Socialism VS Capitalism

Interbane · Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:16 pm

Obama is continuously labeled as a Socialist. This brings up an association in my head of Communism, so I decided to investigate the matter to see if I was biased. Socialism isn't as bad as Communism it appears, but I still know very little about it.

Capitalism rewards greed. Without regulation, wealth is channeled to a select elite in far greater quantities than the benefits they give back to society. Ideally, you'd be paid for how valuable you were to society. What's more, the rich entrench themselves, and lobby and maneuver to make sure no one else takes any of their pie. Hard work is most times necessary to become rich, but it is most definitely not sufficient. There are many hard working intelligent people who are middle class.

What are the benefits of Socialism versus Capitalism, and vice versa? Any thoughts?

Chris OConnor · Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:39 pm

Interbane, read this and know that what I'm saying is not personal. I think what you've said is an extremely popular position with regards to capitalism. I just find it to be wrong and I'm addressing all liberals, not just you.


	Interbane wrote: Capitalism rewards greed.

I've seen your post sitting here for quite a while and have ignored it. The things you're saying are so wrong that I don't even know where to start or if it is even worth starting. Capitalism rewards greed? Are you serious?

People are greedy whether they exist within a capitalist, socialist or communist system. ALL living organisms strive to maximize their own personal well-being. This isn't up for negotiation in the world of science as its a pretty established fact. We're all greedy in wanting more and better food, clothing and shelter. Yes, you can use extreme definitions of "greed" and we can go on and on about it. But the bottom line is you are greedy. I am greedy. We all want more and better stuff. To deny this is to deny being alive.

With that said your above declaration is simply illogical. How could capitalism reward greed? Please read and think about what I'm saying before you start thinking of a clever response. How in the heck can capitalism reward ones desire for more and better stuff?

- Capitalism meets the intrinsic desire for more and better stuff (greed) by incentivizing those that produce value.
- Socialism meets the intrinsic desire for more and better stuff (greed) by redistributing wealth from the producers to the masses.


	Quote: Under socialism a ruling class of intellectuals, bureaucrats and social planners decide what people want or what is good for society and then use the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living. In other words, socialism is a form of legalized theft.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin ... mpson.html

Capitalism only rewards the creation of value. If you can create goods or services that the market (lots of people) find of value you will be rewarded. If you fail to create value you will be rewarded very little or not at all - under capitalism. Your greed is NOT relevant. If you are greedy, yet have nothing to offer of value, than there will be no reward. Therefore, your statement "Capitalism rewards greed" is illogial and now shown to be factually inconsistent. Your statement is like saying the Olympics gives away Gold Medals to all men that really want one. No, not true. Your desire for a Gold Medal, in and of itself, does not increase the probability of receiving a Gold Medal. Those athletes that receive Gold Medals not only wanted one, but also had the strength, skills, dexterity, endurance or whatever else was necessary to win. There were more Olympic athletes that were greedy or desirous of the Gold Medal than ever received one. So the Olympics doesn't reward the desire to achieve. The Olympics rewards that actual achievement. Either you win or you don't. Your underlying motives are not a factor.

This general rule or principle of capitalism is why the United States as produced more in the way of value than all other nations combined. Yeah, I know, we can argue this to exhaustion, but few would deny that we're king of the mountain and have been for a very long time, with the predominant reason for such economic success being our capitalistic system. We reward those people and/or businesses that add value. Those businesses that produce irrelevant, unwanted, or inferior goods and services are weeded out of the market. The entrepreneurs that figured out the correct combination and application of product, place, price and promotion are rewarded for their ingenuity, creativeness, risk taking, and ultimately net value added.

The statement "capitalism rewards greed" got under my skin so bad, because it means you just don't get it. Just about everything you see and touch every day is the result of someone somewhere being rewarded for adding value to the world. And to tell all those people that they were rewarded, not because of what their blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice produced, but because of "greed" is a tremendous insult.

To say I disagree with you is an understatement. I think there is a humongous level of ignorance within the Democratic Party on how this world operates. I left the Republican Party because of the religious nonsense, but I find the blatant ignorance of the majority of liberals to be embarrassing to me as an American and as a human being. We need to read a book about capitalism here on BookTalk.org.

