Which is better for society: Capitalism or Communism?

[Kaninchen]

its more readable in that way

That’s arguable but what isn’t arguable is that doing so is against the rules of the forum (Content rule No1: “Do not paste articles from web sites into a post. If you wish to reference an article on the web, link to its web address, instead.”)!

 

[Kaninchen]

Well, I’ve been a life-long anti-socialist but there are themes within it that are important for everybody.

Margaret Thatcher argued that ‘there is no such thing as society’:

“I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”

but, while I agreed with her at the time, I do far less now.

When the Swedish model worked well, it worked well because there was a socially shared ‘vision’ of progress and an end to poverty – one of its failures was that the Swedes were not very good at including newcomers into this shared vision, they shared the ‘goodies’ but didn’t include the newcomers socially. You could have a nice apartment, just not where Swedes lived.

Meanwhile, the Adam Smith ‘theory of the bees’, Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism is very good at delivering economic progress but it’s not good at delivering social cohesion. Instead it offers ‘visions’ of what individuals can attain materially, divorced from whether a fairly large segment of people have a cat in hell’s chance of actually attaining them. Higher growth rates at a price of high criminality and, relatively-speaking, huge prison populations. Higher growth rates at the price of very long working hours, higher growth rates at the price of higher anxiety levels, higher growth rates at the price of higher penalties for failure.

If one rejects ‘socialism’, one is still not escaping the question of whether anything transcends ‘market criteria’.

 

[neat62]

apromisemade;

We already have Socialism for the rich in this country anyway. Just look at all the bailout money that’s being dished out. Not to say I don’t think it’s necessary given the circumstances, but I just think if we had done something similar, on a smaller scale, over a longer period of time, for ALL people and not just the rich (in other words socialized the system), we wouldn’t be in this mess. We’ve also socialized a lot of the public institutions in the coutntry as well; primary education, transportation, farming, post offices, banks, etc. We’re not even a pure captalist system anyway.

And that is why we are in this mess: Socialism

 

[neat62]

Kaninchen;

When the Swedish model worked well, it worked well because there was a socially shared ‘vision’ of progress and an end to poverty –

It worked well(if you call it that) because their population can sustain socialism.

Sweden’s 9 million to the USA’s 300 million. Or, Russias 140 million, and look how well it worked for them. Socialism works great in small numbers.

There is a reason why China’s 1.3 billion are embracing forms of Capitalism. Eventually, they will relax their hardline rules.

 

[jfallaw]

I guess it depends on whether you are rich or poor. While Communism is bad for everyone, Democratic Socialism is good for the poor- but the rich hate it because they couldn’t remain excessively wealthy under Socialism.

 

[ninaq4]

I guess it depends on whether you are rich or poor. While Communism is bad for everyone, Democratic Socialism is good for the poor- but the rich hate it because they couldn’t remain excessively wealthy under Socialism.

LOLOLOL…Democratic Socialism just keeps EVERYONE poor!

Take MORE from the “rich” to “give” to the poor…instead of allowing the “rich” to EMPLOY the poor…democratic socialism discourages the individual and removes all self-dignity and self-worth, by asserting that the “poor” (us “little people”) are far too stupid and incapable of doing anything for ourselves…so the government MUST!

 

[Kaninchen]

It worked well(if you call it that) because their population can sustain socialism.

Sweden’s 9 million to the USA’s 300 million. Or, Russias 140 million, and look how well it worked for them. Socialism works great in small numbers.

You’re missing the central difference - Sweden was a democratic country throughout and remains a democratic country. Nobody imposed Social Democracy on Sweden, there remained private control of capital, there remained private control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. There was no ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’, there was no ‘Collectivization of Agriculture’, no ‘Soviets’ (‘Councils’) in control of the factories.

Now, I agree, to many Americans, anything that isn’t 100% ‘the American Way’ is ‘socialism’ - to a European, however, there is a difference between the Soviet Union and the Kingdom of Sweden that is more than a matter of size.

 

[ninaq4]

You’re missing the central difference - Sweden was a democratic country throughout and remains a democratic country. Nobody imposed Social Democracy on Sweden, there remained private control of capital, there remained private control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. There was no ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’, there was no ‘Collectivization of Agriculture’, no ‘Soviets’ (‘Councils’) in control of the factories.

