Capitalism vs. Socialism

[WinePusher]

This thread is inspired by something Haven wrote in another thread:

I used to be a pretty staunch Marxist socialist, but I've been sort of drifting away from that viewpoint. My views on economics and politics are still evolving. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 3&start=20

I myself have recently become somewhat more sympathetic towards Marxist ideas. Marx predicted and wanted the end of Capitalism, and he wanted a Socialist society.

1) What is wrong with Capitalism?
2) What is wrong with Socialism?
3) Which system is better? Why?

[WinePusher]

Your repeated insistence of using labels is growing tiresome. Yes, you have made claims that Rothbard is an "extremist" but have not explained in detail why you think that is the case. And appealing to the majority to dismiss an idea is a fallacy.

I've already explained my objections thoroughly, it's not my fault that you missed it. Nobody takes Rothbard's ideas seriously because his views on money an banking are extreme and impractical.

It's one thing to suggest that recessions are caused by central banks increasing the money supply and distorting interest rate signals. This is the basis for the Austrian Business Cycle Theory and I fully agree with it. However, it's another thing to suggest abolishing the fractional reserve banking system, which is what Rothbard wanted. This is extreme, impractical and absurd. It's also absurd to suggest that we have competing , multiple currencies and I've already explained why. So, these are two of Rothbard's ideas concerning Macroeconomics that are absurd and extreme.

But, when it comes to Microeconomics Rothbard is also embarrasingly wrong. His theories regarding monopoly was that a monopoly can only arise if it is sponsored and protected by the government. Rothbrad also rejects the idea of a natural monopoly, which is that monpolies can spontaenously rise out of a free market without government intervention. Rothbard also goes on to assume that the free market operates in a state of perfect competition if the government isn't interfering. These ideas are wrong, plain and simple. Monpolies and Oligopolies can and have spontaeneously risen out of free markets and the economy almost never is operating in a state of perfect competition. In fact, most economists agree (except for Rothbard) that perfectly competitive markets are not desirable.

Rothbard was an extremist, plain and simple. If Rothbard and the other Austrian Economists are where you're getting your education from I suggest you stop and go read other economic theorists from the Neoclassical, Marxian, Institutionalist, Keynesian schools of thought.

No one took Austrian economists' warnings seriously before the Great Depression occurred, and no one took Ron Paul's prediction of the Housing crisis seriously until after it happened. The world didn't take Galileo seriously when he was alive, but that really has no bearing at all on whether or not the person is correct.

This is not what I'm objecting to. I agree that the Austrian analysis of the Great Depression and the Housing Bubble is correct. What I disagree with is your extreme view of corporations and money and the banking system. You also continually state that taxation is theft. Well, how are we to fund the government without taxes?

The difference between you and I is that I have taken free market economics to its logical conclusion without holding back for an irrational admiration of the state.

You don't even have a coherent understanding of Free Market Economics or Austrian Economics. You have a warped and distorted understanding because you haven't actually read any of the real literature, you've merely listened to a couple of people on youtube who probably themselves lack a formal education in the subject.

I mean you're literally pursuing Marxist ideas; so your claims of being "true" libertarian and that I'm an "extremist" don't mean much at all to me, comrade.

Again, you only say this because you haven't actually read Marx. You have gotten your ideas about Marx from libertarian and conservative blogs. Marx was himself skeptical of the state and wanted a classless society, which meant there would be no state. So while I do disagree with Marx's conclusions I am sympathetic with alot of his other ideas.

[DogsOnAcid]

The first question you have to ask, is who exactly are you trying to benefit with a given system?

Capitalism is a system that works on the private accumulation of capital from the labour of workers and the private ownership of the means of production (factories, land, machinery, any apparatus that enables the capitalist to exploit the worker).

Socialism on the other hand, is the system that will replace capitalism and liberate the working class. For Socialism to be built, a violent revolution has to take place, because the workers have to take control of the MoP (Means of Production), and the Capitalist class, as history has shown, will not surrender their wealth without a fight.

