Capitalism VS Socialism for Dummies

In know way do the following terms apply specifically and exclusively to one or the other. Instead they are terms where there is a bias in their prevalence.

Capitalism = driven by Merit

Socialism = Patronage, Nepotism, Partisanship, knavery.

why?

Because a focus on equality minimizes merit. I believe this is self evident.

Without merit there is only partisanship, nepotism, patronage, and knavery to advance ones position.

Egalitarian revolutions degenerate into dictatorships because the most partisan and extreme elements gather power.

Merit, as it is widely dispersed in multiple fields of talent, by it’s very nature is an antidote to centralized power.

Hence capitalism, a merit based system, is more egalitarian at the root, fosters virtue, and delivers freedom and choice to those in the system.

A trademark of capitalism is class mobility. Socialism eliminates upward mobility as there are only a ruling class and a working class. perhaps you could include a management class between the working class and ruling class. But then how does a working person become a manager or a ruler?

Socialism promises , food, shelter, clothing and medicine with only two prices. First is your voice, second is your opportunity.

Socialism, which is susceptible to the knavery of men, is inherently intolerant and must minimize the person to survive.

Societies which place equality above merit will not serve the people well as all will suffer disproportionately.

In capitalism, the poor suffer less and the wealthy enjoy the most.

Who would choose a system that increases suffering and punishes the pursuit of happiness?

3 Likes

Yeah, we don’t have any of this in our capitalist society. :roll_eyes:

2 Likes

it is a commentary on Democratic socialism, it points out that in an egalitarian society there is little merit. So what then are we left with to organize.

did you disagree with any particular part of the reasoning?

I guess you did not read the Op

In know way do the following terms apply specifically and exclusively to one or the other. Instead they are terms where there is a bias in their prevalence.

takes a real genius to miss the beginning.

1 Like

Paris Hilton will have more wealth than I could ever dream of and I can work between 60 and 70 hours a week.

How is that merit based?

1 Like

Obviously Paris was born well, lucky sperm club. But what does that have to do with you? does it take away from you in any way? or do you get to buy one night in paris?

The same could be said of every other celebrity. Why does an athlete make 100 million and a beer server make minimum wage for selling beer for 10 bucks a can.

would the beer server be better off if the football player made minimum wage as well.

2 Likes

It doesn’t take away from me at all

Just responding to your argument that it is merit based.

Capitalism will allow greater social mobility… with serious government intervention but lassez faire leads to Fuedalism.

Well, damn…all this time we’ve been living in under socialism because there is A LOT of this in this Capitalistic nation we called the United States.

You are looking for “equality of results or outcome” versus “equality of opportunity”.

A free capitalist system avails each individual the opportunity to achieve success and wealth; or to fail. A socialist system provides the same miserable outcome for everyone but the ruling class.

1 Like

Capitalism will allow greater social mobility… with serious government intervention but lassez faire leads to Fuedalism.

where is there evidence that laissez faire leads to feudalism.

remember this, feudalism> Mercantilism> Capitalism.

the greatest regulator of commerce is competition which leads to technological advance and higher standards of living for the serfs.

So, is capitalism more or less merit influenced than socialism?

Is the pure socialism you are describing being advocated for here in the US?

Jezcoe knows that, but he just wanted to ignore the first sentence.

it is funny that opponents want to argue absolutes rather than trends.

DSA, would say yes.

or alternatively, all the stock would be taken from private investors and given to the workers. but then apple employees would have more than other workers, so that would not be fair. I assume then that they want government ownership of production and all workers have an equal stake in government.

Small steps; slippery slope.

How much is too much? Socialists will always be looking for more Government control. They will never be satisfied until the Government controls everything. By then it will be too late, as it is in Venezuela. I’m 100% convinced that no one intentionally set out to destroy that once vibrant economy. But there you go……………

1 Like

No, Venezuela was destroyed by arrogance, incompetence and and nationalism.

So socialism played no part? And you honestly believe that??? :confused:

Socialism grew out of the above issues. It’s a symptom, not the disease.

Patronage, Nepotism, Partisanship, knavery.

please provide some reasoning to support your conclusion

I don’t have the opportunity to be as wealthy as Paris Hilton - I can not live her life because my parents are not hotel magnates.