| |
| Author |
Message |
Capitalism vs Socialism
| Capitalism |
| [ 12 ] 85% |
| |
| Socialism |
| [ 2 ] 14% |
| |
Total Votes : 14 |
|
| MR. Lurtzy |
 Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:48 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 423
Location: Living with the Governator
|
| Which social system do you think is better? List reasons please, because I am doing a debate on this at school so I’d like to see some opinions. |
'On and on old war shall go,
Without respite my blood will flow
O’er your eyes ‘til they cannot see
The impossibility of victory.'
MR. Lurtzy's Have/Wants |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pippin |
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:33 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 268
Location: Colorado
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| AgentDrake |
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:40 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 667
Location: Halfway between eccentric and insane...
|
Socialism is a brilliant theory. Unfortunately, it (generally) doesn’t work in practice.
Consider:
Successful Socialism assumes that the citizen will be a contributing member of society.
Yeah, that’s the part where you can start laughing. Laziness/"working the system" is an inherent human quality. Minimize work for maximum return. Within a capitalist system, "he who does not work, does not eat." Within a socialist system, everyone else has to pick up the slack.
Along the same lines, within capitalism, success is encouraged. If you work your butt off, and if you do it smart, planning ahead, and all that fun Sun-Tzu stuff, you have a reasonable chance of success. Factors like planning, work, and competition all, naturally effect the outcome, but you can get ahead. Quality of contribution-- which includes such things as thinking long-term, avoiding debt (including credit cards), etc., generally results in equal quality of individual return. However, within socialism, that return is taken and distributed throughout all society. So why bother? Someone else can support you. The end result is a sort of welfare state.
Now, mind you, these ARE generalities. What little I know about the Norwegian system appears to be a fairly successful integration of socialism into a foundationally capitalist system. (Caveat: I know very little about modern-day Norwegian economic theory, so I could be completely wrong.)
Now consider this: A voluntary socialist society WITHIN a capitalist system. ie, the HIstorical acts of the First-century Christian church; The society was capitalist; the church had socialist practices. These practices existed only between members of the Church, and the church interacted with the capitalism surrounding them in order to advance their mini-economy.
Example:
Apostles A, B, C, and D live in Rome.
A is a very rich artist.
B is a famous, but poor, poet.
C is a pauper.
D is a Centurion.
All four of these people are VOLUNTARILY contributing to the mini-socialism because they want to support eachother. Apostle A is perfectly willing to support Apostles B and C, and they contribute what little they have, or provide aid to the church in other ways (B writes hyms; C acts as a missionary to the poor/charity organizer; or whatever). In this system, it is made up of those, and only those, who are willing to contribute to the socialism. All still interact with the capitalist system which THEY ARE STILL A PART OF in order to help support their socialist system. THIS IS A GOOD SYSTEM.
However, when the foundational system, the meta-system, if you will, is socialist, then Apostles E, F, and G -- AKA the Welfare sappers -- get thrown in. They’re perfectly happy on welfare, and have no intention of doing any of that nasty stuff called "work." If capitalism is the meta-system, welfare either doesn’t exist, or is strictly regulated.
E, F, and G either get a job to get the level of comfort they want, and in the process contribute to society (much as they dislike it), or go without, and don’t reap the benefits of the contributions of others.
Also, one must consider corruption.
It exists in either system. So in which does it cause less damage?
Let’s consider significant corruption, not some pencil pusher stealing paperclips. The head of a major industry is corrupt. In socialism, that means he’s got government position, or heavy influence with the government. Either way, he’s in a position of power to easily put his corruption into practice, and get way more than his fair share. The government is just as interested in gaining power, too, so they’ve got the same problem. (Sadly, that’s human nature. "Nine Rings were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else, desire Power....")
Within capitalism, the same can still happen, but it is more difficult. Competition means that you can bet Bill Gates doesn’t want Apple to get leverage on him by exposing some sorta corruption. (Well, besides that whole Microsoft debacle... jk)
Neither system is perfect, and IMHO, capitalism isn’t good.
But out of all the conceivable options, it’s out best choice; a "lesser out of many necessary evils," if you will.
I think Winston Churchill said something like that about democracy, once. Can’t remember the actual quote, though.
Socialism’s biggest problem is that this isn’t a perfect world. I honestly think that in a perfect world, we’d have socialism. Sorta. It wouldn’t be government run, because we wouldn’t need government. It’s be the natural state of things.
But given that it is nowhere near a perfect world, I think that socialism cannot work on an absolute scale, because it’s based on the assumptions of a perfect world. Again, on a non-meta-system scale, socialism works. Witness all sorts of non-profit groups. Witness the early Christian church. Witness early medieval monastic systems. Witness the Hashashin (and I am NOT suggesting we all become a bunch of Hashashin!) etc.
