Capitalism VS Socialism for Dummies

[dantes]

Those are questions you never asked me and statements I never made.

This conversation was rife with me having to correct your assumptions about what I believe. This post is no different.

[peek-a-boo]

@mobulis

That’s because your wrong.

Interesting, given that you explicitly said that you believed Socialism was a viable alternative to capitalism.

[peek-a-boo]

@dantes

Those are questions you never asked me and statements I never made.

This conversation was rife with me having to correct your assumptions about what I believe. This post is no different.

Not explicitly.

There was a lengthy exchange in this thread with a handful of LIBs. It isn’t the first exchange of this type that I’ve had over the years and it won’t be the last.

As I stated, I got what I was looking for and am moving on.

[mobulis]

@mobulis

long suspected. LIBs are comfortable with Socialism as an alternative to capitalism. They don’t readily acknowledge

It is, your wrong about it being a failed system when implemented properly.

[dantes]

And you explicitly said what he considered socialism wasn’t actually socialism.

[dantes]

Apparently not moving on at all.

You said I confirmed your suspicions yet you believe I confirmed things I don’t believe and never stated.

It would seem this is more bias confirmation based on the information available to me.

[fallenturtle]

“Liberal” covers a very broad swath of people with varying opinions. Basically you can find tons of liberalism who are pro socialism and tons that are anti. But even among the “pros” you won’t find central planning very popular.

[AngraMainyu]

@bootz

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?

Dumb ■■■■ propaganda

[AngraMainyu]

Progressives are for a welfare state and programs similar to scandinavia. It’s still capitalism.

[Samson_Corwell]

It is a counter-example. That is what it is. What does it matter what it has to do with him?

[NJBob]

@tnt

@mobulis

Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands.

Norway as well.

And Finland

[Forcefield]

Really great, honest OP title.

[7426k]

And France, Germany, Spain, Ireland, The UK, Iceland, Japan…

[TheRedComet]

Pure socialism is not a viable alternative to capitalism. We live in a world of scarcity. Until that part of the equation is fixed (and barring moving into space it’s not going to be fixed) then pure socialist economies tend to fail.

There are certain elements of socialism that are attractive to society and can be integrated into a capitalist economy. We already do this with the welfare system (social security, Medicaid, etc.), unemployment protection and benefits, so on and so forth.

[TheRedComet]

The key is who owns the means of production and by extension the capital it generates.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@TheRedComet

He wasn’t born poor either. He was solidly middle class from birth. But with hard work he entered the 1% of the 1%. I’m a fan of Gates; his charity work is second to none.

But ultimately he had an easier going of life then some poor nameless dude out of the ghetto. It’s fairly easy to move from middle class to upper middle class and even farther up the ladder. It’s getting from poverty to middle class that is so hard in America. It’s not impossible but it is difficult.

I think that financial wealth has less to do with how much money you start with but more to do with one’s culture, attitude, initiative, and endurance.

I am not really disputing your point though that having money at the beginning helps. It’s just that if you took everyone’s personal wealth today and redistributed it equally, in N years there would still be the 1% and there would still be the poor.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@NJBob

@tnt

@mobulis

Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands.

Norway as well.

And Finland

Countries that can rely on others to defend them militarily. Let’s see… what could we do with the extra money if we did not have to fund the defense of the western world?

[AngraMainyu]

Defend them from who?

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@AngraMainyu

Defend them from who?

Those who view Europe either as threat or as a ripe plumb that should be picked.

The written history of human beings is one primarily of warfare and conquest.

[AngraMainyu]

Which nations?