Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Communism

[MystikWizard]

The big topic of discussion right now is that if Barack Obama is elected our 44th President of the United States, that allegations are being made that he and the Democratic Party, who will control both Houses of Congress, will march the country down a path of Socialism. Being that no other attacks from the McCain Campaign seem to be resonating, this is now the major talking point from the Right.

I wanted to promote discussion about the 3 primary Economic Systems in the World: being Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism and use this as an attempt to gain some insight into everyone's thoughts on this possibility. Is moving towards Socialism necessary a bad thing? Is Barack Obama a Socialist? What is wrong with Capitalism, that would even contemplate us altering our current Economic system? What are the advantages/disadvantages of Socialism vs Capitalism? Let's say we incorporate Socialism into our society, what happens if we take the next step towards Communism?

What say you?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

Capitalism is the way things actually work.

Communism is a pipe dream utterly contrary to human nature, and cannot work.

Socialism is the entire spectrum in between.


The two major parties in the U.S. have been socialist in practical terms ever since they adopted swaths of the Socialist Party platform in order to head it off. That was an inevitable result of democracy the moment the masses realized that democracy means we can vote ourselves goodies.


Interestingly, pure capitalism requires a certain level of honor among humans, as communism requires a fantastical (as in fantasy) level of altruism. Since on the whole we have neither, either system run purely will eventually lead to a de facto system of economic feudalism. The only choice is to mix the two, resulting in some degree of socialism.

Socialism is correctly seen as a corrective to the problems of the pure forms of the two end systems. Unfortunately, socialism over time will also result in economic feudalism.

The counter to economic feudalism is twofold: keeping the government small, and spreading the wealth. The first requires that the spreading of the wealth not be done by the state, yet it is difficult to imagine it can be done without the mandate of the state.

 

[Telstra]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

I thought the US is already a socialist country because of Social security, some free health care ...... etc.

 

[Orlandude]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

I thought the US is already a socialist country because of Social security, some free health care ...... etc.

Social Security is not socialism. You DO have to pay into it all your life to reap any benefits. If you don't, you get nothing. That's not socialism. It's the same with unemployment benefits. You pay for those benefits via taxes out of your paycheck. Should you become unemployed through no fault of yours, you can, at least, eat. It's not much but its better than nothing. They are not just handed to you. You earn these benefits and, yes, you are ENTITLED to what you paid for. Unfortunately, some political factions in this country literally STOLED the money taxpayers were investing in these programs in order to pay for other things. Now they are whining because the programs are going "broke". The programs are not "broken", they have been raided and mismanaged by idiot politicians. Free health care? WHERE??? 47 million medically uninsured people would love to know!!

You may be thinking of the welfare system where some people live on public assistance via the government. Fortunately, before President Clinton left office, he proposed (and Congress approved) legislation that says you cannot be on welfare for more than 2 years. After that, you better have a job because you'll get nothing more. That is now law. Used to be that generations lived off the welfare system which was not only wrong but it cost "working" taxpayers billions of dolllars.

 

[Telstra]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

^ oh wait.
so say a young adult out of high school never work before and got a car accident and unable to work for the rest of his life.

Who takes care of him? is it the government? if yes government takes care of him, its a socialist system.

If no the governent will not help and let him die, yeah its a capitalist system.

 

[Telstra]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

Social security has disability benefits.

what if a person is not willing to work and say he is dis-able and the government can't prove that he is able. Can he get social security? If he still can't get it, can he hunger strike ?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

Why can't we let money be spread naturally around many companies, not-for-profits, working individuals? The gov't can make sure we don't have monopolies and corruption so as to keep the competition for money/resources fair. I am inclined to think the gov't need only regulate, not intrude and impose whealth distribution.

Keeping the government out of it helps, but given that "it takes money to make money", concentration of wealth is going to occur under any system. And once a government has assigned itself the authority to do anything it pleases -- a disease the Constitution addressed but failed to cure -- there's no way in the nine levels of Hell to keep government from aiding and abetting the concentration of wealth.

My solution there is government-imposed regulation of wealth redistribution -- the latter being what happens with a will. We just set some figure, related to some basic economic function, above which no one may inherit more from a single testator. Take McCain's $5 million figure for being wealthy: cap the amount anyone can will to a single individual or entity at that, and let the wealthy decide who to leave it to. People like Bill Gates, with $10 billion or so to leave, would be spreading the wealth to some 2,000 people or organizations of their choice.

