Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sibelian

(7,804 posts)
Thu Mar 6, 2014, 07:34 PM Mar 2014

Capitalism and Socialism have differing aims and cannot really criticise each other...


And the criticisms aimed at each from the other side about how one or other of them "doesn't work" almost always take the form of an attribution of failure to meet a goal that was never part of their avowed purpose in the first place.

"Capitalism doesn't look after the poor". No, it indeed it doesn't, and unsurprisingly so, because that's the stated goal of SOCIALISM. Fans of capitalism will never care that capitalism doesn't look after the poor because as far as they're concerned they don't owe the poor jack shit as it is self-evidently morally wrong to force human beings to be their brother's keepers because it's morally wrong to force people to do things they don't wanna dooooo, no fair, Daddy!.

"Socialism doesn't generate wealth". No shit. That's the stated goal of CAPITALISM. Fans of socialism will never care that socialism doesn't generate as much wealth as capitalism because as far as they're concerned they don't owe the "super-talented with a chance to achieve their LIFE GOOOOOAALS, man" jack shit because they don't regard human reality as a fleshspace video game where your worth is measured in yachts and it is self evidently morally wrong to let people die of starvation in the streets.

Quibbling over the extent to which each system fails to meet the other goals is incidental point scoring. We live in a world where the principles behind the goals of these models are, to some extent, and in most significant arenas of human political experience, mutually exclusive.

You choose a side.

Extreme as the following metaphorically couched dichotomy may seem, the questions stands and requires an answer if you're going to have a consistent and meaningful political philosophy:

What do you want? Lots of yachts and corpses? Or not very many yachts and fewer corpses?
34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Capitalism and Socialism have differing aims and cannot really criticise each other... (Original Post) sibelian Mar 2014 OP
Worst than that... nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #1
It's infuriating!!!! sibelian Mar 2014 #7
Alas you just described nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #11
In America, Capitalism is not an economic system. Maedhros Mar 2014 #26
It's the oversimplification of complex economic systems. NuclearDem Mar 2014 #22
It is nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #24
Exactly so. sibelian Mar 2014 #27
My choice is in my handle.... socialist_n_TN Mar 2014 #2
Capitalist theory makes a clear claim that it can bring success to rich and poor alike. Gravitycollapse Mar 2014 #3
My only problem is with people that don't know the difference between socialism and communism. Rex Mar 2014 #4
I live in Scotland. We are TOTES socialist. sibelian Mar 2014 #12
Well, yes, but in a kilt with bagpipes. NuclearDem Mar 2014 #20
I need milk for my bagpipes. sibelian Mar 2014 #21
I disagree strongly. They have the same goals. cthulu2016 Mar 2014 #5
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone say about any political system sibelian Mar 2014 #8
Ok, my head officially hurts nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #10
Capitalism does not generate wealth, PowerToThePeople Mar 2014 #6
... and largely it works. sibelian Mar 2014 #9
This is the only way exponential wealth is possible. joshcryer Mar 2014 #14
Socialism generates log(n) wealth. Capitalism generates exp(n) wealth. joshcryer Mar 2014 #13
Name a single country that doesn't have some mix of Socialism and Capitalism. Bandit Mar 2014 #15
It's really not clear at all which is better at creating overall "wealth." reformist2 Mar 2014 #16
First man in space. sibelian Mar 2014 #17
Exactly. I wonder where would we be now if we didn't have the USSR to light a fire under our butts! reformist2 Mar 2014 #18
Probably also a lot less nukes... sibelian Mar 2014 #19
You have not watched the Alien Files, have you? nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #25
Thank you for posting n/t PasadenaTrudy Mar 2014 #23
I may have this all wrong.. stillcool Mar 2014 #28
Yes. Ultimately the flaws in capitalism are the same as the flaws in socialism. sibelian Mar 2014 #29
Sure they can. LWolf Mar 2014 #30
.... hnk! sibelian Mar 2014 #33
. LWolf Mar 2014 #34
Great OP, I'm surprised it didn't get more votes. Starry Messenger Mar 2014 #31
Well, thank you. sibelian Mar 2014 #32
 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
1. Worst than that...
Thu Mar 6, 2014, 07:36 PM
Mar 2014

when people start discussing these 'isms, rarely do they even know what each system truly stands for.

I blame our educational system and still the effort to red bait.

sibelian

(7,804 posts)
7. It's infuriating!!!!
Thu Mar 6, 2014, 07:50 PM
Mar 2014

It doesn't seem to matter how many times I explain to people what these terms all actually mean and in a lot of these discussions they start saying stupid shit like "Well it can be DEFIIIINED that way" or "That's YOUR opinion" or things of that sort.

I just want to grab their heads and poke their noses in a book, sometimes...

I used to try to convince myself that as long as the concepts that these terms represent are firmly understood, even if they have a different label, then it might be OK, but then I realised that the blurring around these terms is necessary for toxic capitalism to flourish, correctly termed political processes that clearly work in other countries have to be placed beyond the reach of the American punter so that they have to do extra work to understand their own left wing ideology.

It's really fucked.
 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
26. In America, Capitalism is not an economic system.
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 02:31 PM
Mar 2014

It is a religion, and some people will never let go of their belief in the true virtue of Capitalism.

As the saying goes, you can't reason people out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
22. It's the oversimplification of complex economic systems.
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 11:05 AM
Mar 2014

Confusing all money with capital (it isn't), describing systems which are clearly state capitalism as socialist, etc.

