Socialism vs. Capitalism
Over the past few decades Western European countries have have passed laws and taken other steps towards socialism (or Marxism). This, combined with globalization, has lead to increased pressure on the United States to become more socialistic. Although the ideas of socialism seem appealing, it a fundamentally flawed system and it begins a slippery slope that falls into communism.

Wikipedia defines socialism as "a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. Many socialist ideas come from Marxism (more commonly, "communism"), which essentially calls for a reversal of what we know as the structure of society. In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx predicts that the proletariats will overthrow the bourgeoisie (which seems to be happening to some degree). The bourgeoisie are upper management and upper class, the white collar workers, while the proletariats are the working class, the blue collar workers. Since the proletariats "do all the work", Marx and other socialists suggest that they should get an equal share of the wealth. A Marxist society would have no private property rights and goods produced in it would be distributed among the citizens--"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The idea of a Marxist society is very alluring. In today's world of freedom and fairness, the notion of everyone being completely equal, even if this means taking from the rich and giving to the poor, seems just; however, the defect in Marxism is obvious. It is dependent on a type of human nature that is hard to come by. For Marxism to work, very little greed and jealosy can exist and people must have a general feeling of charity and a willingness to work their hardest for the good of everyone. These are obviously not common traits. Marxism could also work if those who have the greatest abilities and those who work the hardest are satisfied with rewards equivalent to those with lesser abilities and those who don't work hard at all. This is also very unlikely. Marxism undoubtedly leads to free riding and slacking.

On the other hand, capitalism utilizes the willpower of individuals, especially entrepreneurs, to foment economic activity. Capitalism is based on the assumption that individuals operate based on self interest; however, by doing so they not only help themselves, but also propel others towards economic success. As Adam Smith put it, "by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

I was given an assignment by a teacher in high school to write a paper on whether capitalism or communism would be better in "a perfect world." On first glance, communism seems to be the obvious choice, but if it were a perfect world, then not only would people work hard to support their families and progress individually, but even capitalists would be willing to donate to charities, etc. I believe that in a perfect world, a very similar outcome would occur in either communism or capitalism.

The communist societies that have been or are being attempted are really not communist societies at all, although they try to be. The USSR, for example, attempted communism but ended up being way to totaliarianistic--in stead of everyone working for the benefit of the society, there was a group of individuals with total power (Joseph Stalin took this role for a quarter century). Today's China is the same way--there is a centralized bureaucracy that calls all the shots. In both of these cases many people are forced to take part in the society against their own will. The Soviet Union obviously didn't work and China is becoming more prosperous only as they allow their economy to be more capitalistic. Taiwan, China's capitalistic counterpart, is years ahead of China on almost any measure of prosperity.

The fact is that people can't be forced to take part in communism. It simply won't work unless everyone is willing, and even then greed can easily lead to its demise. On the other hand, capitalism can work even if there are some who don't want to pull their weight--the difference is that those that don't pull their weight will suffer the consequences. Just like in communism, capitalism will work better if everyone works hard to produce valuable products. Also just like in communism, a capitalist society where there exists charity and good will will eliminate preventable suffering of all individuals.

So why has France passed a socialistic labor law which makes it very hard to lay off workers? Why does Canada have government sponsered, free health care? Why do some American workers pay over a third of their income in taxes? Why do so many nations tax and then dole out excessive welfare checks?

It seems as though we are doing the very thing that history has proven doesn't work: forcing socialism. How can France expect its workers to work hard if it's nearly impossible to fire them? How can we expect welfare recipients to find jobs if it's easy for them to sit at home and get welfare? I know that there is a real need for welfare among some people, but there are others who smoke and drink and do nothing to better themselves. Socialism is forced on the rest of Americans when they are taxed and their money goes to such people. If this continues, Americans will become more and more lazy and our nation will degenerate to a quasi-socialist, nonproductive society.

