Capitalism vs. Socialism.

Just like all my other debate posts please be polite.

You might be interested

Comments

Reply Attach
  • 4

    "...competition fuels greatness ..." Nothing else needs to be said.

    Reply
  • 2

    Just how ignorant are you? Oh wait you don't need to answer that you already did for us.

    Reply
  • 2

    13-17% of Americans are below the poverty line at any given time.

    58.5% of Americans will spend at least one year below the poverty line between the ages of 25 and 75.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
    (I realize it's wikipedia, but their cited sources are legitimate in this case).

    More than one in 7 househoulds, or 14.6% of them, suffered from "food insecurity" in 2008. This means they were in danger of going hungry, and most did.
    http://www.bread.org/press-room/releases/more-americans-go-hungry.html

    Your view of America is quite skewed because you, much like me, must live in a fairly wealthy, safe region. Before you make generalized assumptions that the rest of America is in your situation, look at the facts...

    3.5 million people go homeless according to an annual survey.
    http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html

    It's not just about America either. If you want to be chilled to the bone, read this:
    http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

    Finally, even in sports that analogy falls through. Because you must also apply it to a global scale. If a team (country) does not cooperate: all share in the rewards, all work together to the same goal, all get treated equally; then they will fail miserably. Cooperation fuels greatness.

    Reply
  • 2

    Yeap, but at least a small sample size is better than none.

    And it's "common sense" that if you are working for your fellow countrymen, you work to the best of your ability. You work harder to make America better, and it eventually benefits you as well. We can't keep going over the same point: we have different opinions on human nature. Everyone here lends credence to my view, and everyone I've ever known does as well. Your argument has so far been employing common sense that obviously isn't common if I think it isn't sensible.

    Reply
  • 2

    Logos, there is no ideal socialist country. Someone always has more than others. This is shown in the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. The book shows communism, but they are alike in ways. In Socialism, everybody is supposed to get an equal amount, right? (by the way, I'm not exactly studied on this subject so tell me if I'm wrong) In the ideal Socialist government, there can be no government, the government controls who gets what. Your neighbor could be getting more than you but you think he gets the same amount. But without government how do you divide money between the people? I believe you should work to get what you want. If you don't want to live a crappy life, start young. Get good grades, go to class, pay attention, do what you know is right, not what other people say is ok and whatever happens in the home, don't let it disturb your dreams. You ask, "What if that can't be done?" The real question is, "How bad do they want it?"

    Reply
  • 1

    yeah but socilaizm screws over the really hard worker becuase they don't get extra for their hard work. They get the same as the bad worker.

    Reply
  • 1

    Zimbabwae... Trust me, they have more than one problem.

    Reply
  • 1

    Ok I understand your problems with the distribution of wealth here but look at it this way. Yes that 5% is unimaginably rich, but the vast majority of that other 95% are not poor by any means at all. A lot of them live in two-story houses, drive SUVs, and have multible TVs. Then the majority of the people left are still not poor. They have a house, a car, probably a tv, and the eat every day. Just becuase there is a huge gap in the wealth distribution doesn't mean that something is wrong. Also just becuase someone can't afford the nicer things in life doesn't make them poor. I would say that around 99% of people in America don't go hungry every day.


    And I still think competition fuels greatness. Just look at sports. Everyone is competing to be the best and that competition motivates them to be the best they can be so that they win.

    Reply
  • 1

    And make society better....

    There's more than one kind of reward.

    Reply
  • 1

    But what defines poverty? And in danger of going hungry, how long were they going hungry.

    Also of those unde the poverty line, how many are there and it's their own fualt? (dropping out, drug use, jail time, unwanted pregnency, ecetora.

    But in addition a team does have cuts and doesn't let the weak people in.(now before you bite my head off I am not including disabled people in this.)

    Reply
  • 1

    Well I did make this post just for you because I knew you would enjoy it.

    Reply
  • 1

    Haha, and that's why I enjoy your (cybernetic) company so much : P.

    If I could uprate this for you again I would!

    Reply
  • 1

    It depends on family size what the poverty line is. 1 person= around 10,000. 5= around 25,000. Details here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml .
    As to how long they were hungry, it essentially deals with cases where the amount of hunger was long/severe enough to affect a person's health. To my understanding anyway: I'll find a comparable chart soon. Too lazy at the moment... as that is quite the elusive statistic.

