Discussions
Capitalism is Socialism
Posted by jnvscnln • 4/10/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: capitalism, democracy, economics, politics, Regulation, socialism
Socialism is economic decision making by the people, rather than by the king. Capitalism is a form of decision making by the people, so why can't the people decided how to regulate our capitalist system?
greytheory.blogspot.com/2009/04/capitalism-is-socialism.html
User Comments
-
Because most have a representative democracy not a direct democracy. Sweden is about the only thing close to a direct democracy. The reasoning behind this is that the majority of people are disinterested in politics and proper education to handle such is debatable because not everyone decides to educate themselves in this way (also considering there are very little educational requirements this way as well.) So the representative democracy is the solution. There are the "elites" who run most countries and the people pick their elites. -
Because capitalism is decision making by a very few, those at the top of the system that are manipulating the rest of the people for the sake of profit and power. Their self-interest permeates even government decision making as they can exercise the threat of job losses and reduction of economic activity wherever they choose.-
Capitalism by a very few would be a private-sector central control economy; something we are in danger of becoming.
-
-
Financial capitalism and socialism are the two sides of the same globalist coin. If you care to look up Myron Fagan's "The Illuminati and The Council on Foreign Relations". -
We're all hurling through space on this giant rotating ball mostly covered with water.-
lol codesucker
-
-
Just about every industry and every individual thrives on capitalism in one way or another. While many women and men are against it and prefer more socialist ideals, the fact is that many people would not survive without capitalism, as it may be necessary to keep things running in order.
blogs.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_paid_posts_can_kill_your_blog -
I like your post. Probably all these capitalist/socialist concepts are a bit rusty. Them th mothball them
Actually capitalism as in Marx no longer exists the bigger capitalists are the pension funds and now the US, Chinese and EU governents seem to comepete with them so we no longer have the old cigar sucking tall hat, pot belly capitalist nor fatique-clad communist (save for Fidel and Kim:).
I believe we are moving towards a world where our well-being will be governed by free markets regualated by liberal(meaning deomcratic and safeguarding the rights of minorities) and accountable institutions. -
Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874–1936), poet and essayist, said:
"both capitalism and communism rest on the same idea: a centralization of wealth which destroys private property."
"For communism is the child and heir of capitalism, and the son would still greatly resemble his father even if he had really killed him."
"Capitalism and Communism are so very nearly the same thing in ethical essence, that it would not be strange if they did take leaders from the same ethnological elements" -
And in your post what you mean by "King" is the Unitary system. Federalism is our more Democratic system and the other option is the Confederacy system. I found your view of government interesting. Fascism is drastically increased government control of social issues where as socialism is that for economic issues. Although Fascism is not necessarily Totalitarianism. Totalitarianism in your post would more likely be more closely related to the King if anything because of the similarities in the one person rule. Unitary systems though are not Totalitarian governments though they can become so much more easily than others.
-
They can decide.
And if human nature doesn't let us down, the majority of people - the struggling masses - will vote to take money and property away from those they deem more fortunate than they.
It happened in Nazi Germany when Hitler convinced the poor German that it was the rich Jew who was the reason for his misery.
It's happening in Venezuela as we speak with Chavez making land grabs from the rich on a daily basis.
A man feels better about himself when he is made to believe that his failure is not his fault, but the fault of others.
Communism, Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism and socialism all cynically exploit this human propensity to find a scapegoat.
Some of us, like Shakespeare, know better:
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars but in ourselves that we are underlings."-
Communism and Socialism are democratic systems. The closest thing to a communist country is Sweden.
Nazism, Stalinism, and Moaism are totalitarian systems. Hitler used the German people to further his Fascist aims. Even if his goals are altruistic, Chavez is a dictator. -
closest thing to a communist country is sweden?????
Alright, I'm going back to bed. -
Instead of flying off the handle, try reading ...
-
-
Well, your definition of capitalism is witty, but not useful. This is actually a huge problem in the capitalist movements right now - that is, people do not have a clear definition of capitalism. However, capitalism, as an economic system, is about each individual making his or her own decisions. It is not a system of "the people" making decisions - because there is no representative body. As a moral philosophy is means quite simply no initiation of force and no initiation of deception (which is force of another's mind). Anyone who is interested, I write quite extensively on the topic at FreeCapitalist.com. We are dedicated to advancing capitalism as a moral idea. I also have a personal blog at RickKoerber.com - both here on BC Capitalism -
Here are my definitions of Capitalism and Socialism:
Capitalism - free exchange with a Legalist (ex post facto, court-based, and striving towards the ideals of harmony and impartiality) justice and regulatory system. Really, Capitalism at it's roots is a form of Legalism.
