NationStates Jolt Archive


Pure capitalism Vs. Pure Socialism.

Conserative Morality
29-12-2007, 04:26
I'm not sure what the correct term for "Pure Capitalism" and "Pure socialism"are but those are the terms I'm using. Pure Socialism assumes that all humans are inherrently good and will not try to cheat their fellow man unless forced or brought up that way.
Pure Capitalism on the other hand, assumes everyone has a backbone and will stand up to companys who are selling defective products and screwing their customers(As far as I understand, correct me if I'm wrong).
Thoughts?
Call to power
29-12-2007, 04:34
so what part of communism (which I believe your referring to) being a Utopian paradise don't you understand? :p

kind of hard to compete with that isn't it?
HuTianDi
29-12-2007, 04:42
Both systems are inherently flawed....
1. socialism will work when people are inherently good and wont cheat others but so will every other economic model. It is the fact that people are greedy and dont want to work more than they have to that this doesn't work.
Captialism is a truly messed up system. The only reason it works is because people are greedy. They want things and thus people can make the most useless things (say this compuer Im using or an Xbox) and make money of them because people WANT them. In socialism... well look at russia it took months just to get a car. If it was a perfect society and people dont want things we might as well all be buddist (to offence to any who might be) socialism would work people would share and the law of supply and demand wouldn't work because we all do share (now see if we all shared there would be no lack of water or starvation... more than enough of this planet to support the entire population several times over its just the distribution of the supplies and the interests of the profits of the multinational corporations... they could ship food and water if they wanted to)
Anyone can logically conclude that socialism looks better on paper but if one takes in the true, ugly nature of man.... well capitalism works and the rich get richer and the poor might get poorer.... but I guess thats why philanthropists give out money left and right..... doesn't solve the issue of the poor though)
HuTianDi
29-12-2007, 04:44
Both systems are inherently flawed....
1. socialism will work when people are inherently good and wont cheat others but so will every other economic model. It is the fact that people are greedy and dont want to work more than they have to that this doesn't work.
Captialism is a truly messed up system. The only reason it works is because people are greedy. They want things and thus people can make the most useless things (say this compuer Im using or an Xbox) and make money of them because people WANT them. In socialism... well look at russia it took months just to get a car. If it was a perfect society and people dont want things we might as well all be buddist (to offence to any who might be) socialism would work people would share and the law of supply and demand wouldn't work because we all do share (now see if we all shared there would be no lack of water or starvation... more than enough of this planet to support the entire population several times over its just the distribution of the supplies and the interests of the profits of the multinational corporations... they could ship food and water if they wanted to)
Anyone can logically conclude that socialism looks better on paper but if one takes in the true, ugly nature of man.... well capitalism works and the rich get richer and the poor might get poorer.... but I guess thats why philanthropists give out money left and right..... doesn't solve the issue of the poor though)

((you posted this thread four times....))
Ruskie-land
29-12-2007, 04:44
In my opinion, the best possible government would a a communistic dictatorship. With a benevolent dictator, of course.
Call to power
29-12-2007, 04:49
In my opinion, the best possible government would a a communistic dictatorship. With a benevolent dictator, of course.

and why do you need a government for that:confused:
Ruskie-land
29-12-2007, 04:51
and why do you need a government for that:confused:
uh... what?:confused:
Dyakovo
29-12-2007, 04:52
and why do you need a government for that:confused:

because without a government it can't be a dictatorship?
Ruskie-land
29-12-2007, 04:52
I...uh....huh.....

Do you mean that Dictatorship is not a type of gov't? As far as I know it is
Lunatic Goofballs
29-12-2007, 04:54
While various extremists exist on both sides pushing and pulling for their own separate Utopian vision, I am in the middle dreaming of a time when the conflict can end and the Happy Medium can be embraced by all. We have free tacos here. :)
Ruskie-land
29-12-2007, 04:58
No!!! Come to communism!!! We have cookies!! And beer!!! Beer-cookie hybrids!!!
Lunatic Goofballs
29-12-2007, 04:59
*signs up for the tacos*
They're not from Taco Bell are they?

Not unless absolutely necessary.
:)
Dyakovo
29-12-2007, 05:00
While various extremists exist on both sides pushing and pulling for their own separate Utopian vision, I am in the middle dreaming of a time when the conflict can end and the Happy Medium can be embraced by all. We have free tacos here. :)

*signs up for the tacos*
They're not from Taco Bell are they?
Pirated Corsairs
29-12-2007, 05:02
I favor a government in which each thread is posted only once. :p
Call to power
29-12-2007, 05:10
uh... what?:confused:

as in why would communism need a government, what would Karl Marx do?

While various extremists exist on both sides pushing and pulling for their own separate Utopian vision, I am in the middle dreaming of a time when the conflict can end and the Happy Medium can be embraced by all. We have free tacos here. :)

are we going to use the hax?
Lunatic Goofballs
29-12-2007, 05:11
are we going to use the hax?