The reason why Socialism requires the development of Capitalism, is because it needs Capitalist development of the MoP for society to reach a technological level wherein all basic needs can be met. The Soviet Union, for example, was an underdeveloped country, that was just breaking ties with Feudalism. This made the development of Socialism a very difficult task, because the Revolution didn't spread to developed economies like Germany.

Marxist Socialism is Scientific, in that it analyses history and society from a Scientific and Materialist point of view.

[100%atheist]

The first question you have to ask, is who exactly are you trying to benefit with a given system?

Capitalism is a system that works on the private accumulation of capital from the labour of workers and the private ownership of the means of production (factories, land, machinery, any apparatus that enables the capitalist to exploit the worker).

Socialism on the other hand, is the system that will replace capitalism and liberate the working class. For Socialism to be built, a violent revolution has to take place, because the workers have to take control of the MoP (Means of Production), and the Capitalist class, as history has shown, will not surrender their wealth without a fight.

The reason why Socialism requires the development of Capitalism, is because it needs Capitalist development of the MoP for society to reach a technological level wherein all basic needs can be met. The Soviet Union, for example, was an underdeveloped country, that was just breaking ties with Feudalism. This made the development of Socialism a very difficult task, because the Revolution didn't spread to developed economies like Germany.

Marxist Socialism is Scientific, in that it analyses history and society from a Scientific and Materialist point of view.

Well, for socialism to replace capitalism, there must be capitalism in the first place. There is not much more to summarize your post.

However, I should correct you that a "violent revolution" is not necessarily the only way for capitalism to develop into socialism. A more widely accepted way is the development of socialism in most modern countries like almost all EU countries, the US, etc. Well, there were some violent struggles, but no "violent revolutions" really. Please notice that the US is NOT a capitalist country in a sense that you and even Marx used to describe capitalism. It is a half-way socialistic country engineered by early 20st century capitalists in order to smooth class tensions and struggles predicted by Marx.

[DogsOnAcid]

Well, for socialism to replace capitalism, there must be capitalism in the first place. There is not much more to summarize your post.

However, I should correct you that a "violent revolution" is not necessarily the only way for capitalism to develop into socialism.

History begs to differ.

A more widely accepted way is the development of socialism in most modern countries like almost all EU countries, the US, etc. Well, there were some violent struggles, but no "violent revolutions" really. Please notice that the US is NOT a capitalist country in a sense that you and even Marx used to describe capitalism. It is a half-way socialistic country engineered by early 20st century capitalists in order to smooth class tensions and struggles predicted by Marx.

Widely accepted by whom? People who don't understand what Socialism is? What you are calling Socialism is actually called Social-Democracy. It's not Socialism, it's Capitalism with Welfare.

You can't have "half-way" Socialism. Either society is classless, or it's not. Either it works on the accumulation of capital, or it doesn't. Either the economy is driven towards use, or it isn't.

[Furrowed Brow]

So I guess the question is whether capitalism with a conscience (i.e. welfare etc.) is better than socialism proper.

Is there a better way to formulate capitalism? What if all businesses were workers trusts? Is this socialism or is it a fairer way to organise capital. I'm not sure.

[DogsOnAcid]

So I guess the question is whether capitalism with a conscience (i.e. welfare etc.) is better than socialism proper.

Better for whom?

Is there a better way to formulate capitalism? What if all businesses were workers trusts? Is this socialism or is it a fairer way to organise capital. I'm not sure.

If production is geared toward use and not profit, and workers control the means of production, then it's socialism. But market socialism is kind of contradictory, because markets are geared towards profit, not use.

But why would socialists ever want market-socialism anyway?

[Furrowed Brow]

But why would socialists ever want market-socialism anyway?

