Socialism and Capitalism, In Proper Measure, Make Good Companions?
By DW Davis
@DWDavis (25797)
United States
February 16, 2016 8:57pm CST
Once again, another myLotter's post has inspired one of my own. This time it was @flpoolbum with the post, "The U.S. Republican Party has more Socialist tendencies then they care to admit!" I have included a link to the post at the end of my discussion. You may want to read it before reading what I have written.
After reading flpoolbum's post, I offer the following:
I think the difference between the Republican view and the Socialist view is that Republicans, by-and-large, favor Capitalism to Socialism because under Capitalism the companies (means of production) are owned by stockholders who may or may not be employees of the company, and the companies decide what to make and sell to the public, and the free market determines the price. Also under Capitalism, workers are compensated based on the value of their contribution to the production of company income.
Under Socialism, the companies (means of production) are owned by the workers, and not the capitalists, and the government decides what the companies will make and sell to the public and the government sets the prices, not the marketplace. Also, compensation under Socialism is not based on effort and quality of work, it is allocated equally to all regardless of the value of their contribution to production, much like is done with workers in most government agencies today.
What many in the 20th Century mistakenly called Communism was in reality Socialism at its extreme, where the government took ownership of the means of production on behalf of the workers and distributed the earnings to the workers based on their needs as seen by the government and not based on the workers contribution to production. This is why workers in these Socialist countries were astronomically less productive than workers in the Capitalist countries of the west.
The Republicans like to raise the fear among the American public of the left wanting to turn the USA into the USSA and drag the country down the same disastrous road Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev led the Soviet Union. The Democrat party assures Americans that the left has no such thing in mind, but that a little Socialism and a little wealth redistribution, would be a good thing.
Both parties are so interested in winning power over the American people that they've lost sight of what it is they are actually supposed to be doing, which is governing the country in a way that allows everyone here a chance to live out their lives with as little government interference as reasonably possible, and to have the opportunity to work to provide a good home and future for their families (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
Do you think it is Governments place to decide who works where, makes what, and how much they can sell it for, or should that be left up to the free market?
Is the market really free, or is it controlled by an oligarchy of the super rich who have only their own best interest at heart and could care less about the average worker, making Government intervention on behalf of average workers not just necessary but critical?
Here is the link to the discussion which prompted this post:
'Generally, a new type of government is established when its earlier alternative fails to fulfill the needs of citizens. When such a type of government is...
8 people like this
5 responses
@JamesHxstatic (29410)
• Eugene, Oregon
17 Feb 16
You have crafted a thoughtful comparison here. Sadly, our market is not free, but seems to be ruled by those oligarchs you mention, which explains why wages are performing poorly in our recovery from the near depression we suffered. The one percent keep gaining and the workers are losing ground. I know that is true in your teaching profession too, despite unions, which legislatures keep seeking to weaken. All this is my reason for being a lifelong Democrat, the party which at least tries to represent the shrinking middle class.
3 people like this
@DWDavis (25797)
• United States
17 Feb 16
I was once a staunch Republican but the party left me, or should I say slipped far too far to the right for me.
Here in NC teachers and government workers are prohibited by the state constitution from engaging in collective bargaining. If I were to make a deal with one or two other teachers that we would stay out of work until working conditions or pay improved we could be jailed.
There are many issues I also disagree with the Democrat party on. Nowadays I tell people I'm a political agnostic. I don't believe much in either party.
1 person likes this
@OneOfMany (12150)
• United States
17 Feb 16
I know people from socialistic governments and they hate it. There's no incentive to work or to produce ideas because the moment you work it has no value, and the moment you produce an idea it doesn't belong to you. It's like the one economics class that argued that socialism was better, so the professor decided to great on a socialist curve. On the first test the people that studied really hard were disheartened by their lower grade and the people that barely studied were happy with good results. On the next test more people studied less because there was no point working harder for a grade you wouldn't get, and more people studied less on the bottom because they wanted to get ahead by not doing much. As a result everyone did poorly. The next test the class barely passed, and on the final test everyone failed.
I think that's a quick scale of socialism, but it's accurate. As one of my friends from Austria puts it: "I don't want to work hard all my life so someone else can go on vacations and work 3 days a week."
2 people like this
@crossbones27 (53005)
• Mojave, California
17 Feb 16
I have to say that is interesting, but people learn by doing. Not from a written test where they stayed up the night before cramming all this information in their head. Only to forget all that information a week later. The thing was a failure from the start and probably not an accurate description of true socialism. Besides all you have to do with anything is make adjustments.Nothing is perfect and we learn by trail Corruptness is where things always make things fail.
