“Socialism” vs. “Capitalism” debate

NewGlory said:
I don't know. What's your theory?
Click to expand...

i think there are many possible explanations.

one is that social democracy basically redistrbutes the surplus from capitalism. in the postwar years, as capital expanded rapidly for rebuilding the industrialised world and into the third world, there was a large surplus to redistrbute. gradually, as that surplus got smaller, social democracies failed worldwide (reagan/thatcher in the 80s were the result), and as a result you saw the social democratic and "socialist" european parties drastically step back from their goals (blair/clinton/obama/schroder).

another related explanation is that since social democracy does not confront the real power of capitalists, it can always be controlled and destroyed (which would explain the success of reagan/thatcher in destroying the union movement).

finally, the right-wing would argue that regulations, taxes, and market interventions like floors and ceilings kill growth and hence dry up the well from which social democracy draws its funds, but i'm not sold on this one.

...

about climate change, again, social democracy does not confront private power. so oil companies can continue to generate more profits and use those to influence politicians, elections, media, and public opinion. further, modern social democracies are not in favour of very drastic regulation like bans, or of massive government investment in otherwise private parts of the economy, so a rapid transition to renewables also becomes difficult. finally, the democracy part of social democracy means that people will in general prefer the status quo and their fears about a transition to renewables can be amplified by private interests. in short, i think that like laissez-faire capitalism, social democracy (and many other systems) is unable to confront climate change.

...

anyway, i am not the one defending social democracy here, you are. if you believe in a system you should also consider its failures.
 
berbatrick said:
i think there are many possible explanations.

one is that social democracy basically redistrbutes the surplus from capitalism. in the postwar years, as capital expanded rapidly for rebuilding the industrialised world and into the third world, there was a large surplus to redistrbute. gradually, as that surplus got smaller, social democracies failed worldwide (reagan/thatcher in the 80s were the result), and as a result you saw the social democratic and "socialist" european parties drastically step back from their goals (blair/clinton/obama/schroder).

another related explanation is that since social democracy does not confront the real power of capitalists, it can always be controlled and destroyed (which would explain the success of reagan/thatcher in destroying the union movement).

finally, the right-wing would argue that regulations, taxes, and market interventions like floors and ceilings kill growth and hence dry up the well from which social democracy draws its funds, but i'm not sold on this one.

...

about climate change, again, social democracy does not confront private power. so oil companies can continue to generate more profits and use those to influence politicians, elections, media, and public opinion. further, modern social democracies are not in favour of very drastic regulation like bans, or of massive government investment in otherwise private parts of the economy, so a rapid transition to renewables also becomes difficult. finally, the democracy part of social democracy means that people will in general prefer the status quo and their fears about a transition to renewables can be amplified by private interests. in short, i think that like laissez-faire capitalism, social democracy (and many other systems) is unable to confront climate change.

...

anyway, i am not the one defending social democracy here, you are. if you believe in a system you should also consider its failures.
Click to expand...

You make good points. I don't know why you classify Clinton or Obama as "social democrats", however. They were pretty straight-arrow capitalists, from what I have seen.
 
NewGlory said:
You make good points. I don't know why you classify Clinton or Obama as "social democrats", however. They were pretty straight-arrow capitalists, from what I have seen.
Click to expand...

Social democracy is a polittical philosophy while capitalism is an economic system, they are not opposed. And social democracies are supposed to work within a capitalistic economy otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.
 
JPRouve said:
Social democracy is a polittical philosophy while capitalism is an economic system, they are not opposed. And social democracies are supposed to work within a capitalistic economy otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
I know, I wrote about the same just yesterday. That social democracy is actually a capitalistic economic structure and not "socialist".

But I still cannot remember anything that Obama or Clinton have done, which would qualify them as "social democrats".
 
Florida Man said:
They would have to learn how to artificially create an atmosphere or be millions of times more efficient with resources to survive out there. And if they could do that, why not just apply that on Earth where we already have an atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Or we could carry on emitting on Mars like we do here and we would have an atmosphere by Thursday afternoon.
 
fergieisold said:
If the socialists can present case studies of countries where it has been a success it would be useful. My non expert view is the evidence seems to be Capitalism built what we are lucky to have in the UK. Is it perfect? No. But it is a system that has worked...so far.
Click to expand...

Barring the fringe nobody is talking about pure socialism. It is all a debate about what degree of social democracy is implemented. As all modern democracies are social democracies the cries from the far right about socialism is just bullshit - smoke an mirrors to allow them to keep butt fecking everyday people.
 
Am disappointingly late to this thread, but it's a good read.

I think politics and economics have become so intertwined that it's increasingly difficult to even speak about socialism vs. capitalism. Easy example, if renewal energy sources are better for consumers - whether that's businesses or individuals - they should succeed in pure capitalism. But not if oil companies are able to exert influence over legislation which skews that equation. But for some reason people look to the fault of capitalism here in the oil company's ability to buy political will, rather than politics being able to pervert the market.