Now, I agree, to many Americans, anything that isn’t 100% ‘the American Way’ is ‘socialism’ - to a European, however, there is a difference between the Soviet Union and the Kingdom of Sweden that is more than a matter of size./QUOTE

Actually, you are missing the central difference…the size difference, both in land mass and in population is what makes it easier to control. We can’t possibly have that sort of system here…not unless more than half the people of the nation work for the government…lets also not forget that the royalty of Sweden is WHO originally owned the money and wealth…not the people…however, here in the US it is the PEOPLE, NOT the government that owns the wealth.

Our government has NOTHING without US…the people to supply it!

Again…very BIG differences being overlooked and conveniently left out for the sake of argument.

 

[Kaninchen]

Actually, you are missing the central difference…the size difference, both in land mass and in population is what makes it easier to control. We can’t possibly have that sort of system here…not unless more than half the people of the nation work for the government…lets also not forget that the royalty of Sweden is WHO originally owned the money and wealth…not the people…however, here in the US it is the PEOPLE, NOT the government that owns the wealth.

Our government has NOTHING without US…the people to supply it!

Again…very BIG differences being overlooked and conveniently left out for the sake of argument.

I am the first to admit, as ever, that there’s an American Conservative view of European history and there’s a European view of European history, just as there are American Conservative definitions of ‘socialism’ and European definitions of ‘socialism’. The problem is that, in any conversation, there’s a strong element of ‘alternative universes’.

Not that it’s really a problem since it merely leads to neither side listening to the other and that’s not something that really matters since we, well, live in different universes.

 

[ninaq4]

I am the first to admit, as ever, that there’s an American Conservative view of European history and there’s a European view of European history, just as there are American Conservative definitions of ‘socialism’ and European definitions of ‘socialism’. The problem is that, in any conversation, there’s a strong element of ‘alternative universes’.

Not that it’s really a problem since it merely leads to neither side listening to the other and that’s not something that really matters since we, well, live in different universes.

And your point was?? Can you deny that the Swedish government owns the wealth in their nation?

Can you also deny that here in the US…the government does NOT own the wealth?

Its real easy to say that the government…or even a corporation, should provide for everyone…making demands for healtcare insurance, holiday pay, increases in living expenses, bonuses, etc…when you know that the corporation is actually profitting and increasing the corporate wealth because they have a product or service they are selling and the product or service is in high demand…in other words, people are choosing to buy it.

But its something else entirely for a corporation to provide those same “benefits” when the only income received comes from those who are making those demands and those, who in MILLIONS of cases, don’t contribute at all to the “entitlement fund” via taxes! The corporation can’t possibily be expected to give out what they don’t HAVE!

Unlike in those lovely little European nations you mention…where businesses and corporations are nationalized, earning the government more money!

 

[Kaninchen]

And your point was?? Can you deny that the Swedish government owns the wealth in their nation?

Can you also deny that here in the US…the government does NOT own the wealth?

Its real easy to say that the government…or even a corporation, should provide for everyone…making demands for healtcare insurance, holiday pay, increases in living expenses, bonuses, etc…when you know that the corporation is actually profitting and increasing the corporate wealth because they have a product or service they are selling and the product or service is in high demand…in other words, people are choosing to buy it.

But its something else entirely for a corporation to provide those same “benefits” when the only income received comes from those who are making those demands and those, who in MILLIONS of cases, don’t contribute at all to the “entitlement fund” via taxes! The corporation can’t possibily be expected to give out what they don’t HAVE!

Unlike in those lovely little European nations you mention…where businesses and corporations are nationalized, earning the government more money!

There’s very little that we can discuss, we speak different languages.

 

[neat62]

Kaninchen;

You’re missing the central difference - Sweden was a democratic country throughout and remains a democratic country. Nobody imposed Social Democracy on Sweden, there remained private control of capital, there remained private control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. There was no ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’, there was no ‘Collectivization of Agriculture’, no ‘Soviets’ (‘Councils’) in control of the factories.

I didn’t suggest anything about dictators. I said that the size of their populations dictate whether it can work or fail. I mentioned China because of their huge population, and that they are moving to a more Capitalistic system in order to pay for their people. Swedes 9 million compared to USSR’s 147 million or our own 300 million. Eventually, socialism cannot sustain itself. It collapses nder it’s own weight. Not to mention, socialism depends on Liberalism, which ultimately leads to the destruction of socialism. It’s a vicious circle. Look at old USSR. Today, they have to pay women to have kids.