On a metasystem scale, though... witness the USSR. Witness China (which is actually rapidly progressing towards capitalism!) Witness the Pilgrims (as in the people who came to America, tried socialism as the base system, and it failed miserably.) et cetera.
As for combinations between capitalism and socialism, it’s pretty dependent on the actual combination. Witness modern-day Norway; witness France. Witness Canada and Britain’s socialist medicare systems; witness medieval feudalism (which, BTW, actually worked a lot better in many ways than people give it credit for. Granted, there were some fundamental problems, but I’d be really interested to see how a modernized feudal system would work out.)
EDIT: In fact, now that you’ve gotten me commenting on this stuff, I feel like I might just write a short essay on socialism, capitalism, Feudalism, and work up a sort of "modernized feudalism." IF I do actually write something like that up (probably won’t but, then, I might), would you want me to post it? I expect I would probably focus mainly on the feudalism bit, but I’d make sure it was overall actually relevant to your question. Come to think of it, I have a friend who’s already done some work on this stuff, especially the modern feudalism... Yeah, this might work out.  for indirectly giving me a good idea! 
Again, these are all generalizations, which, by definition must be false when taken to the specific level (else they wouldn’t be generalizations; they’d be absolutes.) As I said, some combinations/forms of both have major disadvantages or advantages.
Hope this helps. Even if you don’t agree with a word I said, hopefully, it’ll help you brainstorm a bit.
Oh, yeah. And hope that all this even makes sense. I *think* all the drugs from my surgery today have worn off by now, but I can’t be sure. 
MORE EDIT:
[goes into debater with 7-years of Team Policy experience "coach the newbie" mode]
For all I know, you’ve got ten times as much debate experience as me, but I’ll throw in my comments, just the same. I actually have a pretty good track record for this stuff (AKA, 1 for 1; my padawan debater slaughtered everyone, including debating and defeating the reigning champions MULTIPLE TIMES at his very first debate tournament, which was also the largest tournament our area has ever had. Of course, he’s also about 20x smarter than I am, but that’s not the point...) And chances are, the rest of the debaters on these forums are going to think me absolutely nuts. Maybe I am. So anyway, to my self-indulgence of nostalgic debate "newbie coaching":
What sort of debate? Lincoln-Douglass (LD) Values, LD Policy, Team Policy (AKA Team Cross-Ex), or Parliamentary?
One thing I’d suggest from my 7 years of debate experience: Actively agree with the opposition when you can, without sacrificing your position. Just because the opponent argues it, doesn’t mean it’s not true and/or actually affects your own case. Agreeing like this does one of two things: It either
A. makes both them and the judge consider more thoroughly where you disagree, and makes you seem more rational, reasonable, etc.
or B. Confuses the heck out of your opponents, which is (usually) good.
Also, one thing to make sure when you argue something this controversial with this sort of combinability (Both sides can be combined to form a compromised system, which might be better than either, or worse than both) is It is just as important to know EXACTLY what you are NOT saying as it is to know what you ARE; sometimes even more important. If the other team argues against a point which is on the surface similar to, but fundamentally different than, one of your points, notice this and point it out! (This can be one of the times that you agree with the other team.)
Uh... also, almost every argument is double-edged. Under no circumstances should you overdo this, and NEVER twist you opponent’s arguments/words to do this, but if you can use their own argument against them, it is that much more powerful. My debate partner and I recently won a tournament using a "hidden advantage" strategy: a commonly cited disadvantage to something very similar to our case was not only not a disadvantage to our case, BUT OUR CASE SOLVED THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE DISADVANTAGE EXISTING IN THE STATUS QUO.
As I said, NEVER twist your opponent’s arguments to make them fit something like this, but if the arguments themselves already fit this pattern, GO for it. There’s nothing unfair about it; it’s a continuation of the logic. But if you’re cheating, lying, misrepresenting the opponent, whatever, that’s obviously different; I don’t want anyone thinking I’m condoning that. |
| Never kid about politicians. The more bizarre the joke, the more likely it is to come true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| MR. Lurtzy |
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:05 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 423
Location: Living with the Governator
|
Thanks for that well written post AgentDrake!  |
'On and on old war shall go,
Without respite my blood will flow
O’er your eyes ‘til they cannot see
The impossibility of victory.'
MR. Lurtzy's Have/Wants |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gil-estel |
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:56 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 545
Location: Groningen, the Netherlands
|
You have to also look into the historial context of appearance. Socialism and in some form Marxism was a reaction on the capitalism, when factoryowners became richer and richer and both living and workingcircumstances were very poor for the common man. Marx therefor put in his essay that when someone worked hard and he earned more than an other man, it wasn’t persé wrong. The wrong thing is when priveleges are tied to making the money. In history it ment that you would have the right to vote and poorer people could not.