Socialism - the coercive and intentional distribution or arbitrary government control of wealth by any method.
These really aren't compatible, as discrimination, through tax or through other methods, based upon wealth level, whether against the rich or the poor, is of and by itself a violation of the rule of law.
I actually wrote about this on my blog fairly recently. The title of the article is "Flawed Spectrum."-
Why do you think that the legalist and regulatory aspect is inherent in capitalism? -
Your definitions go against the writings of the great socialist and capitalist thinkers, but rather are influenced by the politics of the 20th century.
-
Thanks for the question MadameX,
Yeah, I would say for one thing that capitalism cannot exist without legal protections on property. In addition, contracts must be observed. It is a form of legalism because a state that is capitalist must have it's laws and organization governed by writ, due process, and ex post facto or else a form of indirect government ownership is created by distorted jurisprudence (basically, we can increase your taxes at will and throw you in jail for crimes you didn't commit.) Regulations are required to protect conmanship and provide correct information, and in force contracts.
Jnvscnln,
As I recall, Marx believed in hanging rich people. That's about as "coercive and intentional" as it gets.
-
-
Capitalism is Socialism? Good God, didn't any of you take a Government course in high school or college? Captalism has nothing to do with "a few people" having power...
If you own a small business, you have power.... you have control over your business...you are your own boss.
If the government takes over your business and gives you "your fair share" of the profits.... that is socialism.
Seem pretty clear which one gives power to the little guy and which one takes it away...
Marxists believe the ability for one person to make lots of money and another person to make a little money is wrong.
All people should be making about the same amount of money for the job they perform....
Listen to Rush's song Xanadu... That is a pro-socialism philosophy....
There was trouble with the forest, there was trouble with the trees, for the maples cried for light, but the oaks ignored their pleas...
.....
.....
And in the end, they were leveled with hatchet ax and saw....-
Danny, have you failed to notice the power that large corporations wield in this country? How, for instance, effective action against medical device companies that opt to kill their customers for profit have been eliminated, or how hundreds of millions of dollars expended in a ten year lobbying effort by the consumer credit industry resulted in absurd changes to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code that virtually all experts agree have accomplished nothing except to create more work and expense for everyone involved?
The power of a corporate leader isn't simply in directing his own company; it's in imposing his will upon the rest of us so that we don't get in the way of his profits. -
Just because the totalatarians running the Soviet Union called what they did socialism, didn't make it so. Just because Hitler adopted the mantle of socialism didn't make it so. You have to go back to the originators of the terms to define them. Marx would have been apalled at the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union was a plutocratic system, both politically and economic, and had nothing to do with socialism. -
Socialist revolutions all turn out the same. Lenin, Tito, Chavez (who is on his way to repeat history), North Korea, China, Portugal, and even the Iranian Revolution (though different ideology, the promises were similar), they all end the same way. They all end up as brutal totalitarian dictators, becoming everything they said they would not become. Very rich and powerful few end up ruling the "liberated workers" even worse than before. Do not think that another socialist revolution somewhere else would turn out any different, because it will not. -
MadameX, Didn't mean to post such an arrogant sound response...Too much caffeine, I guess...
Anyway
I agree with the problem you bring up... Conglomerates have been allowed to run rampant with big companies swallowing up small businesses.... and eventually you have a "few" people with most of the marbles.
I do get that.
But I think the way to circumvent that problem lies in regulation, not government ownership and/or control.
Take Wal-Mart for example....
I love how cheap Wal-Mart is when I want to buy a camera or tv. It also raises the quality of life for a lot of people.... But it destroys small businesses in every town it builds a store in.
Can we regulate problems like this,without selling our souls to government?
Is our country even able to have such a conversation without everyone scratching each other's eyes out?
I sure hope so - because the alternative isn't freedom at all. It's like buying a car where the government controls the gas pedal.
-
-
Indeed the super financial elites are trying to convince us that capitalism is very socialism in US and conversely in Europe.