    Situations are far too nuanced to make a generalized statistic involving who is at fault for individuals' poverty. And I don't think it is right for us (in most cases) to assume we understand who is to blame...
    Those who drop out of school? What if it's to take care of a dying mother?
    Those using drugs? What was the cause? Abuse, death, emotional strain?
    Those in jail? Wrongful accusation?
    Unwanted pregnancies? Condom failure? Sacrificing their own livelihood for their new child's?
    I think every situation has a spin.

    That's true, but neither model (Socialism or capitalism) ejects people from the country. And besides, a capitalist state does not differentiate between incompetence and disability: if a person is not turning a profit, they are not worth supporting.

    Reply
  • 1

    by with the drug use and pregnency, it's still their fualt. If someone has a child it's the parents responsability to take care of it and why should I be burdened by thier mistake? If you want to totally eliminate the possibility of a child, don't have sex.

    Also I never meant to eject people. By if one can't support themselve becuase they are to lazy or too crappy as an induvidial why should we hurt the people who do work hard? Now I do have one question, did you mean your statement, "if a person is not turning profit, they are not worth supporting.". If you did we may be geting somewhere. :)

    Reply
  • 1

    Also, I don't support a true capitalism. Sorry of I didn't clarify that before. A true capitalsim is to easy to screw over the consumer. But with some govt regulation, it is as close to perfect as we can get.

    Reply
  • 1

    Then what do we do with that parent and child? Let them starve and die? I'd rather support them until they are able to contribute.

    How does socialism hurt those who work hard? All it does is create equality. And just as you are not supporting true capitalism, I am not supporting true socialism, meaning there is some kind of luxury to be gained. And no, that statement was a rhetorical device criticizing the base capitalist ideal. I think every person is worth supporting, as every man is created equal.

    Reply
  • 1

    If you haven't noticed I am very big into a person's own responsibility. If the adult cant take care of themselves maybe they should starve. But take the child away. A child doesn't deserve to suffer like that. And yes, all men are CREATED equal but they can lower their own personal worth.

    Reply
  • 1

    I mostly agree with you but their are some big differences between communism and socialism. But they are similar in some ways.

    Reply
  • 1

    dont worry if feels good

    Reply
  • 1

    But if you one doesn't have to work hard to get the same as everyone else why would they?

    Reply
  • 1

    Must not give in....

    • Ertrov
    • January 7, 2010, 1:12 pm
    Reply
  • 1

    Let it all out!!!!!

    Reply
  • 1

    I disagree. Every human life is still worth... well... life to me. And that's the difference. I don't care how badly someone does, I still want them alive.

    Reply
  • 1

    Because that's what I and almost everyone else I know would do... I need work to stay sane, and the less collective work done the less collective wealth. I would work possibly even harder in a socialist environment, knowing I wasn't working just for myself but for my friends and loved ones as well.

    Socialism requires selflessness.

    Reply
  • 1

    Thanks Jofus... Communism and Socialism are completely different. And theoretically that could happen, however, who would choose to not work for their loved ones?

    Reply
  • 1

    Yes so would I. But how many other people would actualy do that? 99.9% of people would just do the bare minimum just to get by. Most people wouldnt care enough to bust their ass for someone else becuase there his nothing to work harder than normal towards.

    Reply
  • 1

    But I must say he was also right. In communism the social class structure is taken away. It makes sure no one is too rich. Also the govt has a heavy hand on bussinesses.

    Reply
  • 1

    Sure. However, Communism fails because it's a takeover/hijacking of an entire governmental peoples, not a simple economic revamping. It is run through dictatorship, whereas I support a Socialized Democratic Republic, run by the people, the people who are equal : ).

    Reply
  • 1

    Once again, I disagree with that conjecture about human nature. If you would work, I would work, and all of my friends would work... So far it seems like every test case has supported my position. Would anyone on here slack off instead?

    Reply
  • 1

    The majority of people would slack off becuase they don't need to work hard. But it's not nessecarily just slacking off, it's not going above and beyond, or reaching for the stars Who would want a harder job with more work and responsability if they won't get paid more?

    Reply
  • 1

    You keep saying that, but still, no one has provided any factual basis for it. Until you can I will disagree. I would do that harder job, and gladly.

    Reply
  • 1

    Well of course they are different but they to have glaring similarities.

    Reply
  • 1

    Only in the economic scheme of things. Everything else? Starkly oppositional. At least my preferred brand of socialism.