In most situations capitalism - if left alone - is a force for greater societal good. This has been demonstrated throughout history, and it's even more stark when compared to alternative systems. This is particularly true on a macro scale, despite the micro tragedies. Which is obviously heartless, but it's not supposed to have a heart.

There are a great many issues with how the US in particular are currently using capitalism, but quite a lot of these are down to market perversions rather than capitalism itself.

There are exceptions - the classic tragedy of the commons - but that's one of the few places government should step in. See climate change.
 
Beachryan said:
In most situations capitalism - if left alone - is a force for greater societal good. This has been demonstrated throughout history, and it's even more stark when compared to alternative systems. This is particularly true on a macro scale, despite the micro tragedies. Which is obviously heartless, but it's not supposed to have a heart.
Click to expand...
That’s one way to describe the Gilded Age.
 
Carolina Red said:
Bastards
Click to expand...

i mean, even besides the morality, which usally isn't the way people advocate for capitalism, it is just ineffective if you don't distribute the cure as widely as possible. it will allow the virus to keep spreading and mutating. i guess this falls into some type of commons problem with the market.
 
berbatrick said:
i mean, even besides the morality, which usally isn't the way people advocate for capitalism, it is just ineffective if you don't distribute the cure as widely as possible. it will allow the virus to keep spreading and mutating. i guess this falls into some type of commons problem with the market.
Click to expand...
“I got mine” taken to a whole different level.
 
So much of the discourse surrounding capitalism is viewed through the lens of the economy, the markets and therein lies the problem. When viewed through the lens of race, class, gender, the judicial system, war, human rights, it is clear as day how inefficient and corrupt capitalism really is.
 
berbatrick said:
i mean, even besides the morality, which usally isn't the way people advocate for capitalism, it is just ineffective if you don't distribute the cure as widely as possible. it will allow the virus to keep spreading and mutating. i guess this falls into some type of commons problem with the market.
Click to expand...

It's easier to see the flaws in free market fundamentalism when people simply look at the misaligned incentive structures created by the idealistic free market fundamentalist myths.

Anywhere private interests have a clear monetary incentive that goes against the best interests of society and the power to enforce their privatized profit motive is problematic for society at large. Private prisons, deregulation of mortgage lending and financial services, problems with insulin and other medical patents same to name just a few obvious issues and the list goes on.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
It's easier to see the flaws in free market fundamentalism when people simply look at the misaligned incentive structures created by the idealistic free market fundamentalist myths.

Anywhere private interests have a clear monetary incentive that goes against the best interests of society and the power to enforce their privatized profit motive is problematic for society at large. Private prisons, deregulation of mortgage lending and financial services, problems with insulin and other medical patents same to name just a few obvious issues and the list goes on.
Click to expand...

Speaking of -

 
oneniltothearsenal said:
It's easier to see the flaws in free market fundamentalism when people simply look at the misaligned incentive structures created by the idealistic free market fundamentalist myths.

Anywhere private interests have a clear monetary incentive that goes against the best interests of society and the power to enforce their privatized profit motive is problematic for society at large. Private prisons, deregulation of mortgage lending and financial services, problems with insulin and other medical patents same to name just a few obvious issues and the list goes on.
Click to expand...
But aren't these examples perversions of capitalism, rather than examples?

In pure capitalism, companies shouldn't be able to buy political influence to skew the market in their favour. That's the market being less capitalistic, not more?
 
Beachryan said:
But aren't these examples perversions of capitalism, rather than examples?

In pure capitalism, companies shouldn't be able to buy political influence to skew the market in their favour. That's the market being less capitalistic, not more?
Click to expand...

It's the same for every system out there. The only examples of real pure capitalism you gonna find, are gonna be in some text book the kids at the University of Chicago are reading. Majority of what they are learning, will never be applicable in real life (as long as humans are the ones to put it on practice).

Never mind Socialism or communism.

The sooner we stop making the discussion about "capitalism vs socialism", the better. That debate had been perpetuated by the people in control to divide us. Just a big game of make believe. The best working systems are not capitalism nor socialism, but something different, and the name doesn't matter one bit.
 
I lean towards socialism. I make no apologies for it. If you leave the Market to itself it will eat itself and the 95% with it. Unfettered, the Market places profit above everything else - people, community, the environment. I want a Government that front and centre tells everyone, and means it, that they are going to stand up to big business and protect the majority from the fluctuations of the Global Market. Regulation is not a bad thing, its needed. There must be a sweet spot of balance between Capitalism and Socialism?
 
Reiver said:
I lean towards socialism. I make no apologies for it. If you leave the Market to itself it will eat itself and the 95% with it. Unfettered, the Market places profit above everything else - people, community, the environment. I want a Government that front and centre tells everyone, and means it, that they are going to stand up to big business and protect the majority from the fluctuations of the Global Market. Regulation is not a bad thing, its needed. There must be a sweet spot of balance between Capitalism and Socialism?
Click to expand...