Chris OConnor · Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:49 pm

Damn this is a good essay:


	Quote: Capitalism is the only moral system because it requires human beings to deal with one another as traders--that is, as free moral agents trading and selling goods and services on the basis of mutual consent.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin ... mpson.html

Chris OConnor · Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:50 pm

I'm going to post this entire essay because I agree with every last word of it:

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin ... mpson.html


	Quote: Socialism vs. Capitalism: Which is the Moral System On Principle, v1n3 October 1993 by: C. Bradley Thompson Throughout history there have been two basic forms of social organization: collectivism and individualism. In the twentieth-century collectivism has taken many forms: socialism, fascism, nazism, welfare-statism and communism are its more notable variations. The only social system commensurate with individualism is laissez-faire capitalism. The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two-hundred years is a matter of historical record. But very few people are willing to defend capitalism as morally uplifting. It is fashionable among college professors, journalists, and politicians these days to sneer at the free-enterprise system. They tell us that capitalism is base, callous, exploitative, dehumanizing, alienating, and ultimately enslaving. The intellectuals’ mantra runs something like this: In theory socialism is the morally superior social system despite its dismal record of failure in the real world. Capitalism, by contrast, is a morally bankrupt system despite the extraordinary prosperity it has created. In other words, capitalism at best, can only be defended on pragmatic grounds. We tolerate it because it works. Under socialism a ruling class of intellectuals, bureaucrats and social planners decide what people want or what is good for society and then use the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living. In other words, socialism is a form of legalized theft. The morality of socialism can be summed-up in two words: envy and self-sacrifice. Envy is the desire to not only possess another’s wealth but also the desire to see another’s wealth lowered to the level of one’s own. Socialism’s teaching on self-sacrifice was nicely summarized by two of its greatest defenders, Hermann Goering and Bennito Mussolini. The highest principle of Nazism (National Socialism), said Goering, is: "Common good comes before private good." Fascism, said Mussolini, is " a life in which the individual, through the sacrifice of his own private interests…realizes that completely spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies." Socialism is the social system which institutionalizes envy and self-sacrifice: It is the social system which uses compulsion and the organized violence of the State to expropriate wealth from the producer class for its redistribution to the parasitical class. Despite the intellectuals’ psychotic hatred of capitalism, it is the only moral and just social system. Capitalism is the only moral system because it requires human beings to deal with one another as traders--that is, as free moral agents trading and selling goods and services on the basis of mutual consent. Capitalism is the only just system because the sole criterion that determines the value of thing exchanged is the free, voluntary, universal judgement of the consumer. Coercion and fraud are anathema to the free-market system. It is both moral and just because the degree to which man rises or falls in society is determined by the degree to which he uses his mind. Capitalism is the only social system that rewards merit, ability and achievement, regardless of one’s birth or station in life. Yes, there are winners and losers in capitalism. The winners are those who are honest, industrious, thoughtful, prudent, frugal, responsible, disciplined, and efficient. The losers are those who are shiftless, lazy, imprudent, extravagant, negligent, impractical, and inefficient. Capitalism is the only social system that rewards virtue and punishes vice. This applies to both the business executive and the carpenter, the lawyer and the factory worker. But how does the entrepreneurial mind work? Have you ever wondered about the mental processes of the men and women who invented penicillin, the internal combustion engine, the airplane, the radio, the electric light, canned food, air conditioning, washing machines, dishwashers, computers, etc.? What are the characteristics of the entrepreneur? The entrepreneur is that man or woman with unlimited drive, initiative, insight, energy, daring creativity, optimism and ingenuity. The entrepreneur is the man who sees in every field a potential garden, in every seed an apple. Wealth starts with ideas in people’s heads. The entrepreneur is therefore above all else a man of the mind. The entrepreneur is the man who is constantly thinking of new ways to improve the material or spiritual lives of the greatest number of people. And what are the social and political conditions which encourage or inhibit the entrepreneurial mind? The free-enterprise system is not possible without the sanctity of private property, the freedom of contract, free trade and the rule of law. But the one thing that the entrepreneur values over all others is freedom--the freedom to experiment, invent and produce. The one thing that the entrepreneur dreads is government intervention. Government taxation and regulation are the means by which social planners punish and restrict the man or woman of ideas. Welfare, regulations, taxes, tariffs, minimum-wage laws are all immoral because they use the coercive power of the state to organize human choice and action; they’re immoral because they inhibit or deny the freedom to choose how we live our lives; they’re immoral because they deny our right to live as autonomous moral agents; and they’re immoral because they deny our essential humanity. If you think this is hyperbole, stop paying your taxes for a year or two and see what happens. The requirements for success in a free society demand that ordinary citizens order their lives in accordance with certain virtues--namely, rationality, independence, industriousness, prudence, frugality, etc. In a free capitalist society individuals must choose for themselves how they will order their lives and the values they will pursue. Under socialism, most of life’s decisions are made for you. Both socialism and capitalism have incentive programs. Under socialism there are built-in incentives to shirk responsibility. There is no reason to work harder than anyone else becuase the rewards are shared and therefore minimal to the hard-working individual; indeed, the incentive is to work less than others because the immediate loss is shared and therefore minimal to the slacker. Under capitalism, the incentive is to work harder because each producer will receive the total value of his production--the rewards are not shared. Simply put: socialism rewards sloth and penalizes hard work while capitalism rewards hard work and penalizes sloth. According to socialist doctrine, there is a limited amount of wealth in the world that must be divided equally between all citizens. One person’s gain under such a system is another’s loss. According to the capitalist teaching, wealth has an unlimited growth potential and the fruits of one’s labor should be retained in whole by the producer. But unlike socialism, one person’s gain is everybody’s gain in the capitalist system. Wealth is distributed unequally but the ship of wealth rises for everyone. Sadly, America is no longer a capitalist nation. We live under what is more properly called a mixed economy--that is, an economic system that permits private property, but only at the discretion of government planners. A little bit of capitalism and a little bit of socialism. When government redistributes wealth through taxation, when it attempts to control and regulate business production and trade, who are the winners and losers? Under this kind of economy the winners and losers are reversed: the winners are those who scream the loudest for a handout and the losers are those quiet citizens who work hard and pay their taxes. As a consequence of our sixty-year experiment with a mixed economy and the welfare state, America has created two new classes of citizens. The first is a debased class of dependents whose means of survival is contingent upon the forced expropriation of wealth from working citizens by a professional class of government social planners. The forgotten man and woman in all of this is the quiet, hardworking, lawabiding, taxpaying citizen who minds his or her own business but is forced to work for the government and their serfs. The return of capitalism will not happen until there is a moral revolution in this country. We must rediscover and then teach our young the virtues associated with being free and independent citizens. Then and only then, will there be social justice in America. C. Bradley Thompson is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Ashland University and Coordinator of Publications and Special Programs at the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs.