    Reply
  • 1

    Well I would hope so. I going to be honest and you are probably the same way. I think I am a pretty open-minded person but I will never shift my views to match yours. Between us it just comes down to our morals and ideology. I just believe in personal responsability and getting what you deserve.

    Reply
  • 1

    Rawr. I honestly hate that viewpoint... of never changing your views? I am 100% willing to alter my views, I just require a hard-nosed factual basis to do so. If someone can lay out empirically/philosophically a case that is better than my own, I will change my view right then and there. So far, on this subject, that has happened once. From my support of fairly extreme capitalism (Ayn Rand-esque) to where I am now. But truly, never changing your views? That is not open-minded...

    I'm not saying you aren't open minded, you seem to be, I just wish you would revise your above statement : ).

    Reply
  • 1

    That just gave me an idea. Maybe I could change my profile name to "wrappedinanotherdebate" almost like my absolute favorite sharenator wrappedinbacon. I think that would be appropriate for me because I'm always debating on sharenator.

    Reply
  • 1

    That is a great point. But are you saying a child rapist who has raped and killed 3 little girls is still worth the same as you and me? I consider myself a person with decent moral fiber and from what I can see you are too. I just don't believe that no matter what a person does that we all are equal.

    Reply
  • 1

    I don't believe that we are all "equal" in the sense that we have the same worth as a human being, but "equal" in the sense that we are all still human beings, and ultimately have the right to life.

    Reply
  • 1

    Very accurate, reasoned comment. However, taking into account such factors as recession, general economic health over the years, state of the impoverished, etc etc, I don't think we can say the US is "better" at capitalism.... We haven't given anything else a try.

    Reply
  • 1

    Fair. : ).

    Reply
  • 1

    But rescessions are natural. Granted this one that we are in now is pretty extreme, I think if we give it time we will be fine. We've beat worse things before.

    Reply
  • 1

    I understand your point. I just believe that if someone is to much of a scumbag to take care of themselves that the good responsable people in this country shouldn't be burdened by them.

    Reply
  • 1

    That very mindset is what I am challenging. They are natural for our current system, but with radical change comes a radical change in results.

    Reply
  • 1

    Ok. Even if socialism doesn't have rescessions which they do.....back to an earlier point of mine. I said competition fuels greatness. Here is my question for you:

    What great inventions have come out of a socialistic or communistic country?

    Reply
  • 1

    Now, could we agree that if one was to work harder than he/she has to for no extra money because he/she knows that it would help another person that that would be a form of charity?

    You proved my point here:

    http://www.sharenator.com/Addition_to_Bill_of_Rights/

    On your comment on how you felt about each article. You said, "Many Americans are far from charitable. Changing the social norm of greed would be extremely beneficial to the country as a whole, and I think everyone should have the right to food... and life... just like our Declaration states."

    Reply
  • 1

    But not babies?


    Sorry....that's for another post.

    Reply
  • 1

    Fair. Except I disagree with you on when a baby is considered a human being.

    There is a difference between a zygote and a human.

    Reply
  • 1

    Interesting point you just made. However, this isn't charity. This is working specifically for someone's loved ones. Almost all people I know would certainly be "Charitable" to their loved ones. It's working for society, not for charity. Working for your brother and sister, not free handouts. Working for your country, not for one man's greed.

    Reply
  • 1

    Charity: the act of help or relief to the poor.

    In socialism wealth is distributed evenly so working harder than required is a lot like you working overtime right now and giving the rest to charity.

    Reply
  • 1

    That's the key: since wealth is distributed equally, there is no charity. For there is no "poor" to say the charity is going to. You proved my point, sir : D.

    Reply
  • 1

    But working extra hard to prevent someone from being poor is. C'mon let's not split hairs....socialism is in a nutshell forced charity.

    Reply
  • 1

    If I allow you to say that, then I get to say that Capitalism, in a nutshell, is forced labor. A.k.a. slavery.

    Reply
  • 1

    Well everyone should do everything in their power to get a job so that they are not a leech on our system. But you are not forced to work.(if it was my call if you decided not to get a job to buy your food screw you. Now that would only apply if they decided to not work hard, not the inability to.). But in socialism you are forced to give to others.(now charity is fine and dandy but you shouldn't be forced to do it.)

    Reply
  • 1

    No, if we are talking extremes, as you are, capitalism amounts to slavery, easily the most efficient, cost-friendly labor.

