These two terms have been frequently tossed about with abandon and sometimes anger...how about we each take the time to read the linked article, digest it and then come back with considered opinions...and perhaps even a sense of common ground and future direction.
Link: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/16/17698602/socialism-capitalism-false-dichotomy-kevin-williamson-column-republican-ocasio-cortez
That is why socialism always leans toward totalitarianism, whereas capitalism does not have an inherent lean towards totalitarianism.
For socialism to work, you need to use government force more often and more aggressively.
follow...but in the meantime, let me ask you...if Capitalism can never lead to "Totalitarianism" (not yet a proven concept ;-))...can it lead instead to a "Plutocracy"?
My contribution to "Quick Hits"...
Can Capitalism never lead to "Totalitarianism"? No. It can. It just leans away from totalitarianism, whereas socialism leans towards socialism.
Can Capitalism lead instead to a "Plutocracy"? Sure.
There is no perfect system. It is just that sliding your society more towards capitalism favors individual freedom and economic growth, whereas sliding your society towards socialism favors statism and economic stagnation/decline. Can statism arise in a capitalist society? Sure. It is just less likely.
Today I'm drinking and watching college football...thus the quick hits.
(no message)
(no message)
is not "Binary"...those terms help define a 'continuum', with "Communism" at the far end of the Socialist spectrum. Given that there are numerous examples of nations with a fundamentally social 'ethos', but nowhere being Communist, and our own country being definably Capitalistic, yet having key Socialist programs (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) is there really any cause to fear the discussion and possible future addition of social programs?
Your thoughts...
I do think the use of Social Security as a counter-argument to those who oppose Socialism is a false premise. Social Security is in theory a deduction from a citizen's paycheck to support them post-retirement. It can be expanded in a way that is socialist, but I largely oppose that.
I support Capitalism with proper but minimal regulation. I support a reasonable social safety net.
I vehemently oppose government intervention and takeover of anything that restricts our basic freedoms.
So long as everyone is willing to consider and debate a proposal, we should be fine.
I tilt more toward the private than the public, but it’s not evil.
The way the Soviets ran things - that was pure evil.
Hell, Social Security is supposed to be simply what was saved by the employee.
Agreed on Soviet Russia.
(no message)
It's a social contract. The V.A. is an entitlement that supports our service veterans. Another social contract.
Neither involves government takeover or ownership of anything.
Medicare and the VA and SS are gvmt run programs that we all pay for.
They’re socialism in action.
Link: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/05/13/socialism-a-short-primer/amp/
This is why I support Andrew Yang's concept of UBI, which will become more important as automation cannibalizes the job market.
But at the same time you need to allow capitalism to incentivize wealth and technology advances.
I think I'd put a cap on wealth accumulation and also heavily tax inheritance beyond a threshold, say $10M or so.
(no message)
innovation and challenges for the work force to keep up. As you say, Capitalism needs to carry on, so the focus will be on how to find and apply the right amount of "Socialism". Don't know if you've read Thomas Piketty's book (Capital in the 21st Century), but he is a proponent of increased taxes on the wealthiest of us (btw, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have read his book and fundamentally agree with his recommendation).
Can I put you down as someone who sees both U.S. political parties favoring Capitalism, but with differing views on the use of "Socialist" remedies for the consequent 'collateral damages'?
recognizes the evils of socialism except the believers of Marxism.
and neither does the article that was referenced. A closer read will show what I also agree with and that is "Social Programs" are needed, due to what I call the "collateral damage" wreaked on society (e.g. sudden rises and falls of enterprises...layoffs...cost control measures that repress wages...etc.). Not everyone, especially those in the middle and lower classes, can put away sufficient funds to meet all challenges throughout their lives (not everyone can be a well paid CEO with a compensation package "approved" by 'Compensation Consultants' who just happen to be hired by the corporate board chosen by that CEO). The only entity that can keep those people from falling into abject poverty is "government", which enacts and administrates those social programs.
Here's another quote from that article..."Instability and uncertainty are nerve-racking. The market competition that drives innovation and efficiency is a wrecking ball that leaves some among us sifting through the rubble, all the time. For those of us iiving paycheck to paycheck, and that's most of us, it's scary. Capitalism creates wealth by setting up a contest for profits that necessarily creates a steady stream of losers."
Do you acknowledge this view?
Without capitalism you do not have individual improvement, but to protect those less fortunate or skilled you need a touch of socialism. It just cannot get carried away to the extent that many of today's left wants it to. It is better to have a chance for success which will achieve success than a dominance of mediocrity which will lead to stagnation and later failure. There is a little bit of a fine line but you have to go with a more capitalist society. Nothing will ever be perfect. That is why those who don't appreciate what capitalism does dominate the thinking at times which has to be corrected so that the incentive to improve is always there. I did not think that article was overly radical, I just think todays leftist mood is way too radical.
responses, is that a significant majority agree that maintaining a strong Capitalist economy is essential...and that they are definitely open to proposals for social remedies, depending on their net effect on economic performance.