etudiant · Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:21 pm

It’s my opinion that in any system there are two forces at work. There is individual motivation, that is human psychology; and there also is an organizational culture, or prevailing belief system.

Probably most readers here have experienced this. The attitudes of management, and/ or the policies of one’s employer can have a strong effect on events. Depending on the organization, the atmosphere can vary widely. The experience of working as an officer in a trade union is likely to be very different from the values and interpersonal relationships evident in an investment firm, for example.

Textbook capitalism says that people function as individuals, look out for their own best interests, and make logical decisions that will lead to personal material gain. Further, the theory suggests that this is good, because it is the prospect of wealth that causes people to do their best. The inefficient are also weeded out. By choosing the best car for example, those that make shoddy cars will not get the trade, and will eventually go out of business. In this fashion, capital is always being allocated to the best uses.

The Alan Greenspans and Dick Cheneys and Steven Harpers of the world would likely agree with this. Psychologists, or those that have explored human behavior to a greater depth, would likely give a sardonic grin and shake their heads. If one thing is safe to say about human behavior, it is that people very often do not make logical decisions. People can be impulsive, ill informed, swayed by advertising, or peer pressure, or personal bias; subconscious needs or motivations very likely play a much bigger part in decision making than most would expect.

When I was in the taxi business years ago, I made a point of asking people when I could what it was that drew their loyalty to one company over another. In almost all cases the reasons given were factually wrong. By this I mean that they believed one company had a better dispatch system, friendlier drivers, or cleaner cars for example, than another. But this has simply not true; it was just a snapshot impression that stuck. Although the efficiency of the various outfits did vary with the actions of individuals who were working at those moments in time, employee’s behaviors and management decisions tended to follow the same patterns across companies. Resources were not allocated to the best company, but tended to be spread around, as people certainly had opinions, but these tended to statistically even out.

In some cases, it is simply functionally very hard for individuals to make good economic choices. In real estate, for example, individuals would benefit if they could all network within a large group, and demand moderation in house prices. When the group in question consists of hundreds of millions of people, this is just not doable. Left with individual choice they then just do the best they can, trying to get the best price for themselves, which results in a bidding up of prices, in which all ultimately loose. Yes, it may seem great to get a big price for your house, but you will just have to turn around and pay more for your next. In the meantime, it means allocating more of your hard earned money to the banking system, in the form of mortgage payments.

