Capitalism 104

[Slevin57]

It seems like one of those summaries that should begin:

"In Soviet Russia we.."

Capitalism has it's ups and downs.

[Nono]

What does the USSR have to do with all this? As pointed out by many, the USSR was "state capitalism", with the workers exploited by the state rather than private owners.

If I say I'm Jesus Christ, you're not obliged to believe me. So why believe somebody like Brezhnev who claimed he was a "socialist"?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Slevin57 Capitalism has it's ups and downs.

All systems have ups and downs.



The question is "which systems allows a person to take responsibility for himself?".

[WindWip]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Brilliant, I guess that is why states at least approaching socialism are far less troubled by crime as capitalist states such as the US and the UK.

They are plagued with corruption. That's a crime too.

btw, compare the economies of capitalist countries to those of socialist and communist.

[Autolykos]

Until common definitions for "capitalism", "socialism", etc. are agreed upon by all involved, this debate will keep going where it's been going: absolutely nowhere.

- Rob

[WindWip]

Hope these help. They are quite informative.

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Autolykos]

If you think that providing links to certain definitions will automatically mean everyone involved in this thread agreeing to those definitions, you would be sorely mistaken.

- Rob

[WindWip]

I'm sure that we will have disagreements, but I haven't seen any yet. There's no reason to not debate an issue simply because we might disagree on a definition.

[Autolykos]

From what I've seen so far in this thread, almost everyone is using at least subtly different definitions for "capitalism", "socialism", and "communism". Until common definitions -- regardless of what they are -- exist among everyone involved, by mutual consent, there can be no debate.

What you may see as "debate" is, in fact, people merely talking past one another.

- Rob

[WindWip]

I've had plenty of good debates on communism, socialism and capitalism. The major underlying aspects of each form of government are agreed upon. The finer points might not be, but you can have a fine debate without fighting over those finer points. For example:

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production.

This is a very basic definition of communism. It doesn't go into the more delicate points, and I highly doubt anyone with a decent head on their shoulders will disagree with anything stated there.

In any case this is a debate forum, right? When the issue of disagreement over definitions comes up, we can debate what we feel is the right definition and why. So far I haven't seen disagreements on the definitions though.

[Autolykos]

Then you must be blind.

For example, I do not consider capitalism to be a form of government at all. What say you to this?

Disagreements over definitions cannot be resolved, because definitions are inherently arbitrary. As a result, they can only be accepted or rejected.

- Rob

[WindWip]

Quote by: Autolykos Then you must be blind. For example, I do not consider capitalism to be a form of government at all. What say you to this?

There are many definitions of the word 'capitalism'. One refers to the economic system, another refers to the governing body of a country that follows a capitalist economic system. Depending on how the word is used, a different definition is applied. If you tried to tell me that the word 'capitalism' is never used as a reference to governments, then I would call you very naive.

Disagreements over definitions cannot be resolved, because definitions are inherently arbitrary. As a result, they can only be accepted or rejected. - Rob

You are absolutely wrong here. Definitions can easily be resolved. The example you just gave me shows this quite well. If the definitions of words were as arbitrary as you are claiming them to be, we would not be able to communicate, yet here we are.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: WindWip Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even simpler:

Capitalism: private property

Socialism: government property

Communism: no property

[Osborn F Enready]

Socialists and communists fail to see the forest for the trees.

Every single communist and socialist on here, from whatever nation, has American goods or services being used by their national leaders. This is intellectual hypocrisy, no matter how you call it, color it or flavor it.

The goods and services of the capitalist system, and of any free market are open to exploitation when nations who DON'T observe individual rights are allowed to interact with them. Why is that? Because communist and socialist nations don't enforce the rights of the people to interact with that market, ONLY themselves as national leaders. Its market tyranny, and direct disempowerment of the individuals, on all levels, from information to goods and services. Its abject abuse of power, and force, against its own people, for national profit, to carry-on and support a failed ideology which wouldn't exist today if not for the tolerance of the free-market and capitalism.

I haven't seen one anti-capitalist or anti-free-trade person on here yet, use a logical explanation, only emotional hype and fear mongering.

Bring out the debate.

[Century 25]

For example, I do not consider capitalism to be a form of government at all. What say you to this?

Neither is socialism.. unfortunately our "government" has been bought & paid for.. so essentially our so-called government is a.. syndicate. What else can you use to describe a Plutocracy..??

[fushigi]

Quote by: Century 25 Very true.. capitalism is a pyramid scheme.. not a thing more or less.. and the reason why it will trash the world... it can't forever "grow" as they love to spout..

Wrong. It's socialism that's a pyramid scheme, as it chooses to DISTRIBUTE limited wealth rather than seek to INCREASE it. Capitalism DOES create more value with less effort, increasing the efficiency of trade to its highest degree.

Adhering to the standards of comparative advantage allows every economic actor to use scarce resources in the most efficient way, rather than foolishly requiring every country to produce every necessary good.

No, capitalism--even regulated capitalism--cannot produce ENDLESS advantages, but it produces advantages more efficiently than any other system available.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: WindWip There are many definitions of the word 'capitalism'. One refers to the economic system, another refers to the governing body of a country that follows a capitalist economic system. Depending on how the word is used, a different definition is applied. If you tried to tell me that the word 'capitalism' is never used as a reference to governments, then I would call you very naive.

I'm saying that I personally do not use "capitalism" as a reference to governments. Therefore, if you wish to engage in a productive debate with me, you will accept my usage thereof.

You are absolutely wrong here. Definitions can easily be resolved. The example you just gave me shows this quite well. If the definitions of words were as arbitrary as you are claiming them to be, we would not be able to communicate, yet here we are.

If you really want to go down this route...

Language is a market phenomenon. It involves people mutually agreeing to corresponding certain sequences of sounds with certain mental images and concepts. There are no objectively right or wrong correspondences; thus, all correspondences (and all languages) are subjective/arbitrary. What matters is that the set of correspondences in question is logically self-consistent. See Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems.

- Rob

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Autolykos Until common definitions for "capitalism", "socialism", etc. are agreed upon by all involved, this debate will keep going where it's been going: absolutely nowhere. - Rob

Socialism- The means of production are controlled by the organised community.

Capitalism- the means of production are owned by private individuals.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Century 25 Neither is socialism.. unfortunately our "government" has been bought & paid for.. so essentially our so-called government is a.. syndicate. What else can you use to describe a Plutocracy..??

Socialism is indeed a form of government. It seeks to place ownership, or at least control, of the means of production in the hands of the workers (ie the majority of the people). The governing aspect flows directly from that point on.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: another day Sure capitalism is the best from a business man's perspective. But the very nature of it is what is and will lead to the destruction of the human race. Capitalism is like a virus that grows and expands and eats up all resources around it. It's not a sustainable system because it places profit above all else, and puts corpororations whos only concern is to see profit, in power. and dictatorship and tyranny have nothing to do with socialism or capitalism and can and have existed in capitalist and communist countries.

This sort of analysis of capitaliism is always strange, particularly when it comes from socialists.

Socialism claims, in fact it PROMISES, to make life better for the majority of the people (the workers). This by definition requires the plundering of more resources than the capitalists would, since the capitalists supposedly restricted production so as to keep prices up so as to make a profit. It is rubbish that socialism will somehow produce WITHOUT "eating up all the resources" around it. Most likely, it will do worse than capitalism.

It sneers the drive for profit. Yet what is profit, exactly? Its nothing more than the difference in value of a completed good to that of the costs of its component parts. A socialist community would have to seek out profit in its production as well. Otherwise, it has no way of determining if its production is useful to the community.