Now, I agree, to many Americans, anything that isn’t 100% ‘the American Way’ is ‘socialism’ - to a European, however, there is a difference between the Soviet Union and the Kingdom of Sweden that is more than a matter of size.

You are commenting on a point that isn’t there.

 

[neat62]

I am the first to admit, as ever, that there’s an American Conservative view of European history and there’s a European view of European history, just as there are American Conservative definitions of ‘socialism’ and European definitions of ‘socialism’. The problem is that, in any conversation, there’s a strong element of ‘alternative universes’.

Not that it’s really a problem since it merely leads to neither side listening to the other and that’s not something that really matters since we, well, live in different universes.

Yeah and? We are showing why we are opposed to socialism. What is your main point in all this?

 

[Kaninchen]

I didn’t suggest anything about dictators. I said that the size of their populations dictate whether it can work or fail. I mentioned China because of their huge population, and that they are moving to a more Capitalistic system in order to pay for their people. Swedes 9 million compared to USSR’s 147 million or our own 300 million. Eventually, socialism cannot sustain itself. It collapses nder it’s own weight. Not to mention, socialism depends on Liberalism, which ultimately leads to the destruction of socialism. It’s a vicious circle. Look at old USSR. Today, they have to pay women to have kids.

And I was saying that your size comparison between Sweden with the Soviet Union is meaningless because the systems are entirely different. It’s as if you’re saying “the difference between Christianity and Judaism is that there are more Christians than Jews”, it’s true but ignores the fact that the central difference is that we Jews don’t believe in Jesus.

 

[Kaninchen]

Yeah and? We are showing why we are opposed to socialism. What is your main point in all this?

We don’t share a common language so any real discussion is pointless. Without some agreed meanings of some sort there’s nothing to say.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

I’m a little loopy from medication to bear with me here:


One thing that bothers me about this conversation is it seems to focus on large government. .
What if we changed the focus of social programs to local government…city or county (depending on population). Does it alter anyone’s stance…particuarly those (of us) who are resistant to government social programs.

For my part, my stance does change a bit. I am opposed to most things the federal government does. Most of the things the federal government has its fingers in is best left to more local government…the state…and even more so-counties, cities, neighborhoods (depending on population levels).

I think that the local population would be able to serve the needy of its community far better and more efficiently than the federal or even state government. Furthermore, I think that the local population would be more willing to pay more taxes or give more if they see their money stay in their communities and they have a say in the matter.

Sorry for responding to an older post, but I think your point was quickly glossed over on the thread. What you are describing is in essence the principle of subsidiarity. Please see the following from John Paul II (bolding mine):
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

“Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However,** primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. **The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such** supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.**

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State.** Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.**100” – John Paul II (Centesimus Annus, 48)

The bolded sections also put the current “bailouts” in Catholic perspective. The actions are “justified” but “must be as brief as possible.”

I personally believe we should cut back federal involvement to the spirit of what the founders intended. Government-funded social programs should be funded and administered as close to individuals as possible. Just as a city or county takes care of their fire, police, schools, etc. (unfortunately, these have all been progressively brought to the federal level, as well); they should also handle any questions of minimum wages, welfare programs, etc.

 

[ninaq4]

There’s very little that we can discuss, we speak different languages.

What an easy road to take…sigh…

I suppose it really means that you can’t refute what I stated…

 

[Kaninchen]

What an easy road to take…sigh…

I suppose it really means that you can’t refute what I stated…

If we lived in the same, or vaguely similar, universes, if we spoke the same, or even vaguely similar, languages, it might be worth discussing the topic.

As it stands, no, it’s not worth bothering. It’s not as if it matters in any sense.

 

[neat62]

Kaninchen;

And I was saying that your size comparison between Sweden with the Soviet Union is meaningless because the systems are entirely different. It’s as if you’re saying “the difference between Christianity and Judaism is that there are more Christians than Jews”, it’s true but ignores the fact that the central difference is that we Jews don’t believe in Jesus.

Sorry, but you are not even considering the economics of my point. My point was not simply the size, for the sake of it. Ever heard the phrase: “The bigger they are, the harder they fall?” The same goes for economics, specifically of entitlements.

 

[neat62]

Kaninchen;

We don’t share a common language so any real discussion is pointless. Without some agreed meanings of some sort there’s nothing to say.

And I asked you what your main point in this was. If you cannot answer that, then yeah, we are done. I really don’t know what you are talking about. Please, just spit it out. Please.