Message Board Archives

Do Americans lack the knowledge of Socialism and Capitalism?

Capitalism: "Anyone can be rich."
Communism: "No one can get rich."
Socialism: "Anyone can get rich, but no one should be poor." 

Socialism a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Capitalism an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
 
Mom and Dad on Social Security and Medicare. Grandma in Medicaid supported nursing home, Grandpa in Medicare supported hospice. Brother, hurt on the job, gets Workers Comp and Disability. Sister on Unemployment feeding kids through SNAP. The family stands tall against socialism, makes sense to Americans, doesn't it? A socialist safety net, they cannot comprehend.

Each and every one of the programs stated above was opposed violently by the conservatives of their day as being "socialist". The GOP is now packed with people who still feel that way. Even about public schools. All of those programs are socialist to one degree or another and derived and regulated by the "evil empire" aka the U.S. or state and local governments. The local public education system is supported by taxpayers, and with no skin in the game at that, but all pay our share. that's socialism. Same for cops, fire dept., library, forest preserve system. All socialism. Much much better than private.


We learned that fire is a good servant but a bad master. It can cook your food and keep you warm or burn your house down and kill you. Capitalism is a lot like fire. It can be a very powerful force for good, but you have to keep it in its place. You don't start a fire in the middle of your living room, but rather in a fireplace especially designed to keep it contained. Well, capitalism needs the same kind of regulation and control as fire; and always, always remember that capitalism is your servant. It should always serve you and you should never let it get out of your control. Without some (minimal) government regulation, corporate and personal malignant greed will burn the capitalist house down. Capitalism can be regulated in ways that are not universally beneficial. Most arguments are that Capitalism can also be regulated in ways that are more widely advantageous. Hey, you can use your servant badly, but don't blame the servant.  

Now if the government then says that it will also run itself as a corporation (autocracy), who is going to regulate the government? Nobody.
The problem increases exponentially when said government simultaneously seeks to remove all regulation of corporations and wealthy individuals. That is the situation today in America.The kitchen is on fire and it better get put out very soon.Americans have found success and that success is often based, apparently, on providing services to others. That's what all humans strive to do (unless we are born wealthy). One must realize, however, that success is not the inevitable result of capitalism. Improvements can be made to Capitalism to address its failings as implemented in the US; Most notably the concentration of capital and power in fewer and fewer hands.
For example, the huge amounts of money in the hands of Wall Streeters and Hedge Funds, who are basically gamblers, not investors, and who produce no actual goods. And what about the gaping hole in Capitalism, the "too big to fail" syndrome? Is  Investment not "gambling" under capitalism- it's government institutions like the Federal Reserve that create moral hazard and encourage speculation. In a genuinely free market, you don't get a bailout when you fail, you lose your shirt.

Similarly with "too big to fail", it was government regulators that created the conditions under which larger firms could be ensured no meaningful competition from smaller firms that would have ensured the diversity and health of financial markets. Alexander Hamilton's genius was in recognizing the value that lenders provide to an economy. Only a Marxist would fall for the Labor Theory of Value nonsense, where if you don't produce physical goods, you provide no value to society. It's only in politics that you can provide zero value to society and still have a job.

Why is globalism forcing changes on how we think about inequality and the concentration of capital."Over the last generation, capitalism has produced the greatest reduction in global income inequality in history. The downside is that low-skill workers in the U.S. are now competing with workers in Vietnam, India, and Malaysia. The reduction of inequality among nations has led to an increase in inequality within rich nations, like the United States." This year the farm subsidies paid to counteract the impact on farmers from the trade wars Mr. Trump has initiated totals $28 billion (i.e., billions above the annual ordinary subsidy amounts). That is roughly twice as much as what was injected to bail out the automotive industry during the Great Recession. It doesn't count as socialism. Strange isn't it?.