If the market does not provide the value of labour or product then who does?

What we should be doing is removing the one and only barrier to making a market work - information. To get a perfect market system you need perfect information, while that may never be attainable getting as close to it as humanly possible will give the best outcome to all. I've yet to hear of a system that could come close although i'm confident there is one just well beyond our current grasp. A version of socialism will never be it.
 
Beachryan said:
But aren't these examples perversions of capitalism, rather than examples?

In pure capitalism, companies shouldn't be able to buy political influence to skew the market in their favour. That's the market being less capitalistic, not more?
Click to expand...

This is where I sit. For the majority of situations where a left leaning economic thinker blames capitalism there will be a situation where government, governmental regulators or QUANGO's have colluded, encouraged or actively been party to something that is anti-capitalist and is a (often the) key factor.

This ranges from something minor such as the ability for companies to be limited in terms of liability (meaning risks can be taken that otherwise would not have been), to bailing businesses out when things go wrong (first point on steroids), to legal protections (ie pollutants not being the subject of tortious liability) to actively declaring shitty investments as A-OK (US sub-prime mortgage crises).

People and therefore capitalism are of course fallible. Western capitalism is an impenetrable vault that government has given the keys, along with the plans for the building, alarm weak points, security guard schedule, information on the riches held within and prosecutory immunity to anyone who dares to try to breach it. We then blame the vault for the stolen money.
 
Last edited:
Beachryan said:
But aren't these examples perversions of capitalism, rather than examples?

In pure capitalism, companies shouldn't be able to buy political influence to skew the market in their favour. That's the market being less capitalistic, not more?
Click to expand...

I'm sure most reasonable folks would agree with this.
 
George Owen said:
It's the same for every system out there. The only examples of real pure capitalism you gonna find, are gonna be in some text book the kids at the University of Chicago are reading. Majority of what they are learning, will never be applicable in real life (as long as humans are the ones to put it on practice).
Click to expand...

Exactly.
The thing people that read those texts need to realize is that markets can't self regulate as textbook theory claims without empirical supporting evidence.

The 2008 crisis was because financial services were radically deregulated with no oversight or checks on runaway profit motives.
"It is the failures of ideas such as the “efficient market hypothesis” that deluded itself about the absence of market failures such as asset bubbles; the “rational expectations” paradigm that clashes with the insights of behavioral economics and finance; the “self-regulation of markets and institutions” that clashes with the classical agency problems in corporate governance that are themselves exacerbated in financial companies by the greater degree of asymmetric information -how can a chief executive or a board monitor the risk-taking of thousands of separate profit-and-loss accounts? Then there are the distortions of compensation paid to bankers and traders" - NYU economist Nouriel Roubini
Click to expand...

" Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses." - Investor and trader Barry Ritholtz

And even the disciple of radical right winger Ayn Rand who was in charge of the Fed, Alan Greenspan, had to admit he was wrong about self-regulating markets, "“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Adam Smith's idealistic theoretical is simply impossible in today's world and arguably any world. For just one example, Smith believed that labor needed to be just as mobile as capital for "capitalism" to work as he envisioned. Yet now, capital is transnational and flows freely while labor is increasingly immobilized.

"Smith assumed that there is a perfect mobility of labour between different occupations and that the labour market is perfectly competitive (Blaug
1962:48). He also realised that there must be some sort of inertia and of attachment to locality relating to the risk and cost of moving (Hollander
1973:262). What this inertia consists of is not analysed, nor is the assumption of perfect competition at the labour market."- source

And as Berbatrick already mentioned, a market economy is simply not possible without the state. Economics without politics doesn't exist because its the state that needs to enforce contracts and set the terms for regulation, else a market economy isn't a market economy, it would just become the classic might makes right.
 
George Owen said:
It's the same for every system out there. The only examples of real pure capitalism you gonna find, are gonna be in some text book the kids at the University of Chicago are reading. Majority of what they are learning, will never be applicable in real life (as long as humans are the ones to put it on practice).

Never mind Socialism or communism.

The sooner we stop making the discussion about "capitalism vs socialism", the better. That debate had been perpetuated by the people in control to divide us. Just a big game of make believe. The best working systems are not capitalism nor socialism, but something different, and the name doesn't matter one bit.
Click to expand...

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-chicago-boys-in-chile-economic-freedoms-awful-toll/
 
Back in 2018, the disgraced biotech company Theranos sold its patent portfolio to Fortress Investment Group, a division of Softbank. Now two of those patents have wound up in the hands of a little-known firm called Labrador Diagnostics—and Labrador is suing a company called BioFire Diagnostics that makes medical testing equipment.

And not just any medical testing equipment: BioFire recently announced it had developed three tests for COVID-19 using its hardware—tests that are due out later this month. But Labrador is asking a Delaware federal court to block the company from using its technology—presumably including the new coronavirus tests.
Click to expand...

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...tents-to-sue-company-making-coronavirus-test/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.