Some would call that socialism, but it doesn't truly qualify; it's just a wealth-concentration-busting regulation for capitalism.

Of course there would be ways to work around it....

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

I brought this over from another thread, since it fits here:

Unless there are no taxes, wealth gets redistributed. I'm just poking holes in standard positions here -- and inheritance is a good one to poke at.

Oh cool! What about user taxes and sales taxes that don't discrimnate on income bracket? Are they really redist of wealth in a Socialist sense?

Considered in pure form, I suppose that those fees aren't redistribution of wealth. But technically, unless the salaries of those who handle those fees or taxes are set by market forces, then you've still got wealth redistribution going on. To avoid a taint of socialism at that point -- and to provide efficiency through competition -- such functions should be spun off into the private sector.

As for not discriminating by income bracket, I doubt you could find three random people who could agree what that would mean in practice: does it mean every individual pays the same amount? ... the same percentage? -- and percentage of what... income? disposable income?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

^ oh wait.
so say a young adult out of high school never work before and got a car accident and unable to work for the rest of his life.

Who takes care of him? is it the government? if yes government takes care of him, its a socialist system.

If no the governent will not help and let him die, yeah its a capitalist system.

Social security has disability benefits.

Yes, and they aren't terribly straightforward.
They also have "survivor benefits". If this hypothetical kid's dad was in the car and got killed, the kid could get survivor benefits due to not having a parent to support him any more. Depending on circumstances, he could indeed also get disability benefits. And if he didn't mind living in a really cheap slum, he could add those two together and, with the help of food stamps and public clinics, survive.

But that doesn't make it a socialist system; such items are figured into the cost, and work as insurance premiums, effectively. And just like insurance companies, the government will try very, very hard to not give the kid a dime.

what if a person is not willing to work and say he is dis-able and the government can't prove that he is able. Can he get social security? If he still can't get it, can he hunger strike ?

There's an appeals process. It's designed for lawyers, by lawyers, and as such has sprouted an entire class of lawyers who do nothing but file Social Security appeals -- and if they win, they take from a fifth to a third of the client's money.
To be effective, a hunger strike would have to be done where (1) the SS office is visible and (2) good media coverage is possible. Otherwise, they'll just haul you out with the trash.

 

[Telstra]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

^ sounds like survival of the fittest, but the fat cat wins.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

Well ideally the same amt. but the same % seems more realistic. Otherwise the gov't wud have to subsidize people who cudnt afford the flat tax right?

Heh -- always the complication of people who can't afford things....

There's actually a system which avoids these troubles, and isn't really any of the systems under discussion here. It begins with the proposition that no man can actually own the earth, because the only thing we can own is the fruit of our labor -- a very compatible proposition for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The corollary proposition is that since no man can own it, we must all own it together.

At that point you form an organization to manage the ownership of the earth. Every individual above a certain age is automatically a shareholder. Land (and sea) portions are rented/leased out in the same fashion as space for stores in a mall: at market-determined rates. Much of the revenue from these leases is returned as dividend checks to the shareholders -- kind of like in Alaska with the oil revenue checks, but this would be from everything: simple land rent, royalties for oil and other resources extracted, logging fees, etc. Damage to the land would be susceptible to fines, just as any landlord could charge for damage to the property (there's all your environmental law in one place!).

Clearly the value of land and its connected resources isn't sufficient to run the government we've grown. But the system would at least provide everyone with a basic income, with a rational basis for it.


Odd twists show up here and there: for example, consider national parks under this system: shareholders would get free or cheap access, but non-shareholders would have to pay -- now, plainly that means foreigners get charged, but what about children; do they ride on their parents' status, or are they to be charged?

Anyway... it's more rational than any of the other approaches.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

Interesting!! That wud help keep money from just sitting in assets and get it into the economy. I don't know how fair that is tho.

Well, once you're dead, what does it matter to you? And you still get to pick who to leave it to.
And is it "fair" anyway that some people get unearned boosts of wealth just because their parents were more successful?

Face it: no system is fair, really. But as long as we have a system that lets people keep what they've earned, and and avoids the concentration of wealth that always leads to tyranny, we'd be doing well.
At present, I presume you understand, I don't see that we have such a system.

 

[Kurn]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

Mr Obama is a pragmatist and any discussion about his being socialist is wide of the mark.
Does wanting this Country to survive and prosper have to be an ideology?
The government owning the banks somewhat could have an excellent outcome. But no one wants that to continue indefinitely. We should say that the financial institutions are currently "in the hospital."