Graft and corruption can occur in any system. When the one in question says that greed is OK, materialism is quite to be expected, and self-interest is just natural human behavior, it is not too surprising to see those who are greedy and self-serving rise to positions of prominence. We have seen conspicuous examples of these sorts of things in the financial community lately, but really this is just a rather large wave in a big sea. In this regard, wealth is not being allocated in the wisest way, but merely being hoarded by the avaricious and the unscrupulous.

Socialism starts from the point of idealism, but can also fall flat in the face of individual and group behaviors.

Property can be an issue with socialism. When something belongs to everyone, sometimes that means it belongs to no one. Not having the responsibility to control and see some project through to completion can lead to a distancing, and a feeling of alienation. You may take good care of that favorite book on your bookshelf, but if it were a library book, would it be in as good a shape a few years down the road? Well, it may, or it may not.

Cultural beliefs can be important here, I think. In Asia there tends to be more of a group feeling, a willingness to take a bit of a personal hit for the group. In Latin America, in many places family can trump community. The family home is sacred, but it faces an inner courtyard, and is a blank wall to the street. In many places in Asia, the opposite is the case with homes: they are open in the front, and abut the street, living room adjacent to sidewalk. Perhaps there is a metaphor in there somewhere. Here in North America, the individual is celebrated in the media.

Assurance of property can also be an issue with socialism. By this I don’t mean someone raging against taxes, or insisting no one touch their BMW. But if one is going to put money into an investment that in turn will fuel a large pension plan, one must be assured that the rules will guarantee fair play with said investment. Cuba ran afoul of the US in this regard in 1959, and the US has never forgiven them (although the rest of the world has).

Accountability must also be scrupulously tracked as well in socialist systems. If it is not money that counts, then it must be a politically and culturally imbedded philosophy, and rules of responsibility that takes its place.

Socialism has at least the advantage of starting with a set of ideals, even if these ideals can later be corrupted. The challenge here is keep up motivation when in some circumstances the benefits of one’s labor are sometimes more of an abstraction, although ultimately more beneficial to the community, than the benefit of some bills in one’s pocket.

The optimum in my opinion is to have a blend of the best of both systems. Some countries have pulled this off fairly well, like Germany or Sweden for example.

DWill · Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:27 pm

Obviously it makes sense to socialize some costs, and every country in the world does this. Chris, you are in favor of socializing the costs of space exploration. Currently we're having a bitter debate over socializing the costs of healthcare, which most industrialized nations already do. I agree that we should do this. Will that make us a socialist country? How much government involvement in providing for citizens is needed before a country beomes 'socialist'? In Europe, and even now in China and Russia, socialism and capitalism co-exist, it would seem. Most nations have moved toward a mix. I don't know of a successful, fully socialist country (that is, with a centralized economy directed entirely by the government). I know of at least one country, though, in which unfettered capitalism has recently done great damage.

I'd like to hear etudiant on this topic.

Incredible! I went to post this and saw that etudiant had just posted.

Interbane · Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:54 pm


	Quote: Please read and think about what I'm saying before you start thinking of a clever response.

I really only care to get to the truth, or closer to it. I haven't read any further than this, but I'm happy there's already some lengthy posts. I'm quite politically uneducated, so if I try to come up with something clever it will likely be wrong. Part of my reason in posting this is actually because of reading I've been doing on toxins in our foods. It's so darned difficult to find unbiased writings. It seems to be polarized between corporation sponsored scientists and conspiracy theorists. After reading your post about how survival of the fittest is good for the economy, I knew you'd respond if I prodded a little. Sorry, but thanks for the response. I'll post my thoughts after reading.

Interbane · Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:55 pm


	Quote: Capitalism only rewards the creation of value.

There is something not quite right about that idea. Could Einstein's theories be considered items of value? Although he was rewarded, it seems the reward for most scientists is prestige rather than money. That's just a side thought.

My real issue is when it isn't 'value' that is rewarded, but the illusion of value. Or, when the thing of value which is created is harmful, but advertised differently. Toxins in foods is an example. Cigarettes is another. Derivatives on Wall Street is another, but I'm not sure what those even are. Kinoko footpads, drugs that can't outperform placebo, bottled water, high fructose corn syrup, lead paint. There are also practices that affect our perception of value. Planned obsolescence, spin advertising, corporate funded science. Some of the things we could think of are created honestly, but others aren't. In these cases, it isn't precisely value that is rewarded, but the illusion of value.

It is collateral damage, a necessary evil that occurs for all the good(s) that is produced. Creating the illusion of value is motivated by our greed the same as our desire to create real value. I agree that we are all inherently greedy. Just as a living cell produces damaging free radicals as a byproduct of making energy, there are negatives produced by capitalism as a byproduct of creating wealth and value. I do think capitalism is a great system, but if left unregulated people will be taken advantage of at the expense of others. Perhaps I'm being idealistic in trying to see a way around this.