The US is taking baby steps towards socialism. We may not be as far as France, and we're definitely not as far as China, but unless we reverse the current trend we will suffer the consequences.

I would really love it if pure socialism actually worked, but Human nature has diff ideas.

All in all I agree.

Yeah, if we all worked our very hardest, and were not selfish or greedy or jealous, it would work. In other words, if we were robots, it would work.

Yes. And monarchy would work if we were ran by angels. Good Article. The main thing people miss (I believe so) is that people are not perfect, and that just because a system looks good on paper, does not mean it works in practice. Because for a system to work it must be designed and operate with human nature, not against it. And in that sense, the only system that passes is Capitalism.

Another thing people miss is that perfection and "fairness" are both alien concepts to human kind and nature in general. Nothing is perfect. Even a capitalistic society that is extremely wealthy, prosperous, and industrious will have poor people, it will have "unfairness" and not everyone who works hard will succeed. But this is life. And this is something that we must simply accept. Charity can help to make things better, but in all cases, when we attempt to use the government to "fix" these imperfections and try to iron out societies problems, we are only making these problems worse and in the long run creating more problems. It's a fact that people must simply accept and deal with. And even then, I would rather live in a society which allows me to pursue my own interests than that which stifles me and takes from me in pursuit of "perfection." As William Shedd once said, "A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for."

uurrrrrrrrrrrgh saw this one coming

I'll reserve a spot :3

Didn't we learn from Fight Club that it's better to support the happy medium?

Didn't we learn from Fight Club that it's better to support the happy medium?

I 100% agree.

Capitalism without socialism gives you Rockefeller.

The problem is always how much of each. I personally prefer a more regulated Capitalism, while it may keep costs slightly higher it keeps us all from dying of lead poisioning.

I'm not sure if you watched the video I had in my signature a while back, but here's the link. It kind of ties into this...

I Then we get rampant misconceptions such as "the nazi's were conservative" or whatever as detailed in the video.

Yeah like when you constantly compare canada to the ussr


HNNNN

It was taken from the fins i think or another northern european country, (wich weren't puppet states)

Since SgtDumbo SgtGumbo resorted to his leftist roots (can't argue his point) he just resorted to trying to start a flame war to get the topic closed. (Which unfortunately he succeeded in this case)

Continue this second topic, however ignore SgtDumbo's flamebait posts.

PC said to wait a few days, and I will respect that, don't post here till PC says it's okay. We can take it to PM if you really want, but I think we pretty much agree on the issue, so it's up to you.

What I mean, is I am in no way a communist supporter, I just think it is wise to understand the fundamentals behind each movement so that we can at least understand where they come from.

I agree with you there. I really respect anyone who auctually looks into things and then decides (SgtGumbo), versus people who just hop on the bandwagon.




Since this has become a flame-war really wuick again i shall try to start some new conversation.

Do you think Obama will be elected to a second term?


Personally, i think there are 3 things that will affect this:

1. If the Economy turns around. Even though the person who is in charge doesn't have much to do with this, he will get the credit from the majority of Americans, and they will in turn "reward" him with a second term.

2. It also depends on how craftily he is able to push his agenda through congress without the mass of America really understanding what he is doing. Americans are afraid of change (I think SGtGumbo said that somewhere and he is completely right). Americans don't want "Socialism" but they want the benefits of it, and if Obama puts too many things in place i think enough Americans will be scared enough to not vote for him.

3. If Terrorists attack again. I didn't like Bush too much, but he kept our country safe, and he wasn't a wuss (like a certain someone who's in office). Now that Obama is decresing our military, N. Korea has gained confidence. You notice how they started to test their nukes as soon as Obama took office? I don't believe that's a coincidence. And Obama, and the rest of the world hasn't really done anything about it... Bush would (corrected that) have, and thats the only thing i really liked about him.



What do you all think?

This is why we don't elect emo kids to government offices.