    Reply
  • 1

    But in capitalism no one is forced to work. Only if you want nice things. But are you saying that people shouldn't have to have a job? Now i dont think it should be required but don't come crying to me when all you've eaten for a month is ramen and baked beans.

    Reply
  • 1

    We are a democratic republic. But that's beside the point.

    Are you saying because equality is hard we shouldn't try for it? Freedom is hard too.

    And which figures do you question? I will provide sources for any. And global climate change is EXTREMELY serious. But that's for another discussion.

    What points am I not stating equally? I'm very confused.

    Reply
  • 1

    No, I think you misunderstand socialism. In the ideal socialist state, everyone has a job...

    Reply
  • 1

    But someone who works harder will get the same as a slacker. But if someone decides to work harder while knowing that they will get no extra, then they are basically just picking up someone else's slack. That sounds very much like charity to me.

    Reply
  • 1

    But as you work harder, the overall total increases. Overall productivity increases, standards of living increase, etc.... Once again, I would like to see a person here who would refuse to work if it meant the downfall of America?

    Reply
  • 1

    poopitee, you are probably one of the guys who got srewed over by the system but socialism is messed up more than the healthcare bill capitalism works if you make it work if the market is low stick with the sure things for example fashion right now holister and the rest of them are doing well and they are publically traded so go with them and whe that market starts to climax sell and go to a different thing.

    Reply
  • 1

    Let's not get into the not-screwed-up health care bill. But can you give a reason why you think socialism is messed up? Or why capitalism is better?

    Reply
  • 1

    Yes but there are not that many users on here compared to the amount of people in the USA. Also people would not be willing to get harder or jobs with more responsability for nothing extra in return. It's just common sense. Why work harder when you don't need to cause you know uncle Sam will take care of you.

    Reply
  • 1

    But if your theory were true than we wouldn't have poverty now. If most people would work hard just because it's the right thing to do and it's for the good of the country than why don't we see than now? So many people are on foodstamps and wellfare and they abuse it. So many people go and buy all junk food with their cards but still somehow have money to spend $50 on a carton of cigerettes and $25 on booze. If they could spend all than money on stupid crap like that then they don't need foodstamps. They know that they are being a burden on our system and they don't care. The know that jow the are cheatingthe system is very detromental to the usa but they will never change their ways. They do not have motivation to get a better job or try to get a raise
    by working harder than other people. They will never work harder to benefit the ones around them.

    Now you may be right. You seem like you suround yourself with good people. Good people would work harder for the benifit of society. And yes than would increase production but, there would be those who would still just cheat the system. And the amount of production made by them would be miniscule. Bit f you ask me, the good people would have more motivation to produce harder if they had something to strive for. Not just being inthe same place all of their lives. Also if we controlled our welfare more then those scumbags who burden our system would either have to work hard or they would be SOL.

    Reply
  • 1

    That is the secret. +20 on your comment if could

    Reply
  • 1

    "The ones who work hard get what they deserve."

    Except for those who don't. Those people (not just Americans) who have to work three jobs to feed their families, and can't even with that level of dedication. Those who get screwed over by the greedy suits at the top. Those who, despite a lifetime of dedication to a local store get overrun by a large supermarket, and now have next to no way of earning revenue.

    As the great Immortal Technique puts it [warning, explicit], "But you see, here in America the attitude that is fed to us is that outside of America there live lesser people. "Fuck them, let them fend for themselves." No, Fuck you, they are you. No matter how much you want to dye your hair blonde and put fake eyes in, or follow an anorexic standard of beauty, or no matter how many diamonds you buy from people who exploit your own brutally to get them, no matter what kind of car you drive or what kind of fancy clothes you put on, you will never be them. They're always gonna look at you as nothing but a little monkey. I'd rather be proud of what I am, rather than desperately trying to be something I'm really not, just to fit in. And whether we want to accept it or not, that's what this culture or lack of culture is feeding us."

    Reply
  • 1

    The reason we don't see that right now is that the incentive of working for the country and loved ones doesn't exist. Right now, if you work, you are almost always working for a classical "corporate giant," working extremely hard to make someone at the top rich. That person at the top is not contributing to society, but just to themselves and their acquisition of material assets. Who would want to work for that principle?

    I agree with your last statement I think: there must be incentive for people to work harder, which is why I do not support pure socialism. I support something similar to what Sweden has, where 80% of their money is given to the government in taxes. The government then, takes care of essentially all of their base needs/ survival requirements. After that, those who work hard have a larger remaining 20%, giving a small gradation of those who "cheat the system" and those who do not. Thus, those who work hard can still find luxury, and those who do not can survive, yet not necessarily comfortably.