I do believe there should be regulation. An economy left unchecked sounds good in theory, but there are a couple of problems. People making money off the illusion of value is one. Relentless consumption is another. It's like an electric circuit without a resistor. It will burn up. Water tables across the country are depleted to the point where they are unsustainable. Much of the farming currently done isn't sustainable. There's deforestation and pollution and Canada taking all our oxygen. Fossil fuels too, I think. Our progress, if left unregulated, will eat through our resources. There should be regulation to ensure sustainability. Over regulation is immoral, but under regulation is irresponsible.

Regulation is tempered by lobbyists in DC in many cases. Has anyone watched Food, Inc.? The documentary mentions Kevin's Law, which was an attempt to permit the USDA to shut down meat plants if they continuously produce bad meat. The law never passed. E. Coli outbreaks have happened almost every year in a variety of foodstuffs, requiring recalls only after it was shipped and in many cases, eaten. This regulation should have passed, but was resisted by lobbying efforts. It's strange to hear how former corporation executives suddenly get new jobs working for the agency that is supposed to regulate those corporations.

I'm also wondering how we as a country have been so prosperous over the last century, but during the majority of that time the upper bracket tax rate was 90%. The wealthy were still very wealthy, even with such a ridiculously high tax rate.

johnson1010 · Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:03 am

Both systems have things going for them. Both can be exploitive, and both bring benefit of their own kind.

The problem with both systems is human supervision. I think the name is different but ultimately the same thing happens in both societal types. The rich get richer, the powerful use their power to consolidate more of the same for themselves, and the opposite happens to the masses.

free markets work just fine for things which there is plenty of competition in product, or when the item in question (or service) is not a necessary thing.

example.

5 or 6 different kinds of bread for sale at the grocery store. one is 50 cents more expensive than the others. Not too difficult to avoid being price gouged by this producer, as there are options at hand.

Some things we really have no options with. My wife's sister's retina detached from her eye. She was going blind. The choice she was left with was go blind in that eye, or have a surgery for $18,000. This is really no choice at all. They can charge anything they please in that situation, and there is really nothing to be done about it. Anyone who has even a remote chance of procuring payment will do so, regardless if they can actually afford this kind of expenditure.

The same with cancer. Getting cancer these days is almost a guaranteed trip to bankruptcy. It costs everything you own, and whatever else you can get from the people you know.

You can choose not to buy bread, but choosing to die with cancer when it is possible to treat it is no choice at all.

it is not true that only working people are rewarded in capitalism. Not by a long shot.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/e ... _20060621/


	Quote: n 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks

is it even remotely possible that the work of the CEO of GM gets more valuable work done in one day than one of his employees does in an entire year on the factory floor?

These guys don't even know how to make cars.

The sad thing is that CEO isn't even wealthy. He's just rich. Rich people can lose their money if they make enough bad moves.

There is no argument for the CEO's of banks to ride ginormous golden parachutes to the ground when the companies they ran failed under their management.

Caplitalism does need regulation. It is set up so that the strongest business gains the larger portion of the market. With that additional leverage it usually ends up even further marginalizing the competition until they get squeezed right out of the game. Capitalism leads inevitably to monopolies.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting ahead in life. But, As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

Think about these numbers for a second.

there's a thousand pounds of gold and 100 people.

1 person has three hundred and thirty four pounds of gold.
The next 19 people have five hundred ten pounds of gold.

The twenty people above have eight hundred and forty pounds of gold.

everyone else has to share one hundred and sixty pounds.

That isn't just getting ahead.That is turning our butts inside out with mind boggling prison rape.

This is not to say that i am against capitalism. But just like american history, it isnt the beautiful fairy-tale that our text books make it out to be. People will take advantage of other people. powerful people have more opportunity to take advantage, and poor people have little opportunity to resist. This happens across the board, it doesnt matter what you label the social system. it must be guarded against.

In capitalism monopoly companies get so huge and powerful that they have economies that rival nations. In socialist societies the government itself is the un-checked threat, but it behaves exactly like a monopoly company. its the people in power who must be reminded of our shared humanity.

etudiant · Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:10 pm

I enjoyed reading your thoughts about greed Chris. It reminded me of that film, Wall Street I think it was called, with Michael Douglas as the character Gekko raging on about how greed was good, with his gelled hair and $800 dollar suit. Now there was a real capitalist.