Socialism is more complex than "state owned means of production."

sibelian

(7,804 posts)
27. Exactly so.
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 02:46 PM
Mar 2014

Unfortunately what a lot of people online are talking about, even on this board, is "SOOOOSSHALLIZZZUM hwiiiick PTH" about which I know nothing. It's a fascinating subject but dull for me as I live in a country that makes use of the far more prosaic philosophy of socialism that doesn't rely on talking your babies away at the age of 3.5 and brainwashing all sense of identity out of them and turning them into little state-guided production units bleating out the Internationale at milk breaks.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
3. Capitalist theory makes a clear claim that it can bring success to rich and poor alike.
Thu Mar 6, 2014, 07:40 PM
Mar 2014

That is the basic premise of the system. To create a program where the self-interest of individuals creates a net positive economic effect for the population.

Not only is that the long-stated theory, it is still a very popular belief.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
4. My only problem is with people that don't know the difference between socialism and communism.
Thu Mar 6, 2014, 07:43 PM
Mar 2014

And believe they are one and the same.

sibelian

(7,804 posts)
12. I live in Scotland. We are TOTES socialist.
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 08:25 AM
Mar 2014

Presumably everyone now imagines me lining up outside the Government Milk Depot for milk.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
5. I disagree strongly. They have the same goals.
Thu Mar 6, 2014, 07:47 PM
Mar 2014

You are confusing a politicized take on talking points with the real goals of the systems which is, in both cases, the greatest net benefit of all in society.

And the modern "mixed economy" also has that same goal, and is the system employed by most nations today because neither capitalism or socialism has shown itself to be optimum in achieving that shared goal.

sibelian

(7,804 posts)
8. That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone say about any political system
Thu Mar 6, 2014, 08:05 PM
Mar 2014

ANY belief structure purporting to be of value to human beings, Xtianity, Buddhism, anarchy, whatever, claims to be the one to confer the "greatest net benefits". The MO of socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive, clearly, as it is the NATURE of said benefit that is under discussion in their dispute.

Xtianity wants "greatest benefit" to be "most likely to meet the sky fairy"
Buddhism wants "greatest benefit" to be "people not being perturbed by shit generated by their own natures"
Anarchy wants "greatest benefit" to be "nobody telling me what to do"

Et fucking cetera

Your observation is akin to suggesting there's no unresolvable conflict between creationism and evolution because deep down they're both just trying to explaaaaaain stuff, man...

C'mon.
 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
6. Capitalism does not generate wealth,
Thu Mar 6, 2014, 07:48 PM
Mar 2014

what it does is allow hording and storing of wealth generated from the labor of others by Capitalists.

What socialism does is transfer that generated wealth back into the hands of the laborers who created the wealth. Capitalists do not exist in this system. (Edit - I guess in a Socialist system, the "Capitalist" would be the Labor pool collective)

sibelian

(7,804 posts)
9. ... and largely it works.
Thu Mar 6, 2014, 08:12 PM
Mar 2014

... where it's been implemented.

I live in Scotland. We were heavily shielded against the recession by our large public sector.

Norway was barely affected.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
14. This is the only way exponential wealth is possible.
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 08:38 AM
Mar 2014

But you're not wrong, I'm just saying. It's the reason we have oligarchs, plutocrats, and elites in this world.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
13. Socialism generates log(n) wealth. Capitalism generates exp(n) wealth.
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 08:37 AM
Mar 2014

To say that "socialism doesn't generate wealth" is absolutely idiotic.

The question is whether you are for grow or die or for equality for all. Really. That's the end result.

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
16. It's really not clear at all which is better at creating overall "wealth."
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 10:13 AM
Mar 2014

The US is the most obvious example of what capitalism can do. But people forget, the USSR under extreme socialism took a completely backward nation and turned it into the #2 global superpower.

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
18. Exactly. I wonder where would we be now if we didn't have the USSR to light a fire under our butts!
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 10:24 AM
Mar 2014

No space program? A lot less money funneled into scientific R&D? Would there even be transistors, semiconductors, computers with GUIs, etc? One could argue the two economic systems were co-dependent.

stillcool

(32,626 posts)
28. I may have this all wrong..
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 03:04 PM
Mar 2014

But I thought that capitalism at it's core was a good model. If we all started out at the same level, rather than some born into all, and some born into nothing. If competition and superior products dictated value. If monopolies or 'too big to fails' were not allowed to force out all competition, and leave the few to dictate terms according to their whims with threats of destruction If laws were not written with loop holes forcing most to follow a law, but allowing others to break it. Someone once said "show me a fortune, and I'll show you a crime.' If the rules were the same, society would benefit from business, and business would benefit from society. I guess I think any system of government has merit, until human beings get involved

sibelian

(7,804 posts)
29. Yes. Ultimately the flaws in capitalism are the same as the flaws in socialism.
Fri Mar 7, 2014, 04:31 PM
Mar 2014

They both involve PEOPLE.

So, there. There's a pithy bit of wisdom for you, huh?

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
30. Sure they can.
Sat Mar 8, 2014, 10:50 AM
Mar 2014

While I don't think of myself as a "pure" socialist, here's my criticism of capitalism: its goals are wrong.

I can do that quite easily.

sibelian

(7,804 posts)
33. .... hnk!
Sat Mar 8, 2014, 06:39 PM
Mar 2014

Well, that was more or less my point.



But you seem to have made it rather better than I did...
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Capitalism and Socialism ...