These things are better off a surprise. :)
Dyakovo
29-12-2007, 05:12
I favor a government in which each thread is posted only once. :p

lol
Zayun2
29-12-2007, 05:15
I prefer pure not capitalism. Just haven't figured out what the alternative is.
Soheran
29-12-2007, 06:23
Pure Socialism assumes that all humans are inherrently good and will not try to cheat their fellow man unless forced or brought up that way.

No. Pure socialism recognizes that some human beings are cheaters... it just doesn't encourage them.
Eureka Australis
29-12-2007, 07:07
I'm not sure what the correct term for "Pure Capitalism" and "Pure socialism"are but those are the terms I'm using. Pure Socialism assumes that all humans are inherrently good and will not try to cheat their fellow man unless forced or brought up that way.
Pure Capitalism on the other hand, assumes everyone has a backbone and will stand up to companys who are selling defective products and screwing their customers(As far as I understand, correct me if I'm wrong).
Thoughts?

This thread is a false dichotomy and proves you're lack of knowledge of what socialism is.

Socialism is not perfect, by it's very definition (in Marxist theory) it is an imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Socialism is the process of transition to communism, a classless society which has no contradictions. Material dialectics by it's nature splits people into the propertied classes and property-less class, this is based upon an analysis of a material reality. Socialism is class struggle, class struggle weeds out contradictions and reactionary tendencies in society through a process of 'Criticism and Self Criticism'. Class struggle and a practical, pragmatic attempt to build socialism, that is too expel reactionary contradictions from society, is the only way to create communism. The basic idea behind this is simple, how can you make a perfect society with an imperfect people.

Marxism is therefore against the Hegelian 'idealism' which tries to make a utopia overnight, and which ensures the 'ideal', a near spiritual anti-materialist (anti-Marxist) concept, is never achieved - either through ignorance of it's leaders and failure ending in reaction, or in a sinister and cynical manipulation by the bourgeois - which in itself placates the population with great ideals and religion, to keep themselves in power. Either way, the result is stagnation and does not only fail to build socialism, but destroys the worker movement. Internationalism becomes ultranationalist imperialism, in essence progressivism becomes reactionism. Without socialism there is no transition to communism - true utopia, and that can only be achieved once reactionary tendencies are weeded out of society through class struggle.

Any group that tries to 'reform' capitalism through welfare 'New Deal' type policies is in effect a desperate attempt by the bourgeois to regain power. Any so called 'socialist' group capitulates to the bourgeois and therefore rejects class struggle is not socialist.
Conserative Morality
29-12-2007, 07:21
Any group that tries to 'reform' capitalism through welfare 'New Deal' type policies is in effect a desperate attempt by the bourgeois to regain power. Any so called 'socialist' group capitulates to the bourgeois and therefore rejects class struggle is not socialist.
Eureka, sometimes you scare me.
Eureka Australis
29-12-2007, 07:32
Way to not reply to your own misconceptions of what socialism really is CM.

My point is pretty clear, by Marxist definition socialism is class struggle, the current governments exist as the 'dictatorship of the bourgeois', and it's institutions exist to protect that class. Socialism is by nature the revolutionary 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which is simply when the working class overthrows the bourgeois dictatorship and replaces it with their own.

My point is that socialism is by definition imperfect, which means until communism is achieved imperfect structures like the state/nation and party must be used to build socialism, although as socialism develops more such reactionary institutions would be lessened in relevance.

You said that socialism assumes everyone is innately altruistic, but in reality socialism assumes everyone is innately imperfect, and therefore sets out a process by which the 'Criticism and Self Criticism' of society identifies reactionary tendencies are expels them from society, and moves towards creating the said 'perfect society' through a practical building process.

I don't know why you are dismayed by my position, as it's pretty much Marxist theory exactly, albeit I put more of an emphasis of anti-revisionism. I am getting damn sick of having to define socialism everytime some nub comes on NSG without knowing squat.
Capilatonia
29-12-2007, 09:07
Pure lassiez-faire capitalism is very, very flawed. With no government regulations, things go haywire; there are more body parts in your chicken soup then there is chicken. So, a big no to capitalism, but I could possibly see socialism working.
The Loyal Opposition
29-12-2007, 10:44
Pure Socialism assumes that all humans are inherrently good and will not try to cheat their fellow man unless forced or brought up that way.


This "socialism" sounds like utopian nonsense to me.


Pure Capitalism on the other hand, assumes everyone has a backbone and will stand up to companys who are selling defective products and screwing their customers

So does this "capitalism."
The Loyal Opposition
29-12-2007, 10:49
I am in the middle dreaming of a time when the conflict can end and the Happy Medium can be embraced by all. We have free tacos here. :)

**demands organic and fair trade certified ingredients grown by self-managed farm workers earning a living wage**
AnarchyeL
29-12-2007, 14:28
I'm not sure what the correct term for "Pure Capitalism" and "Pure socialism"are but those are the terms I'm using.Well, "pure" capitalism seems to be captured rather neatly in the idea passing itself around as "libertarianism" these days. I'm not so sure, on the other hand, that there is any simple way to describe "pure" socialism, since I'm not convinced that socialism represents any singular structural or cultural idea. I suppose the closest I would accept to a "general" definition of socialism is Oskar Lange's, to the effect that socialism is the idea that the economy should be made to serve the public interest--but his whole point is that this means any political-economic system may be considered socialist under particular socio-historical conditions in which it happens (for whatever reason) to serve the public interest (however defined). Socialism is all about figuring out what works now, not necessarily what will work for all time.

