Capitalism vs socialism

[jeremix]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...&articleId=780
The debate between socialism and capitalism is far from over. In fact the battle of ideas is intensifying. International agencies, including the United Nations, the International Labor Organization (ILO), the Food and Agricultural Organization, the World Health Organization and reports from NGO's, UNESCO and independent experts and regional and national economic experts provide hard evidence to discuss the merits of capitalism and socialism.

Comparisons between countries and regions before and after the advent of capitalism in Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Europe as well as a comparison of Cuba and the ex-communist countries provide us with an adequate basis to draw some definitive conclusions. Fifteen years of "transition to capitalism" is more than adequate time to judge the performance and impact of capitalist politicians, privatizations, free market policies and other restoration measures on the economy, society and general welfare of the population.

Economic and social indicators conclusively document that "real existing capitalism" is substantially worse than the full employment, moderate growth, welfare states that existed during the previous socialist period.

The result of massive pillage, unemployment and the subsequent poverty and desperation was a huge increase in suicide, psychological disorders, alcoholism, drug addiction and diseases rarely seen in Soviet times. Life expectancy among Russian males fell from 64 years in the last year of socialism to 58 years in 2003 ( Wall Street Journal, 2/4/2004),

Your thoughts?

[jimmyjude]

To compare the collapse of the USSR and its resulting crony-capitalism based on a strong Russian reliance on their mob without considering the effects of Chinese economic/political capitalist/communist on the world is not moving the case for socialism forward.

If the discussion is to be centered around the mixed economies of the west vs the former communist countries then China should be included in the discussion. Whereas the Chinese largely starved and had a miserable existence under failed Maoist policies, they have thrived under the more "reformed" minded regime that followed Mao's death.

Also to just compare the failed post-Soviet economies and, what Cuba?,

making a dichotomy argument.

What about the other paths to success that countries have taken? S. Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Ireland. Aslo the case of Indonesia and Vietnam prove that their is some validity to the ability for former authoritarian-style governments to move to capitalism. And not all of the former Soviet satellites are unmitigated failures anyways.

[soylentgreen]

Socialism sux because all it means is the government will take more of what you produce so they can spend it on your behalf the way they think it should be spent. I can't think of a more anti-freedom concept.

Capitalism is not perfect, but it does allow people to make their own choices with the fruits of their own labors.

[hadit]

Originally Posted by soylentgreen

Socialism sux because all it means is the government will take more of what you produce so they can spend it on your behalf the way they think it should be spent. I can't think of a more anti-freedom concept.

Capitalism is not perfect, but it does allow people to make their own choices with the fruits of their own labors.

It also necessarily involves the freedom to fail. Without that, there's really no freedom to succeed.

[soylentgreen]

Originally Posted by hadit

It also necessarily involves the freedom to fail. Without that, there's really no freedom to succeed.

Yes. Freedom to make one's own decisions. That includes the freedom to fail....and to succeed. Absolutely.

I have a big problem with government deciding for me what is best for me and my family. Socialists are evil. They seek to impose their vision of Eutopia on the rest of us. Of course, the prosperity they promise can never be realized. It's non-sense.

[fat mike]

There are certain needs that are not being met under this system-I'm not advocating socialism but there's no organization or coordination-when an ondustry seeks to coordinate its efforts people scream "anti-trust"-if the managerial class had a clue about its role as a trustee in society in general we wouldnt need to resort to regulation but these guys are mostly irresponsible...

[soylentgreen]

mike,
Saying that I prefer capitalism does not mean that I think industry should be free to do whatever it wants without any regulation or responsibility. However, the truth is that the need for regulation has grown out of the abuses of industry. If capitalists would duly manage themselves by being good corporate citizens, there would be no need for government oversight.

[Feenix566]

i don't even know where to begin....

socialism is retarted. and so is anyone who likes it. that is all.

[Ironweed]

The author of the piece is so clearly biased against capitalism he shouldn't have phrased this as some sort of 'debate,' but that he was advocating a return to capitalism.

Economic and social indicators conclusively document that "real existing capitalism" is substantially worse than the full employment, moderate growth, welfare states that existed during the previous socialist period.

What nondefense "growth" occurred in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union during the last 20 years of Communism? I'm under the impression the nondefense growth was just about zero, or maybe even negative, though perhaps they were saved from deficits by selling mineral wealth to the West.

On personal grounds -in terms of public and private security of life, employment, retirement, and savings -the socialist system represented a far safer place to live than the gang-controlled capitalist societies that replaced them.

Well, unless you wanted to practice a religion or write poetry, or read banned books, or...you get the picture. Then it was a pretty UNsafe place.

Politically, the communist states were far more responsive to the social demands of workers,

What the hell are "social demands" of workers?

provided some limits on income inequalities, and, while accommodating Russian foreign policies interests, diversified, industrialized and owned all the major sectors of the economy.

Which is why the peasant's small plots provided most of the vegetables in the country? The socialized farms were not only horribly inefficient, they gave zero incentive to the workers.

My final thought: Russia and all the countries of Eastern Europe continue to have Socialist or even Communist parties. Well, if things are so bad why don't they simply get voted back into office? What's preventing this? You'll notice the article didn't go near even speculating on this.

