyway. Yes, I prefer a capitalist economy over anything else. It's what has developed multiple times over through-out history to varying degree in societies that had scarce resources. Scarcity resuts in the need to devise a system that most effectively distributes resources, through mechanisms such as pricing. We live in a global economy with scarce resources and therefore require a system that is accordance with that. The only limitations put on capitalism is a limitation on the innitation of force. Which is something the market* itself is equipped with to provide.

*And the word 'market' too, is another. Markets aren't concrete institutions people move into. They're merely what we call the sum of every human interaction.

 

[Scelerat]

That was communism, a form of socialism. Socialism predates Marx and Engels. It goes back to the French revolution. The term 'socialism' was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, one of the founders of what Marx and Engels would later call "utopian socialism".
Also, I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about socialist economics.

You have your definitions wrong, not all socialism is communism, but all communism is socialism. Now, the core tenet of socialism is some form of collective ownership of the means of production, this makes it impossible to separate the economical system from the political theory.

Since socialist economics will inevitably end in a Malthusian catastrophe, I fail to see the point in the discussion.

 

[Agelastos]

You have your definitions wrong, not all socialism is communism, but all communism is socialism.

Errr... I never said that all socialism is communism. I said that the ideology created by Marx and Engels was communism, which is a form of socialism, and that socialism itself predates Marx and Engels.

 

[Scelerat]

Errr... I never said that all socialism is communism. I said that the ideology created by Marx and Engels was communism, which is a form of socialism, and that socialism itself predates Marx and Engels.

And I never said that all socialism is not communism, I pointed out that the variant by Marx and Engels, which more likely than not is going to form the basis for most modern discussions of socialism, is not purely an economic system. In fact any system where collective or public ownership of the means of production exist (which is the core tenet of socialism). Going to Saint-Simon in this discussion is about as useful as me bringing up Owen or Fourier, because most people will not be families with that particular branch of socialism. If I wanted to be a dick about it, I could point out that even some of the ancient Greeks flirted with some socialist ideas a long time before Saint-Simon, but it doesn't add much to the question the OP asked.

 

[Agelastos]

And I never said that all socialism is not communism, I pointed out that the variant by Marx and Engels, which more likely than not is going to form the basis for most modern discussions of socialism, is not purely an economic system. In fact any system where collective or public ownership of the means of production exist (which is the core tenet of socialism). Going to Saint-Simon in this discussion is about as useful as me bringing up Owen or Fourier, because most people will not be families with that particular branch of socialism. If I wanted to be a dick about it, I could point out that even some of the ancient Greeks flirted with some socialist ideas a long time before Saint-Simon, but it doesn't add much to the question the OP asked.

Ah. I misunderstood your first post then. I thought you were saying that Marx and Engels came up with socialism.

 

[Vandrer]

Not really, money is the the product of a capitalist economy. Something cannot be about a later, incidental development. Money exists in a capitalist economy because of other, preceding factors.

Profit motive is in part the reason. And again, this is something that people mystify and turn into this weird abstraction that seems to exist in a sphere of its own. But anyone who acts in a capitalist economy, both producer and consumer, enters into contracts (trades) where they both believe the subjective value of what they themselves are trading, is less than what they're getting. Meaning, everyone, even the consumer has a profit motive.

If you buy a chocolate bar at the store, you, in that particular moment, feel like you're making a profit. That chocolate bar, in that particular time, is worth more to you than your money that you're trading, To the store, it's the other way around. They believe they make a profit by giving you a chocolate bar and receiving money. They value your money more than they value their chocolate bars.

Capitalism is thus about creating win/win situations in environments with scarce resources. You can't really disagree that you're entering these agreements with a profit motive, or that you value your groceries less than you value your money, since your actions speak for themselves.

But this is why money exists. Because not everyone has everything someone else needs in the required quantities and vice versa. So people settle on something everyone derives value from: enter, money.

The reason there is money isn't just for the sake of it. It exists because each of wants to enter in deals where we stand to make a profit.

Anyway. Yes, I prefer a capitalist economy over anything else. It's what has developed multiple times over through-out history to varying degree in societies that had scarce resources. Scarcity resuts in the need to devise a system that most effectively distributes resources, through mechanisms such as pricing. We live in a global economy with scarce resources and therefore require a system that is accordance with that. The only limitations put on capitalism is a limitation on the innitation of force. Which is something the market* itself is equipped with to provide.

*And the word 'market' too, is another. Markets aren't concrete institutions people move into. They're merely what we call the sum of every human interaction.

Oh right, I went with a very short sentence, I could go into writing 20 pages on the trouble with capitalism, profit is more fitting yes. The problem I was referring to, is when something is unprofitable but is good for society. Like curing a rare disease, poor people, researching something which in the very long term could provide benefits. Sure there will always be people with money who pour money into obscure efforts, but there wont be as much poured into it unless the 'dumb' market sees past the usual short term goal. Here, a lot of the problems stem from the financial markets (money markets), where short term profits are favoured over long term investments.

 

[Derange At 170]

Oh right, I went with a very short sentence, I could go into writing 20 pages on the trouble with capitalism, profit is more fitting yes.

As I pointed out. You used the layman's abstraction, not what profit actually is. I only explained how money became the product of a capitalist system through profit motive. But capitalism is about private property.

Everyone has a profit motive, with or withou capitalism. Profit motive is a basic biological drive in humans. The need to engage in interactions where we value what we give less than what we receive. For example: when I buy someone a present, I value their happiness more than the money and time I spent on this present. This is profit motive as much as selling something is.

The problem I was referring to, is when something is unprofitable but is good for society. Like curing a rare disease, poor people, researching something which in the very long term could provide benefits.