Pure Socialism assumes that all humans are inherently good and will not try to cheat their fellow man unless forced or brought up that way.No it doesn't. Try again.

Pure Capitalism on the other hand, assumes everyone has a backbone and will stand up to companies who are selling defective products and screwing their customers.Again, no. Capitalism assumes that people doing business with a company selling defective products or screwing its customers will... well, go do business with someone else.

This isn't about "backbone" or "standing up" to anyone. Those concepts are a bit too "political" for libertarian thought. Libertarians are not going to protest a company, they are not going to write letters, they are not going to demand change. They are just going to shop elsewhere and hope the best company wins.

Of course, they assume this will work out for the best because they assume (for no empirically grounded economic reason) that there will always be a new firm waiting to step in to pick up the slack.

If you're interested in why this doesn't work, check out a classic text in political economy: Albert O. Hirschman's Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. (I see that there is a Wiki article under "Exit, Voice, and Loyalty," which may be of some help to you.)
Icelove The Carnal
29-12-2007, 15:07
Pure capitalism I think to be too cruel. Pure socialism persecutes and annihilates religion. I don't like them.
Vittos the City Sacker
29-12-2007, 18:58
If you're interested in why this doesn't work, check out a classic text in political economy: Albert O. Hirschman's Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. (I see that there is a Wiki article under "Exit, Voice, and Loyalty," which may be of some help to you.)

Does Hirschman address the core difference between exit and voice, namely that while one can only exit once and that this always comes from within the organization, one can voice from within, exit, and then continue to voice your dissatisfaction? While certainly organizational acceptance of voice will lead to a lessening of exits, there is nothing about exiting that causes one to lose his or her voice or causes a business to stop hearing the voice.

In relation to the scenario, it is absolute nonsense that the school could not somehow measure just where it doesn't add up, as market information can be brought in from external and internal sources. Even if we were voiceless, completely unable to articulate opinion through communication, we would still be able to display our opinions and values through our actions. The school need only know where the exiting consumers went and then imitate the service of that provider.

Maybe that is the problem, treating exit and voice as two distinct actions.
Lunatic Goofballs
29-12-2007, 19:04
**demands organic and fair trade certified ingredients grown by self-managed farm workers earning a living wage**

...um....

They're crunchy. :)
Hachihyaku
29-12-2007, 19:10
Neither, but I'd prefer capitalism over communism. Can't stand communism...
Hachihyaku
29-12-2007, 19:16
No!!! Come to communism!!! We have cookies!! And beer!!! Beer-cookie hybrids!!!

Gah communist cookies!
AnarchyeL
29-12-2007, 19:58
Does Hirschman address the core difference between exit and voice, namely that while one can only exit once and that this always comes from within the organization, one can voice from within, exit, and then continue to voice your dissatisfaction?Yes, he addresses this. While certainly organizational acceptance of voice will lead to a lessening of exits, there is nothing about exiting that causes one to lose his or her voice or causes a business to stop hearing the voice.That's right. The problem is that according to strict economic rationality (the rationality of the libertarian or "pure" capitalist), no one outside the organization should ever voice--and the reasons for voice from within are extremely limited.

Suppose that it would be in my self-interest for an organization to improve, but improvement will only result from organized voice: boycott, protest, etc. If I voice and others do not, no one benefits and I pay the costs. If I voice and others do as well, we may all benefit... and I share the costs. If I do not voice and others do, then I reap the benefits without paying the costs. Clearly whether or not others voice I maximize my own self-interest by refusing to voice myself.

Classic collective action problem. Prisoner's dilemma. Etc. Libertarian philosophy has no adequate answer to it, because every answer is inherently political. And libertarianism (at least "pure" libertarianism) makes a lot of noise about rejecting any kind of actual politics that imposes duties or attempts to define something called a "public good."
Eureka Australis
30-12-2007, 01:47
Conserative Morality, it seems you have fled after having your definition of socialism destroys.
Texan Hotrodders
30-12-2007, 02:16
I'm not sure what the correct term for "Pure Capitalism" and "Pure socialism"are but those are the terms I'm using. Pure Socialism assumes that all humans are inherrently good and will not try to cheat their fellow man unless forced or brought up that way.
Pure Capitalism on the other hand, assumes everyone has a backbone and will stand up to companys who are selling defective products and screwing their customers(As far as I understand, correct me if I'm wrong).
Thoughts?

I think you need to do more studying on capitalism and socialism, because neither of those characterizations strikes me as being even a remote approximation of the expectations held by those economic ideologies.