More on greed, but first I just have to pass a comment on your statement that the US, through the benefit of capitalism, is the king of the mountain, and has produced more wealth than all other countries combined. Today US GDP is a little less than one quarter of total world GDP, just a shade under that of the EU. This is a proportion that has been steadily shrinking since the Second World War, due to the recovery of Europe and Asia, and later the emergence of formerly third world countries like China and India.

Of course, this is just one way to look at the issue. Another is PPP, or purchasing power parity, which takes into account the cost of living in various surveyed countries. On a per capita basis, the US is in about the middle of the pack by this measure. In other words, roughly similar to the other major developed countries in Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. Not the top, not the bottom.

Many on the far right expound the value of personal wealth, and the destructive impact of taxes. Because of this political drive for lower taxes, and the sanctity of private wealth, not surprisingly, many public programs have not been adequately funded, like social security and Medicare. Generally, this has been dealt with in two ways. One: decisions about funding major programs like the two quoted have been pushed back, and left to be resolved in the future. And two: governments have borrowed extensively through the sale of treasury bills. This borrowing is not trivial, and represents several trillion dollars of debt. The US used to be the world’s largest creditor, but is now the world’s largest debtor. This rise in debt coincided with the rise of the political right during the 1980s.

Many countries carry debt, some a larger amount than the US. But an unstable factor in US debt is that a large chunk of it is in foreign hands, particularly China. We need hardly comment on the irony here of “socialist” countries helping to underwrite the lifestyle of hockey moms from Alaska through their purchase of US T- bills. But I suppose the most famous hockey mom does not need foreign money. Fortune has dumped an opportunity on her doorstep, and she seems determined to milk it for all it is worth. The millions paid to hear her maunderings do not to me represent value in any way, shape, or form, but they do represent another example of far right philosophy, and the workings of unbridled capitalism. Money beckoned; public post forgotten. Gordon Gekko would certainly be smiling. Or perhaps it would be a wolfish grin.

So to an extent you are right. Above is an example of the greed and self-interest that many display. But personally, I don’t believe the majority of people are greedy, in the US, or anywhere. Certainly I know many who are not. Not the social workers I know who toil away in the most stressful situations for very low pay, nor the people who work here in the very large volunteer community for no money. Not the people I have met while traveling who went out of their way to help me, although they had absolutely nothing themselves in relation to our standard of living, and nothing to gain. And I am sure there are many others: union organizers who risked life and limb to establish rights that are now taken for granted, the young men and women who volunteered for the Peace Corps in the 1960s, those around the world who signed up for UN peace keeping missions through their countries military when they could have stayed safely at home, the physicians who work for Doctors Without Borders, risking, and sometimes loosing there lives to help others, and those who do work for other aid programs in the most chaotic parts of the world. I don’t know what engineers get paid at NASA, but I would be willing to bet that if it ever came to big pay cuts, many would choose to stay on, because they believe what they are doing is important, regardless of the money. Well, I’m sure other posters here could tack on much more to this list from personal experience.

Robert Tulip · Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:24 pm

Chris OConnor wrote:

I'm going to post this entire essay because I agree with every last word of it:

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin ... mpson.html


	Quote: Socialism vs. Capitalism: Which is the Moral System On Principle, v1n3 October 1993 by: C. Bradley Thompson Throughout history there have been two basic forms of social organization: collectivism and individualism. In the twentieth-century collectivism has taken many forms: socialism, fascism, nazism, welfare-statism and communism are its more notable variations. The only social system commensurate with individualism is laissez-faire capitalism.

Hi Chris, thank you for posting this essay by C. Bradley Thompson. It comes from the Ayn Rand school of capitalist philosophy. Ayn Rand held that liberty from collective oppression is obtained through the protection of private property and fostering of individual talent in competition. She saw communism as wrong and immoral, and is a beacon of the Cold War conflict between liberty and totalitarianism. Rand is associated with hostility towards social planning and government regulation. Attitudes of American individualism which may have worked in frontier days have to find a place in a much more regulated world, of cooperation towards shared goals. A question that comes out of this is how governments should regulate to support the sort of entrepreneurial culture that Ayn Rand celebrated.


	Quote: The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two-hundred years is a matter of historical record. But very few people are willing to defend capitalism as morally uplifting.

This is an important statement. Howard Bloom’s Genius of the Beast celebrates the capitalist market for the provision of hygiene and sanitation through soap and modern plumbing. There are myriad examples of how modern abundance is due to capitalist ingenuity.