Please remember that the citizens of the Socialist Soviet Union were largely in favor of socialism for 70 years. There must be something about socialism that's appealing. Furthermore, many European countries use limited socialism to address their needs with great success. Why not take a leaf from socialism now and then as medicine for our own country?

What we really don't like is the Big Man telling us how to live our lives. Well, that happens under Capitalism as much as under Socialism. Only under Capitalism, it's bankers and landlords and corporations controlling your two-by-fours.
What we Americans should do is first realize that doing things the same way forever eventually means that that way of doing things runs out of practicality. Then we adapt, add something we haven't tried, something that doesn't get in the way too much.

Our national ideology is NOT capitalism, by the way. I know a lot of congressmen, etc. say it is but it isn't. America is about Freedom and What-works! <aka, Pragmatism>.

By the way, the Republicans are a bunch of little girls when it comes to Economics.
And the Democrats need to be leashed. We have to concentrate on fiscal restraint, not "free fucking enterprise." We have to pay our debts. We have to have a Republic that pays for itself.

It's "WE THE PEOPLE."
It's OUR GOVERNMENT. And the GOVERNMENT IS US.
Why does it seem oppressive? Because the citizens have needed to grow up for several generations. THAT is what is needed more than anything else! Get practically minded and DEAL WITH REALITY!!!!!!!
E PLURIBUS UNUM is our motto and we need to work together for a while!

 

[HenryReardon]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

Social Security is not socialism. You DO have to pay into it all your life to reap any benefits. If you don't, you get nothing. That's not socialism. It's the same with unemployment benefits. You pay for those benefits via taxes out of your paycheck. Should you become unemployed through no fault of yours, you can, at least, eat. It's not much but its better than nothing. They are not just handed to you. You earn these benefits and, .

Actually, in most states, including Florida, you do not pay "unemployment taxes" and they are not taken out of your paycheck.

Your employer pays a percentage of all the wages paid to a state fund and to a federal fund. The state % starts at 2.7 and is reviewed every year, based upon the number of layoffs the employer has. After so many years with few claims paid, the employer rate can shrink (in Fla at least) to 1/10 of one %.

The % is paid on the first $8,000 of wages paid (amount can vary from state to state).

 

[HenryReardon]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

And on top of all that, he's been going to church every week for the past twenty years. Europeans only visit churches for tourism.

It has become quite clear that Obama has gone to church for 20 years for one reason only - political gain. That's why he selected the church he attended.

 

[smelter]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

It has become quite clear that Obama has gone to church for 20 years for one reason only - political gain. That's why he selected the church he attended.

... and this has become quite clear, how? Any cite you have would be certainly be helpful.

 

[MystikWizard]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

Would a Mod be so kind to change this to an "On Topic" thread, please?

Thank you.

 

[opinterph]

Moderator Notice

This thread is now designated “On-Topic.”

Posts unrelated to the original points of discussion may be removed.​

 

[Kurn]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

It has become quite clear that Obama has gone to church for 20 years for one reason only - political gain. That's why he selected the church he attended.

It is far more likely that he made that association out of a desire to associate with upbeat people who want to make a positive difference.

And if you read and understand the context of Rev. Wright's noted sermon, you would know that, while it sounds controversial from a distance, it isn't any more controversial in its content than something Jerry Fallwell might preach.

On-topic-wardness:

One thing that might help the discussion is to consider the fact that we are a Republic. Why is this important? Because the very word implies an organization instituted for the common well-being of its members.
That is one basic idea of communism. You see, the word Republic is composed of two parts: Re(s) and Public(a).
"Common-things" or "commonwealth," 'Publica' referring to society and what society makes that it has in common.
The second basic idea of modern communism -- or ancient communism as well, really -- is that it is all about living without class-barriers. The United States of America is to some degree a naturally communist state.
That is why turning us into a communist state is counter-productive. In many ways, we're already there. Lately, "conservatives" have been trying to wreck this situation.
Another meaning of communism is that it is a society without violence or fraud. Some people think that is impossible but it isn't. You see, violence and fraud take up lots of time and energy and make no contribution to the economy.

 

[HenryReardon]

Re: Great Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism vs Commu

And if you read and understand the context of Rev. Wright's noted sermon, you would know that, while it sounds controversial from a distance, it isn't any more controversial in its content than something Jerry Fallwell might preach.

That argument won't fly. Falwell, bad as he was, never ever said god damn America.