See this interview of Aaron Russo (who produced Trading Place starring Eddy Murphy) about what his former friend Billionaire from the Rockefeller family revealed to him:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609 -
Both capitalism and socialism in America have become just words.
There is no agreement on meaning, and no clear understanding of principle due to years of manipulation of each word. The principles of each remain unaltered, the names themselves worthless.-
That's my point ... we need definitions we can work with before we start screaming at each other.
-
Of course they've been screwed around with. Strawmen are far too powerful of a political tool to not be used extensively.
-
-
Oops sorry I (noting towards csiunatc) got myself mixed up. It's not Sweden. I meant Switzerland.
-
Not very precise. Difference between capitalism and socialism is that private property is allowed in capitalism and not allowed in socialism.
Give you an example. Now if you think about stock exchange. If you buy share of some company, do you own something from it – like desk or car ? No, you own nothing – only thing you can do is to sell share or vote in shareholders meeting. Everybody owns all and no one owns something is basic principle of socialism.
Also there is one big problem is capitalism – it exploits natural resources very fast. Sadly natural resources are going to run out sometime in near future. So governments need to step in somehow and try to regulate this process. We can not run this current casino style capitalism for ever without major financial, environmental crisis.-
Not true ... Under socialism, the people determine the rules. You're thinking of the Soviet system.
-
-
Capitalism sucks, socialism is capitalism in disguise. Anarchism is the ideal society and pure democracy. -
I think that capitalism ultimately fails to be regulated by the people because personal self interests and greed get in the way,
mostly do to capitalist virtue of "competing".-
Not true. Capitalism is almost never unregulated, it's just that people in general don't understand the system very well (even among those who are paid to understand it) so they don't make the RIGHT regulations. If you make the right regulations, you actually become more competitive (sensible IP laws, freedom of info, product quality [producers buy them too], limited workweek) because social interest ~= personal interest in all cases.
But instead we run around screaming about the supposed dangers of nuclear energy and have 1000 pages of rules and bizarre non-ex post facto federal powers regarding the building of such when, considering other sectors dealing with materials every bit as dangerous, like H2SO4 production and natural gas, a page would probably do just fine. -
also, corporate double-agents flit from public to private sector, taking advantage of their knowledge of the regulatory framework, in order to subvert it. -
Agit8r,
They're probably also responsible for why nuclear power is regulated 100's of times more strictly then other industries producing waste of equivalent (or worse) form; got to keep those coal companies in business, and coal's probably a more powerful lobby at this point then oil and gas, hence the fact that you don't hear about them. -
could be... also hard to pronounce correctly
-
-
Other than the fact that we are in a debt-based money system (all money is debt), real interest rates (nominal rate - inflation) have been negative for quite some years on a comparable basis (see shadowstats.com) - which has put the financial sphere on steroids, to the detriment of the productive sphere.
When President Andrew Jackson did not renew the twenty year lease of the second (central) Bank of The United States, claiming back the power to print money from private bankers, the conditions were set for the second industrial revolution.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Industrial_Revolution -
I suppose it depends on your definition of socialism. Possible definitions include:
A completely planned and organized society and economy (differing little from the gov't of various King's and tyrants through the ages--most often referenced to ancient Sparta or Pharoaic Egypt).
A society in which massive intervention dictates the moral/ethical values that by which commerce takes place, and what taxation is imposed (simular to theocracy. Virtually every mixed-economy features some form of this).
A society in which some part of the general funds raised by the government is used to ensure that the part of the population that can not subsist independently, is provided the means of survival (this is often lumped in as part of the broader definition of the term "welfare state")
The true welfare state, in which the chief means of wealth is production or exploitation of a natural recource that is held by the state, and some of its proceeds are dispursed to the people (such as most Opec nations)
There is of course as many similarities as differences between capitalism and some forms of socialism. For instance modern capitalism features the joint-stock ownership of the means of production, and INCREASINGLY the ownership of all "private" property. Such would only seem likely to increase and become more evenly distrubuted under either the Republicans' "Social Security reform" or Rahm Emanuel's "Universal 401K"... better practice your marching
-
The blog indicated in the prompt defines socialism in the most rational way. The OPEC governments generally totalitarian (regardless of their goals), not socialist.
-
I think that you are moving in the right direction with your blog. You might be interested in two of my "older" blog posts on simular topics: "Collective Capitalism" and "The True Laissez Faire"
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