	Quote: It is fashionable among college professors, journalists, and politicians these days to sneer at the free-enterprise system. They tell us that capitalism is base, callous, exploitative, dehumanizing, alienating, and ultimately enslaving.

These are exaggerations of a common view that unbridled capitalism is dangerous. Failure to regulate financial mechanisms caused the global financial crisis. Better control of the limits of finance markets is a response to the attitude that the market knows best. Yes markets are self-correcting, but without regulation the boom and bust are bigger, and the new base for a next phase of growth is encumbered by debt.


	Quote: The intellectuals’ mantra runs something like this: In theory socialism is the morally superior social system despite its dismal record of failure in the real world. Capitalism, by contrast, is a morally bankrupt system despite the extraordinary prosperity it has created. In other words, capitalism at best, can only be defended on pragmatic grounds. We tolerate it because it works.

This is a sound critique of socialist thinking. However, it reminds me of Chris’s earlier comments about capitalism encouraging greed. It is greedy to want to keep everything to yourself and not share with others. However, capitalism has discovered that private property is the engine of economic growth. Incentive for work is greatest where people have control of their own lives. Socialism, using the state for redistribution of wealth, encourages a bureaucratic culture that has weak understanding of what is needed to create wealth.


	Quote: Under socialism a ruling class of intellectuals, bureaucrats and social planners decide what people want or what is good for society and then use the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living. In other words, socialism is a form of legalized theft.

The final statement is unfair, because redistribution provides the social peace that is needed for those who create the wealth. Social security enhances social stability and cohesion, and is a necessary tax. However, its use in the hands of a socialist ruling class is dangerous. This model of a socialist ruling class harks back to Karl Marx’s theory of the communist party as the vanguard of the proletariat, but now rather than artisans as “a ruling class of intellectuals, bureaucrats and social planners”.


	Quote: The morality of socialism can be summed-up in two words: envy and self-sacrifice. Envy is the desire to not only possess another’s wealth but also the desire to see another’s wealth lowered to the level of one’s own. Socialism’s teaching on self-sacrifice was nicely summarized by two of its greatest defenders, Hermann Goering and Bennito Mussolini. The highest principle of Nazism (National Socialism), said Goering, is: "Common good comes before private good." Fascism, said Mussolini, is " a life in which the individual, through the sacrifice of his own private interests…realizes that completely spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies."

This attack on socialism as self-sacrifice bears comparison with other ways that sacrifice has been seen as a virtue. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross is seen by Christianity as the source of salvation. People can see a higher good than their personal advantage, and sacrifice their private benefit for the sake of others, or for a vision of a better world. The capitalist argument implies that you should focus on your own material advantage rather than dreaming about lofty ideals. By attacking envy and sacrifice as human motives, the argument about the morality of socialism closes down the ability of poor people to dream of a better world. Envy can be a positive quality, where we admire something that someone has and want to share or learn from them.


	Quote: Socialism is the social system which institutionalizes envy and self-sacrifice: It is the social system which uses compulsion and the organized violence of the State to expropriate wealth from the producer class for its redistribution to the parasitical class.

Yes, this explains how socialism has made a mythology of class war, with producers cast in a role of greedy thieves and the state seen as an instrument of redistribution. However, condemning a class of people as parasitical is a bit extreme. The state enables wide institutional support for communities, and the USA can afford more reliable social protection as a public good. Ensuring the whole society shares in the wealth of the society is essential for security and stability. This is why Christ said feed the hungry. The point of the capitalist critique of socialism is that people must produce wealth before they can share it.


	Quote: Despite the intellectuals’ psychotic hatred of capitalism, it is the only moral and just social system.

Shades of Ayn Rand again with the moral universe in full play. The flipside here is that capitalists themselves have proven unreliable in regulating the economy. For Ayn Rand’s acolytes to say “trust us, we’re capitalists” indicates a level of faith in the market that was over-stated, such as by Alan Greenspan.


	Quote: Capitalism is the only moral system because it requires human beings to deal with one another as traders--that is, as free moral agents trading and selling goods and services on the basis of mutual consent.

True in part. A free market produces equilibrium price for everything, once all externalities and values are factored in. Capitalism supports accountable and transparent dealings of respect between people. When trade in goods and services are organised as markets they build in incentives for efficiency and effectiveness. However, the American health system is an example of market failure, suggesting capitalism is not the only moral system.


	Quote: Capitalism is the only just system because the sole criterion that determines the value of thing exchanged is the free, voluntary, universal judgement of the consumer. Coercion and fraud are anathema to the free-market system.