I'm not actually sure yet that I am a fall blown socialist. So I guess that does not make me a socialist. For all the reasons I have given in the other thread that is presently running I clearly feel capitalism is deeply flawed as a system and needs to fall over and die. And the little bit of Marxist thought I do know is useful and accurate for describing what is wrong with capitalism. However I have a libertarian streak, and the spectre of police states hangs over me. So I do not want to pass power from a capitalist elite to a politburo.

I like the idea of cooperatives but guess I have yet to resolve the distinction of use and profit you mention.

In an ideal world we would have achieved a level of technology under which each individual has full control of their own energy needs, their food, their shelter and their wants and needs. Under such conditions no one has power over anyone else, and there is no need to seek such power because all individual needs are met. At which time folk will be empowered to associate with those they wish to associate and tell those they don't wish to be with to shuv off, and no one is in a position to lord it over others.

True we do not live in an ideal world, but the same principle that motivate that picture of an ideal world motivate how I would like to world to move today. A system that allows freedom of movement, along with freedom of critical thought and expression, and one in which every individual is equally empowered and not left vulnerable to other peoples whims. Maybe I am describing socialism and don't know it, maybe I am describing something else. Maybe I just don't like authoritative structures and I am more a vandal than a socialist. I need to think about this more.

[100%atheist]

A more widely accepted way is the development of socialism in most modern countries like almost all EU countries, the US, etc. Well, there were some violent struggles, but no "violent revolutions" really. Please notice that the US is NOT a capitalist country in a sense that you and even Marx used to describe capitalism. It is a half-way socialistic country engineered by early 20st century capitalists in order to smooth class tensions and struggles predicted by Marx.

Widely accepted by whom? People who don't understand what Socialism is? What you are calling Socialism is actually called Social-Democracy. It's not Socialism, it's Capitalism with Welfare.

You can't have "half-way" Socialism. Either society is classless, or it's not. Either it works on the accumulation of capital, or it doesn't. Either the economy is driven towards use, or it isn't.

You have a pretty black and white Karl Marx era view of socialism and capitalism. My point is that capitalists of the past have learned from Marx' theory that if they don't re-build a classic capitalist system with classic work classes, they will have massive loses as Marx predicted. The system that is most widely accepted (well, perhaps "peacefully adopted" is a better word) in the US and most of EU is a middle ground between pure capitalism and pure socialism (the system you call social democracy). If you look at some European countries like Sweden, you will see that they are leaning to Socialism more and if you look at the US you will see that she leans to capitalism more.

[Furrowed Brow]

[Replying to post 68 by 100%atheist]
I'd say any economic system in which 51% of its business operations are non profit making cooperatives is leaning towards socialism. Capitalism with welfare whilst motivated by a sense of social justice is also a system that protects capitalism by mitigating against its worsts aspects and stopping folk getting uppity. Ultimately socialism is a system of thought that is anti capitalism. Capitalism with welfare is not anti capitalism. It is actually a means that helps the employer pay their worker less and keep more of the profits for themselves, and if the employer can get the tax burden shifted back on to the working class welfare actually manages to amplify inequality. If the system then leaves everyone thinking of welfare as a benefit given to the individual rather than a payment that gets the capitalist off the hook then capitalist ideology that keeps everyone under a false consciousness is complete.

[DogsOnAcid]

You have a pretty black and white Karl Marx era view of socialism and capitalism. My point is that capitalists of the past have learned from Marx' theory that if they don't re-build a classic capitalist system with classic work classes, they will have massive loses as Marx predicted. The system that is most widely accepted (well, perhaps "peacefully adopted" is a better word) in the US and most of EU is a middle ground between pure capitalism and pure socialism (the system you call social democracy). If you look at some European countries like Sweden, you will see that they are leaning to Socialism more and if you look at the US you will see that she leans to capitalism more.

I have a Scientific view of History. Science is usually black and white.

Let's simplify things. If you have a slave society, with slave welfare (the Government gives slaves a place to stay, food and welfare if they haven't been bought yet), does that make the slave society half-way Socialism? No, not at all, it's still slave society.