    Everyone works for society, everyone has enough to stay alive, and some get luxury if they work harder than others, or are more skilled.

    Reply
  • 1

    Actually small businesses make up 99.7% of all employer firms, pay 44% of U.S private payrolls, and create more than half of the non-farm private GDP. Also they have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.

    http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf

    Reply
  • 1

    Well yes yes in any system people are going to get screwed over. But why shoud the few people who work at a tiny family-owned supermarket be considered more important than the 50-100 workers at the large supermarket.(I work at one of those "evil" places). Yes it does suck for the owner of the small buisiness but that is part of the only reason people open a bussiness. That is for reward. But whenever there is a chance for reward, there is a chance of failure.

    Reply
  • 1

    I don't believe that we should be okay with people just "getting screwed over." I think a revolution is in order, one that finally recognizes what all of humanity actually is: valuable. Because, currently? Our American mindset destroys far too many lives.

    Reply
  • 1

    Good for them. But small businesses also have the same problem... ultimately the owner is working for his own gain.

    Reply
  • 1

    But that's the entire point. The owner opened that business for one reason, to make money.

    Reply
  • 1

    But if there is no reason to work hard why do it? Your gonna say people would do it for each other but if that were true there would already be little poor people.

    Reply
  • 1

    So children starving in 3rd world countries dont deserve the basic living standards of life? A roof over their head, enough rations for their survival?

    They dont deserve these things? Child slaves in India work their ass off just so you can buy a cheap rug. Just for some firewood. You Dont deserve to be saying that. But at the end of the day, you will just make some irrational excuse up, and push it out of your mind because you feel bad.

    And now for you "BEASTY": Please go get your crappy American education and get off forums that are far beyond your brain capacity.

    Reply
  • 1

    Did I ever say any of that? And what does myself living in a capitalistic or socialistic country have to do with any of that? I think it is horrible that things like you mentioned happen but it has nothing to do with this debate.

    Reply
  • 1

    Amen!!!! "how bad do they want it?"

    Reply
  • 1

    Well, I would say it has something to do with it. Capitalism: Rich/poor gap, causing increased poverty. Socialism: No Rich/poor gap, causing equality.

    Reply
  • 1

    Exactly, in capitalism, that's true. In socialism, it is not.

    Reply
  • 1

    Ghettoshen, I understand what you are saying, but Animal Farm is a poor piece of fiction, and I will illustrate that if need be.

    And the question is not, "How bad do they want it," but, "Is it possible for them to get it?" The answer in many cases is no.

    Reply
  • 1

    But it's not impossible to earn a living in America. GRANTED, it is kinda hard right now due to the economic situation but generally almost anyone should get a job. But I must ask, why should a bad employee get the same as someone who works their ass odd.

    I'm addition, India has way more problems than a rich/poor gap. Ex. Child slaves.

    Reply
  • 1

    But if there is no chance for profit why open a bussiness. Why? There is risk than there can be no reward. Then no one would want to open a bussiness

    Reply
  • 1

    Well maybe of they hadn't done marijuana, gotton pregnant(or someone else pregnant), or not slacked off in school, and gone to college they would be better off

    Reply
  • 1

    I agree. Very fair. :p

    Reply
  • 1

    commie

    • Zink
    • January 28, 2010, 6:17 pm
    Reply
  • 1

    Half the people who say that don't even know what communism is. Another 25% just googled it. Communism basically means there's no poor people, rich people, etc. Everyone gets paid the same no matter what they do. It's a great idea but it's flawed. For example: A man goes to school for 8 years to become a doctor and a man who dropped out of highschool becomes a janitor. They both get paid the same. It just isn't fair, that's the thing.

    • mienftw
    • January 28, 2010, 6:45 pm
    Reply
  • 1

    Logos, though Animal Farm is fiction, it closely parallels the events of the Russian Revolution, but please feel free to argue as I know that this is usually considered a satiric book. And I think if you want it bad enough, you'll find a way.

    Reply
  • 0

    Sorry. I didn't really mean that. I am open minded to other opinions, but only to a certain extent. I was just trying to say that yourself and I are just too different to agree 100% on an issue we are so divided on.

    Reply
  • -2

    who cares its all the same crap

    • BEASTY
    • January 4, 2010, 4:36 am
    Reply
Related Posts