The end game for globalism, assuming open commercial borders, is that every nation ends up with similar wealth distribution. As we move toward that state, it means that the wealth distribution of the US starts to look more like that of the world, i.e., more skewed. And this can happen even while the global wealth distribution is becoming more equitable.
This doesn't offer much solace or guidance to rich nations who are seeing their middle classes drift downward toward the global mean. But taking the global perspective it's hard to deny the net positive impact of capitalism on the welfare of humanity. The irony of the US middle-class concerns about inequality is that they have actually been the beneficiaries of such inequality until now. The widening inequality that is seen in the US is the very opposite thing happening on a grander scale.Even Adam Smith, the "father" of capitalism, pointed out in his "Wealth of Nations" that unfettered capitalism ultimately leads to concentrations of wealth. He didn't really have an answer to that problem and suggested that a wealth tax might be the best way to remedy it.Seems like these are "socialist" remedies disguised as what? Capitalistic activities? Interesting....

Adam Smith studied markets. Capitalism wasn't a word. Capitalism is not in the Constitution. We used to have a market economy that taxed the mega-rich to invest in workers, Even in the 1970s, with Impeachment, oil shocks, and stagflation, average GDP growth was over 3%.That was Classical Keynesian economics, not a planned economy. But it was a regulated economy that invested in education and infrastructure. Since the "conservative revolution" democracy has been attacked as a "big government," and all investments shifted to global corporations that invest in faraway low wage countries. (China invests in itself as all invested in China.)Average GDP Growth is a full percentage point below where it was before Reagan because capitalism is not really market economics. Capitalism is the manipulation of markets and the government to benefit global billionaires. Smart governments create fair, stable markets, not chaos.

Well, if Capitalism serves the very richest, and allows them to purchase those who make Law, then how could it possibly be 'out of control'?600 U.S. Billionaires cannot be 'wrong.' It's us -- the Bottom Ninety-Nine Per Centers, who must be wrong.  
As long as rich people can give whatever they want to political candidates, parties and causes then the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. A corrupt billionaire could get elected and 'reform' the tax system to benefit the rich while hurting the poor. They could lower the capital gains taxes from 36% to 15% then cut the number of people who qualify for food stamps.

Yes and somehow the naive assumption capitalism naturally produces the best outcome for human society, better products-that “what the people want” is the only thing that matters- really rankles. What people want is what Capitalism has taught them to want, nothing more. Would we be at the end of life as we know it, facing rising seas, global warming, plastic fouling the ocean, pandemics, starvation, the end of vulnerable societies, extinction, disaster, mass murder, if capitalism had not been so good at giving people “what they want”? A significant number of people “wanted” (and still want) Trump, in spite of the harm he’s done to them, and to their children. It’s true: our Capitalist system will happily sell us the rope we need to hang ourselves.

At least socialism stands for something. What does the GOP stand for these days? Being sure abortions are done in back rooms? Environmental caused cancers? Dictators are great? The free press is bad? Do corporations deserve respect and resources but not people?They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia, and Latin America?
It’s not socialism vs. capitalism but socialism vs. mayhem


The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Winston Churchill

Just an opinion ....

I love how folks who never lived under communism, socialism, etc, always know everything about those systems - Churchill, sgtjones, etc. That is why I took the opportunity to live in the communist Soviet Union for several years - so that I could see communism in action, and get to know it as much as possible, first hand.

Communism (or socialism - same thing) promises to free workers and peasants from capitalist "exploitation" by turning over economic control to said workers and peasants. In practice, however, economic control winds up under the communist party, who quickly become the new elite.

In that respect, capitalism is superior. Capitalism makes no promise to anyone. It is a free-for-all system in which the ruling class controls everything worth controlling, to the extent that suits their needs. If the "proletariat" enjoys anything under capitalism it is because the ruling class doesn't mind.

Communism inevitably screws itself over - BECAUSE it promises to turn over political and economic power but never does.

Can communism perform well economically? China today proves that communism could easily outperform capitalism economically. I saw how well communism provided for its citizens myself. People were economically far more secure than they could be under any capitalist government.

Communism fails because people are not ready for it yet. Just like the citizens of the Soviet Union "outgrew" communist lies and overthrew it, capitalist citizens will gradually outgrow capitalism and grow into "communism", with the ruling class struggling to maintain the status quo all the way.