I know that it is somewhat of an idealistic thought, but I always tell my pupils this: if back at home the washingmachine has to be moved, my wife calls me. I’m way bigger then her and stronger, so it’s the most logical thing she’s asking me to move the thing. I know the comparison does not cover the whole deal, but in general I think it does.
An other thing. The capitalstic system is I think highly overrated. It stimulates egoïsm, because you have to get your own. It does not, or hardly takes notice of the luck-factor. It is not automaticly true that if you work hard you will earn much. There is a lot of talent wasted just because people won’t get a chance...Just my two cents.... |
My trading list
My main wants
My refs |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Shieldmaiden |
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:24 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 389
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Well said, AD! 39-40
And I completely agree with gil-estel. While capitalism encourages a society’s members to work, it does not always reward hard work. In fact, many people at the bottom work much harder than the rich on top (although the middle class do seem to have a good balance between work and pay). Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against capitalism. I just don’t completely agree with it. That’s why I’m not going to vote on this one. It’s because I think a combination of socialism and capitalism is best.
The quote from Winston Churchill that AD was referring to is:
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
It’s a good thread, Lurtzy. It inspires some thought!  |
Trade With Me, I went to Middle Earth, and all I got was this stupid ring!
Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I stuck around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| TheJord |
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:28 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 486
Location: UK
|
Its hard to say which is better. Here in the UK they like to do a bit of both, but not in a good way.
If any of you have heard of Northern Rock, its a bank that almost went bust in Britain. Now we, the taxpayer, have to make sure it stays afloat. Somewhere down the line someone profits from bringing the bank back into business, but I doubt any return will be given to the taxpayer.
Costs are socialized, profits are privatized. Thats the harsh reality of capitalism.
Socialism works when it is like the law of consecration given to the Israelites, but even they struggled to live it the way they were supposed to. In theory, every receiving the resources equal to their needs is a wonderful idea, but just like it says in The Lord of the Rings, Men desire power above all else. |
| "The rule of Gondor is mine!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Anonymous Prodigy |
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:50 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 4197
Location: United States
|
Pippin wrote: Capitalism is better. I don’t want the government using my money to pay for someone else’s crap.
Well put.
And I’d love to see that paper (if you write it), AD.  Same to MR. Lurtzy. |
| I had to put something here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Turin06 |
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:53 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 197
Location: Good Question
|
Anonymous Prodigy wrote: Pippin wrote: Capitalism is better. I don’t want the government using my money to pay for someone else’s crap.
Well put.
And I’d love to see that paper (if you write it), AD. Same to MR. Lurtzy.
Where’s the compassion in that. As a christian I feel we should always be helping those that are worse off than us. Not all poor pople are lazy drug addicts, on the contrary many of them work harder and for less money than any of us ever will. That is what i hate about those people who worship capitalism, they make out that poor people are lazy and that if they really tried hard they would get out of trouble. It’s an arrogant and cold hearted view that shows no compassion for their fellow man. I believe in a capitalist system with socialist elements such as we have here in Britain. For example with a free healthcare system like ours it helps poor people keep their money for other things unlike in America when they get financially bitch slapped everytime they get anything wrong with them. The welfare state as well is not a bad thing if it has the right safe guards. Only people who deserve it and have jobs get benefits from our government (although naturally some people manage to scam them but that can’t be helped). I myself this year am spending a year working for a churrch unpaid full time. Now I am staying with a family in the church and they require me to pay rent of £50 (£100) a week. Now I have no way of paying that money as I have no salary. The church cannot aford to pay my rent for me. But I got housing benefit from my local government which helps me pay my rent. If we didn’t have that system I would never have been able to do this year.
So I believe that we should continue to take the good parts of both systems. Absolute capitalism is an evil thing but so is absolute socialism there needs to be a balance. |
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Celebrimbor |
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:13 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Location: UNKNOWN
|
The marxist would say that Capitalism is the root of all evil, only causing civil war between jealous brothers of humanity.
Socialism (or communism) is man’s finite attempt to create a perfect (or in other words, utopian) society. Quite the contrary, the history of the world and experience show that the only reason(s) that government exists in the first place because man is corrupt, or that we seek order. As James Madison put it: "We cannot expect infallible results from fallible men."
Ultimately, the people behind socialism believe that man and/or the State is God. Therefore, if there is no God, then moral standards must come from man himself. This in turn permits socialism, a totalitarian form of government, to rage unchecked.
I’ll speak more on this matter. I love this subject. |
My Trading List
Popcorn is not gooey like fat, and also not crunchy like potato chips, but crispy like lettuce which makes it a healthy snack.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are UTC - 4
|
Page 1 of 2 [20 Posts] |
Goto page: 1, 2 Next |
|
|
Forum index » General Discussion » Members' Lounge