Here we are getting the ideal dream of capitalism rather than the reality. Consumers need to be well informed to know their needs. The market has a rough justice, but this points towards Hayek’s idea in The Constitution of Liberty that rule of law as the foundation of free markets is the basis of capitalist justice.


	Quote: It is both moral and just because the degree to which man rises or falls in society is determined by the degree to which he uses his mind. Capitalism is the only social system that rewards merit, ability and achievement, regardless of one’s birth or station in life.

Meaning brains are the source of wealth if we use them well. Which I agree with.

DWill · Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:30 pm

Those were nifty pieces, etudiant and Robert. While it doesn't actually take that much doing for me to simplify my view on this topic, here it is. Any system that doesn't allow for or discourages individual entrepreneurship is a bad one. While far from having the skills or motivations of an entrepreneur, I have a sense that entrepreneurs are vital to the lifestyle I value. As a public employee, my salary is even directly tied to what those do who undertake the risks of business.

It is an outrage and extremely destructive to our social fabric that unscrupulous, venal, or criminal people have abused our capitalist system so badly over the past couple of years.

Interbane · Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:12 am


	Quote: It is an outrage and extremely destructive to our social fabric that unscrupulous, venal, or criminal people have abused our capitalist system so badly over the past couple of years.

This is my thought as well. There is much that is done which is legal, yet immoral. Or illegal, but they know the system well enough to stay under the radar.


	Quote: Socialism, using the state for redistribution of wealth, encourages a bureaucratic culture that has weak understanding of what is needed to create wealth.

I picture a bureaucratic society as one that resembles a country wide DMV. I hate the DMV. They are slow, inefficient, and have none of the incentives found in competition that would make their operating procedures more efficient. Customer service rarely matters, they are the only game in town. I couldn't bear to live in a society where I would have to watch a person cut every corner he could from laziness, yet be rewarded the same as myself. I would leave the country.

johnson1010 · Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:15 am

Perhaps the real problem is the size of the organizations in question.

Local restaurants owned, operated and maintained by local businessmen are always better than mcdonalds or burgerking.

If you work for mcdonalds, what incentive is there to care about the business? Everyone you know working there with you is just another peon. They have little to say about what is sold, how it is prepared, or just about anything else to do with the business. It is just a financial investment.

Local places can be the same, but more often than not they were created out of a passion for the product. Because the owners have a passion they try to hire other people of the same interests and if at all possible the very skilled in that area.

Those of you on this board with your own business. Think about the way you run it. Think about your interest in it's well being and the value you offer your customers. i bet you are proud of what you provide, and want it to be the best.

What investment, on a personal level, does the CEO of a multi-national corporation really have? What loyalty can a worker have to such a monolithic, faceless giant of money-swappers? The CEO of GM doesn't have to know how to build a car. They just have to know how to manage titanic businesses. They could transition to running a phone company, or oil company with just a little bit of training. All they are doing is shuffling numbers.

DWill · Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:16 pm


	johnson1010 wrote: Perhaps the real problem is the size of the organizations in question. Local restaurants owned, operated and maintained by local businessmen are always better than mcdonalds or burgerking. If you work for mcdonalds, what incentive is there to care about the business? Everyone you know working there with you is just another peon. They have little to say about what is sold, how it is prepared, or just about anything else to do with the business. It is just a financial investment. Local places can be the same, but more often than not they were created out of a passion for the product. Because the owners have a passion they try to hire other people of the same interests and if at all possible the very skilled in that area. Those of you on this board with your own business. Think about the way you run it. Think about your interest in it's well being and the value you offer your customers. i bet you are proud of what you provide, and want it to be the best. What investment, on a personal level, does the CEO of a multi-national corporation really have? What loyalty can a worker have to such a monolithic, faceless giant of money-swappers? The CEO of GM doesn't have to know how to build a car. They just have to know how to manage titanic businesses. They could transition to running a phone company, or oil company with just a little bit of training. All they are doing is shuffling numbers.

You know, I'm not one to defend McD's with its 50,000 franchises or whatever, and I'd certainly hate to have to work in one, but I think there is, or should be, no barrier to a worker wanting to do a good job just because he works for a behemoth. McDonalds, I believe, are owned by independent business people, not that different from the local greasy spoon. Anyway, I have had an opportunity to observe the workers at two fast-food restaurants. Every one of them, I think is Latino or Latina. And compared to the droopy, draggy Anglo kids that used to work in these places, they are excellent. They do have pride in the job they're doing, and they're using the experience as training. They may go places.

Forum rules

Socialism VS Capitalism Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!