I am for a hybrid system. Take the best of everything so please do not take that comment as defending socialism. I simply want something that works where the corrupt can't tear it down.
2 people like this
@crossbones27 (53005)
• Mojave, California
17 Feb 16
@OneOfMany I look forward to reading the plan one day. I do like your soft approach because that shows you took reality serious. lol I also think something new needs to be invented because like you said. That was a different time and the way the world moves so fast now. I do not think these ancient economic polices can keep up. So people need to slow down, which will not happen or these plans need to be more flexible.
2 people like this
@OneOfMany (12150)
• United States
17 Feb 16
@crossbones27 I want an entirely new system. Capitalism and Socialism were designed when the world was a different way. In the time of massive population counts neither system is built to handle it. A new system that meets needs by creating a new bottom that is sustainable is necessary to offset the off balance set by technology, which should be helpful but is dragging down society.
I already have been working on the outlines and details of several new economic and political systems for years. It changes everything in a way that handles the new world structure. Sadly they would have to be systems accepted by the people, since it takes power away from governments, so they would not be willing to convert. But it is necessary.
2 people like this
@crossbones27 (53005)
• Mojave, California
17 Feb 16
I like this because it is very well thought out by you. We all have are biases, but have a feeling most things would work. It is just people do not want them to. Not incapable, but they simply want the money. People talk smack about what system works better, but all had the best intentions for the small guy. Of course that could be a lie also. Thoughts are dangerous though and someone at least thought of the little guy in all of these economic themes. That should say something because the small guy women or child could be very dangerous when they realize the truth.
1 person likes this
@DWDavis (25797)
• United States
17 Feb 16
The Soviet Union and Communist Bloc are no more, and the Berlin Wall fell, because the small guys stopped believing the lies their leaders were telling them.
Socialism seems to be working in China because the government there is allowing just enough Capitalism to give the people hope that they can improve their lives if they work hard. That is something the Soviet Union never did, and a hope the Soviet people never had.
2 people like this
@crossbones27 (53005)
• Mojave, California
17 Feb 16
@DWDavis It would not take much to make most people happy.
1 person likes this
@DWDavis (25797)
• United States
19 Feb 16
@crossbones27 If you need a current example of socialism's failures, you can take a look at present day Venezuela. People in poor communities wait 10 to 12 hours for basic necessities. People in prosperous neighborhoods have it better, they only wait 4 to 5 hours.
Cuba, the showcase of socialism, is introducing capitalism in small doses, but not calling it that.
1 person likes this
@Shiva49 (28406)
• Singapore
17 Feb 16
Capitalism should not go overboard meaning the rich should not become richer and the poor poorer leading to former getting richer at the cost of the latter. It leads to common good when all have a stake in the country.
From a global view point, I have seen the power of money - it can multiply from a higher base after one has made the first million, for example. Some are able to influence to buy even country's natural resources which should belong to the people and not for few to exploit.
Communism has good ideals - from each according to ability and to each as per need, but it led to many taking advantage as the Russians say - they pretend to pay, we pretend to work. Then Chinese leaders tell their people - do you want democracy like America where it takes years to make a decision (except to go to war, my take!).
I feel a balance to tap the best of all systems to get the involvement of all will be the best way - siva
2 people like this
@DWDavis (25797)
• United States
17 Feb 16
Communism, at least as professed by Karl Marx, looks good on paper but will never work in practice because it goes against human nature to work harder than the next person but still only get the same compensation the other person gets, or even less, if he or she is determined to have a greater need.
1 person likes this
@Shiva49 (28406)
• Singapore
18 Feb 16
@DWDavis Human nature defeats all systems. I am altruistic but am dismissed as impractical and idealistic. When I say major powers can bring world peace if they work together the naysayers say it will never happen.
I echo Einstein :"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.". It is wiser to look at the big picture than play with fire - siva
1 person likes this
@mk6195 (65)
• Bilaspur, India
17 Feb 16
Governments place is not to decide makes what, and how much they can sell it for but it played a crucial role in making the above things work. Its policies and intervention allows us to do whatever work we are willing and capable of, its policies can get us the fair price of our goods and services, it also take care consumers are not being exploited.
Yes the Super Rich influence the Market to a limit since they have huge resources they could control the competition by accusations, mergers etc. or they could the influence the pricing of the products and services for periods so that other could not make enough profit to keep on going.
1 person likes this