[fat mike]

Originally Posted by soylentgreen

mike,
Saying that I prefer capitalism does not mean that I think industry should be free to do whatever it wants without any regulation or responsibility. However, the truth is that the need for regulation has grown out of the abuses of industry. If capitalists would duly manage themselves by being good corporate citizens, there would be no need for government oversight.

Sounds like we agree-I'm certainly to your left but I like a lot of this.

[soylentgreen]

Originally Posted by fat mike

Sounds like we agree-I'm certainly to your left but I like a lot of this.

Just because I'm conservative and pro-capitalism, that doesn't mean I think corporations should be allowed to pursue profits to the detriment of our society. In the end, I beleive that the political and economic conditions that exist in this country allow corporations to flourish. Those corporations should give back to those who make those conditions possible...the People.

Being a good corporate citizen should be something that is done voluntarily out of gratitude. It should include paying your workers fair wages and donating money to charities.

The problem I have with many corporations these days is that they hold allegence to only one thing...cash. They don't salute our flag and they don't think of the well-being of our nation when they make business decisions. I believe many of them weaken America. In the end, this will end up hurting them too.

[soylentgreen]

PS- I like the idea of encouraging good corporate citizenship by rewarding companies that do so with your business...and avoiding spending your money with companies who do not. I like that better than a bunch of taxes or regulations.

[oki]

Originally Posted by soylentgreen

mike,
Saying that I prefer capitalism does not mean that I think industry should be free to do whatever it wants without any regulation or responsibility. However, the truth is that the need for regulation has grown out of the abuses of industry. If capitalists would duly manage themselves by being good corporate citizens, there would be no need for government oversight.

and untill then, there is? very socialist view.

Being a good corporate citizen should be something that is done voluntarily out of gratitude. It should include paying your workers fair wages and donating money to charities.

whats teh difference to a moral obligation or a tax obligation? its both rules you imply on society. the one is more forcefull, but the principle is the same.

PS- I like the idea of encouraging good corporate citizenship by rewarding companies that do so with your business...and avoiding spending your money with companies who do not. I like that better than a bunch of taxes or regulations.

thats allso tax, but turned around. who will pay for those bonusses? we will.

[I don't know]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

My final thought: Russia and all the countries of Eastern Europe continue to have Socialist or even Communist parties. Well, if things are so bad why don't they simply get voted back into office? What's preventing this? You'll notice the article didn't go near even speculating on this.

- Case in point: when there was debate about an EU-wide ban on Nazism, several of the representatives of the new east european members suggested that if such a ban was to be set in place, there should be one on communism as well.

[Feenix566]

Originally Posted by soylentgreen

The problem I have with many corporations these days is that they hold allegence to only one thing...cash. They don't salute our flag and they don't think of the well-being of our nation when they make business decisions. I believe many of them weaken America. In the end, this will end up hurting them too.

The solution to this problem isn't to pass legislation to force them to be good corporate citizens. The solution is to ensure that there is always plenty of competition, because that keeps them honest.

Competition is the lynchpin of a successful capitalist society. People need to understand that.

[soylentgreen]

Originally Posted by Feenix566

The solution to this problem isn't to pass legislation to force them to be good corporate citizens. The solution is to ensure that there is always plenty of competition, because that keeps them honest.

Competition is the lynchpin of a successful capitalist society. People need to understand that.

I agree with you 100%.

[soylentgreen]

Originally Posted by oki

whats teh difference to a moral obligation or a tax obligation? its both rules you imply on society. the one is more forcefull, but the principle is the same.

Yes, exactly...force is the difference. I do not want governemnts forcing people to be kind and generous. I do not want the government telling me how much money I must "contribute" to help poor people. I should be able to decide that on my own.

Originally Posted by oki

thats allso tax, but turned around. who will pay for those bonusses? we will.

What bonuses? I don't know what you are talking about. I said reward good businesses with your dollars...by buying the products they make.

[oki]

Originally Posted by soylentgreen

Yes, exactly...force is the difference. I do not want governemnts forcing people to be kind and generous. I do not want the government telling me how much money I must "contribute" to help poor people. I should be able to decide that on my own.

you decide by voting. I do see your point however. but the result is, sadly, that the poor rot.

What bonuses? I don't know what you are talking about. I said reward good businesses with your dollars...by buying the products they make.

oh okay I thought you said something else.

[Diverlady]

Originally Posted by soylentgreen

Socialism sux because all it means is the government will take more of what you produce so they can spend it on your behalf the way they think it should be spent. I can't think of a more anti-freedom concept.

Capitalism is not perfect, but it does allow people to make their own choices with the fruits of their own labors.

So what do you call our existing system? the government takes a large slice of what you produce to spend it on your behalf the way they think it should be spent. . I really dont think these two terms are comparable because one speaks of an economic system while the other is really a modification to the first. Capitalism is a system of allowing the market to rule the economy and it exists nowhere in its purest form including the good ole USA. We have laws which redistribute wealth, laws which limit markets, limit activities of marketers, limit capital activities impact on the enviroment, human health etc. Each one of these concepts is to some extent socialist. There fore the US is to a great degree a socialist country and capitalism dosent really exist at all. Socialist concepts have been incorporated into virtually all economies in the world with varying degrees of success. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Britian, Canada for example are all examples of very successfull incorporations of socialist concepts. guys the world isnt black and white but rather varying shades of grey.

[Feenix566]

yeah. and, the more capitalist your nation is, the more wealthy it is. sure, socialist countries are more "equal"... they're equally poor.