Meanwhile, we can argue endlessly about which is better. I lived under real communism, by choice, and I know I saw the future.

In reply to Norm

Communism and socialism are not the same thing, in the same way that the capitalism practised in the US is not the same as the capitalism now practised in Guyana.

The communism of the Soviet Union is not the communism preached by Karl Marx. What existed in the USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship.

When Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn talk about socialism, they're talking about the democratic socialism that exists in Scandinavia - Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. By and large, that socialism has been a success.

Someone who lived under the democratic socialism of Sweden was Jah Jah, who I'm sure will be quite happy to share his experiences of the benefits of socialism.

So, yes, quite a few Americans lack the knowledge of what socialism is....

In reply to Norm

I think the issue at heart is the human condition and too far right is left.

Seems no matter what system we implement we will screw it up.

That is what the history of civilization had taught me.

Capitalism can work fine but then people abuse it so it becomes regulated. That works fine but then people influence the regulators.

We are just not a species of moderation.

In reply to nick2020

Any human system of government is doomed to fail.

In reply to culpepperboy

Time to be ruled by the cows like Farside predicts?

In reply to mikesiva

No communist system ever established has complied exactly with Karl Marx's socio-economic recommendations, but Soviet style communism probably came the closest. Communism (and socialism) are based on community ownership of the means of production. What Sweden has is by no means socialism in the Marxist sense. (I don't think a term has been coined for the likes of Sweden yet.)

Ultimately, it is not the Marxist economics (or lack of it) that will be detrimental to people, but the people themselves. The "ism" has always degenerated into a con of the common people, and even of some of the ruling classes. It is the latter that is feared mostly by developed capitalist countries.

Sweden, Canada, etc, have moved closer to distributing wealth more equitably within a capitalist framework, but they still come nowhere near any of the past or existing communist countries in that sense.

Anyway, my point was not that Marxism, capitalism or swedenism was better, but that mankind in its current state of political evolution would screw up any "ism". The desire to argue that one "ism" is better than the rest is part of the con - just like in religion.

In reply to nick2020

That pretty much summarizes my point.

My advice: make the best of whatever opportunities for self-improvement are being offered by any "ism" and screw NO ONE - either rich or poor. Explore means of improving the lot of the community, but be wary of the existing power structure. Lastly, respect the wisdom of past generations.

In reply to culpepperboy

It is possible to govern humanity successfully, but we might need "outside" help - in huge doses.

In reply to Norm

Norm

My thread deals with Capitalism and Socialism. I just noted
various ideas and theories about both. You have no idea of my experiences or where I abode in my life.


Not Communism....

In reply to sgtdjones

No offence meant.

Communism and socialism are the same. You either follow Marxist economics by nationalizing (or otherwise placing under government control) the means of production, or you don't. There is no "socialism" in between.

The Chinese Communist Party has ALLOWED a capitalist hybrid in parts of the Chinese economy, but the primary industries and agriculture still remain communist. Whatever is going on in China is still the will of the Chinese Communist Party (or whatever they call themselves) ONLY.

In reply to Norm

Capitalism: "Anyone can be rich."
Communism: "No one can get rich."
Socialism: "Anyone can get rich, but no one should be poor."

I beg to differ, it is not like the days Karl, or Lenin
or Mao, it has been modified.

Pontificate all alyuh want, but the only effective system of governance for the third world is the Singaporean way! Rwanda has taken the template & it's there for all to see. Seeing is believing! There's stability, law & order, modernity, accountability, litter-free streets of the capital & elsewhere, etc. Anywhere other than Western Europe where democracy or socialism is, it has failed! All there's to see are angst, corruption, mismanagement, ineptness, etc! I'm done.

In reply to sgtdjones

I am not into arguing theory. We have seen both communism and capitalism in action to continue theorizing.

People have rejected both systems.

Again, there is currently no "in between". You either have government ownership of the means of production and distribution (= communism) or you don't (= capitalism).

Btw, Marx concluded that workers should own the means of production but he did not reject multi-party political systems or democracy.

Similarly, capitalism can function quite well in the absence of either democracy or multi-party politics, despite all the propaganda about competition, market economics, etc.