I don’t care about anyone being wealthy, as long as no one has riches, as long as no one has influence on others

When I was a kid, I was a Gothic nerd. The difference is Goth = I hate everybody else, Emo = I hate myself
I hate everyone else.
But the time for stupid classroom “Clicks” is long over for me.
The sad part is, in a couple years I will be in office. Acting like a Democrat is easy.

But more to the topic at had, how about we choose neither Capitalism nor Socialism and go with Militarism.

This is why we don't elect emo kids to government offices.

My palm has officially gone through my face and is now exiting the back of my cranium. Soon it will be hitching a ride on a ferry to Whidbey Island.

well, the states is already militarist, they're the most powerful country in the world (disregarding numbers, technology is what matters), despite their plastic guns that jam in the wind

Militarism is defined technically as "strong support for a nation's military by that nation's people and government".

Militarism is generally also defiened in addition to that as "A nation pours tons of money and resources into the build up of strong armed forces".

Militarism doesn't necessarily mean "Expansionsim" nor "Imperialism". Ultimately every country in the world has some level of Militarism to an extent.

The United States is not Expansionist persay, we don't seek to acquire territory even though we should.

Well, you were trying for Iraq for a while there..
I'd say america is about 55% militarist compared to N.Korea, however they have most of what they need. In technology, manpower, and resources.
Why should the states aquire new land?

damnit somehow what i wanted to post wouldnt post.

But what i was saying was to answer Drachen and Gumbo:

Lebensraum. An expanded Habit, Living Space.

America is overpopulated, and we need more living space, breathing room.

That land lies both to the north of our border and to the south of our border.

Canada for instance, has so much Unused land, like 60-90% of its territory is unused that could be settled with immigration of some time or settlement. America can greatly use that land for our more important needs.

The biggest supply of land lays down in Mexico. Mexico presents something of a problem though, albeit the problem is easily fixable.

Mexico is a pretty big country, about 109 million citizens, almost none of them speak english, their poor, destitute, uncivilized, living in shacks or in nothing at all and their filled with drug cartels and warring.

The USA should conquer Mexico once and for all, this time to stay, unlike the last 2-3 times when we foolishly chose not to annex the country when we conquered it.

America will have to do a multi-pronged solution to assimilating Mexico into the United States.

1. After Conquering Mexico, They need to begin moving in about 50 million-150 million Settlers.

2. America will have to completely annihalate all towns and cities under the control of the cartels, kill all Cartel members and their families, women children and men. This will leave room for Settlement.

3. America will have to implement a policy of Cultural Breeding in which the mexican culture will be bred out via their women mixing with european-American men.

4. American schools, stores and housing projects will have to begin construction, as well as an English-Only language policy throughout all levels of society.

5. All Males that resist their cultural liberation by a superior more civilized society will have to be castrated, perhaps sent to fight overseas wars.

6. The Youth will be Re-Educated and be Americanized.

7. The People must be Vaccinated and Cleansed of their diseases.

8. After awhile an American civilian administration can take over, the individual Mexican states will be renamed to something more Anglo-American or European.

9. Massive public works projects will have to be undertaken, such as Irrigation projects, hydropowered dams, Canals, more rail roads (if Mexico even has any), etc.

10. Additionally, similar to the roman practice, in addition to civilian settlements, veterans who take part in the conquest will have the option to be given free land for settlement purposes, thus the creation of Veteran's colonies will take place.

After awhile, maybe 15-30 years Mexico will be fully Americanized, the concept of Mexico will be non-existent, perhaps a distant memory, and a culturally, linguistically, and technoligically advanced civilization shall reign supreme giving true Civilization to the destitute down there.

well no my previous topic was concerning Canada.

This one concerns Mexico, the Mexican Question/Solution.

i've passed it on to various Americans and some canadians through the continent and their in good support of it haha. But eh it was just a random idea lmao

Because America must have its glory restored and it must have more Living Room! america is OverPopulated! WE MUST CONQUER OUR NEIGHBORS FOR MORE LAND!