You cannot say that. Just because it's unprofitable for one company, doesn't mean it's unprofitable for the next. We developed digital music files, despite the fact that vinyl and tapes were still sold. New market innovations make old ones obsolete. Cancer and other illnesses are no different from that. So just because we don't have a cure for cancer doesn't mean it's because it's not profitable. It would be like stating in the 1940s that just because they didn't have digital music files back then, it's because it isn't profitable. That's not true, technology wasn't that far yet.

Sure there will always be people with money who pour money into obscure efforts, but there wont be as much poured into it unless the 'dumb' market sees past the usual short term goal.

No, most businsess focus on both short term and long term goals. No businsess can survive in the longterm if it only focuses on shortterm profits. In fact, many businsess may take months if not years to break even, until they even make a profit (Spotify?). In the meantime, every consumer does make a profit.

Here, a lot of the problems stem from the financial markets (money markets), where short term profits are favoured over long term investments.

All issues with the financial market can be traced back to statism, not capitalism. Money has been in the hands of the state for over a century through-out the west. Money started out as a product of the market, but it has since been cartelized by the state.

 

[Vandrer]

As I pointed out. You used the layman's abstraction, not what profit actually is. I only explained how money became the product of a capitalist system through profit motive. But capitalism is about private property.

Everyone has a profit motive, with or withou capitalism. Profit motive is a basic biological drive in humans. The need to engage in interactions where we value what we give less than what we receive. For example: when I buy someone a present, I value their happiness more than the money and time I spent on this present. This is profit motive as much as selling something is.

Yes, that is what I agreed with.

You cannot say that. Just because it's unprofitable for one company, doesn't mean it's unprofitable for the next. We developed digital music files, despite the fact that vinyl and tapes were still sold. New market innovations make old ones obsolete. Cancer and other illnesses are no different from that. So just because we don't have a cure for cancer doesn't mean it's because it's not profitable. It would be like stating in the 1940s that just because they didn't have digital music files back then, it's because it isn't profitable. That's not true, technology wasn't that far yet.

No, that is not what I was saying. You are saying nothing that might be good for society is unprofitable? Some areas need more than the philantropic interest/profit to be enough. Also, curing cancer is highly profitable, if nothing else then because of the massive chance a person might get it him/herself.

No, most businsess focus on both short term and long term goals. No businsess can survive in the longterm if it only focuses on shortterm profits. In fact, many businsess may take months if not years to break even, until they even make a profit (Spotify?). In the meantime, every consumer does make a profit.

You cannot use the start of a company as the argumentation for the later stages of a company. There has been loads of examples where a company's direction has taken a short term profit decision which damages the long term profit of the company and customers. Fx. this has been seen with performance bonuses in banks, where the direction and stockholders chooses a short term strategy because of the personal profit, rather than what is right for the company. Of course this also relates to the nature of bonuses, but is an example nevertheless.

Another point of inefficiency from a societal point of view, is the self-interest of companies. Where a company can take an action which improves the situation for another, but which doesn't improve the situation for the company itself. The company will not take the action and achieve societal efficiency because of their self-interested profit point of view. This also relates to the market failure of information asymmetri, where it is in the best interest of society and the market to have full transparency, but it is not in the best interest of the company. This is where the philantropic parts of a free market fails, greenwashing of actions which makes it almost impossible for any consumer to evaluate the actual value for itself, of philantropic actions.

All issues with the financial market can be traced back to statism, not capitalism. Money has been in the hands of the state for over a century through-out the west. Money started out as a product of the market, but it has since been cartelized by the state.

Hmm, I may have used the wrong word, English isn't my first language =)
I was talking about money trading, good will trading and stuff like that. Wall Street stuff. Not money production.

 

[S33K3RZ]

Capitalism = Win / Socialism = FAIL

These are really two different taxonomies so they can't really be fairly compared except from purely social well being / economic perspectives so I shall constrain my comments to such.

Socialism provides dis-incentives towards being a productive member of society. From a purely economic standpoint this causes productivity to fall. There are many flaws of this system such as the absence of a pricing mechanism. From a social well being perspective it rewards people that idle and do nothing while punishing anyone that wanted to work hard since it takes away the incentives that would allow people from gaining any sort of value from hard work. In short people like Marx we crack pots.

By capitalism, I will assume you are talking about Free market aka. lassez-faire capitalism. This system is good when there is not interference from a governmental body since it automatically adjusts to consumer demand through a built in pricing mechanism. In addition it rewards anyone who works hard. Although this is not necessarily a perfect system, it is a proven system that to day is the most efficient and effective system for forwarding/promoting economic growth and social well being aka. freedom.

--- edit

I just wanted to interject one small item I forgot; I do not believe that free market capitalism is currently in place within any nation that I am aware of as of today although there are many historic periods in different civilizations such as early American history where this took place creating a great economic boon until politicians stepped in.

 

[HAL]

Capitalism is bad because people just do things for money and personal gain. Social advance is stunted by the fact that no-one is thinking about how to improve wider society. They just plod along 'doing their job', left to feel like a tiny fish in a big ocean of problems that don't concern them.

In a socialistic model people would be highly aware of the fact that their input is for the sake of everyone. All actions would be done with a consideration for greater society.

Or at least in theory...

Actually we're all humans and I don't think it's right to say, "This place is bad because capitalism, and this place is good because socialism." The real issues are created by immense cultural depth; capitalistic and socialistic tendencies are just symptoms of the culture they exist within. It's all almost impossible to fix, in my opinion.

Oh but here's a thought. When a society sees massive catastrophe, such as war, famine or natural disaster, the populace goes into something of an automatic socialist mindset. Everyone looks out for each other and starts to think of the bigger communal picture once again. Food for thought.