If our representatives share this "spirit", then we can hope that continual efforts will be expended to develop an understanding of what would constitute a "window of acceptability" for those proposals. We'll no doubt get a sense of what's possible quite soon in 2021, and since Joe Biden won the Democratic nomination with a more moderate platform, there's hope the model we're discussing will be followed.
incentive. It's more like to achieve the unachievable or make more for the sake of making more. Taking a risk is not great, but still a risk. These people will not have an incentive. That 's will happen if you put a lid on how much you make. There are lots of examples like Disney.
But then there are those that want to make for the sake of making more. They are few.
Whatever you want to set the threshold at, 10M? 100M? It's not like the Elon Musks of the world would stop innovating if they had to donate the excess to charity.
and you spend it all on new adventures or projects.
(no message)
Democracy makes harder to cheat, while socialism makes it easier to cheat.
There is the social component. Along with the idea the Left has of more substantial "safety nets", they tie policies to it like defunding police, green new deals, unlimited abortion, open borders and restrictions on free speech. That's just to name a few.
Nearly everyone agrees on the need for safety nets, but the woke Left is seemingly always more concerned with "good intentions" rather than effective results. Social programs can do more harm than good in the absence of of careful consideration of the impacts on society.
You can talk about the success of the Swedish and Danish models all you want, but the vast majority of Americans don't want the culture that inevitably comes with it. And I don't see how that can be avoided. When you give government more power and control, it will always attempt to extend that control into more aspects of everyday life. If you can cite an example where that isn't the case, I'll listen. Sweden and Denmark don't cut it.
On your initial comments...for sure, we're social beings and GDP growth rates alone don't define us. Before answering your specific points, let me just say that I see the vast majority of people with gradations of "tendencies" toward 'conservatism' and 'liberalism', yet still sharing very common needs...and therefore, I attempt to avoid lumping them into easily titled packages...not always successful, but, I am trying.
Now, to the first comments...I, personally, don't see the tying of SNs to other social issues...to me, the SNs are an issue unto themselves. As for the policies you listed (I know there are more), I'd like to use other threads to go into each, so as not to distract or lose focus...each one of them I find very important and relevant...really hope we can keep it going.
Your point about "good intentions" and "effective results" resonates with me. As you may have read from one of my earlier posts, I have an MBA and value the concept of 'Marginal Returns' and the efficient use of limited resources. Indeed, many social programs have been initiated haphazardly, and with little thought to when "victory" will be achieved. My big issue, however, is the seeming lack of concern by some for what motivates a particular social program, therefore resulting in an unwillingness to pull together on a remedy, or sadly, an aggressive opposition to any remedy.
With careful vetting of a particular social issue by all parties, I see the more conservative elements having a highly beneficial role to play by using their innate organization and management skills to achieve the stated goal with maximum efficiency. Hopefully, we'll see evidence of shared goals and efficient implementations for many, if not all of our social issues.
I should make a comment on at least one of the social issues you bring up...it's not 'all encompassing', but definitely appropriate...As regards, "Defunding Police"...I've discussed this topic with a State Police Officer from Oregon where in the city of Eugene, several years ago, the officials decided to employ non-police assets, such as Social Workers and other Mental Health professionals (with police backup plans) in cases where there were no immediate concerns for public safety...this re-distribution of city resources, freed up the policemen/women to focus on criminal cases and not instances of non-violent social 'disturbance'. The folks in Eugene have stayed with the program and the their officers - as well as that State Policeman are fine with it.
To me, that is what's meant by "De-funding"...not eliminating a single officer, but rather freeing them up to do what they're trained to do...and, hopefully, avoid any unnecessary tragedies.
Your thoughts...
P.S. Would enjoy some ND campus reflections sometime, as well.
(no message)
(no message)
First off, I want to say that one of my inspirations for starting this thread was you taking the time to thoughtfully present your perspective on 'Hiba's' Capitalism reference...thanks for that. Thanks also for your later clarification...i.e. seeing a "Continuum" of views, rather than jumping to a "Binary" opinion. That 'knee jerk' approach to the subject - i.e. referring to anyone who isn't a 'full on' "Capitalist" as a 'full on' "Communist", then is the essence of the thread and you immediately 'got it'...hopefully, others can see this as well. But enough of the fawning on a 'first date' ;-)...
In your response to Hiba, you use the analogy of boats on the water to convey the perspectives of the two philosophies...by chance, the article I linked applies a similar analogy when trying to explain to "Free Marketers" what they seem to be missing in the Socialists' complaint...here's the quote...
"Capitalism creates wealth by setting up a contest for profits that necessarily creates a steady stream of losers. The fact that capitalism also creates a steady stream of opportunities does not, by itself, make the risk of losing tolerable. If rough seas keep tossing folks overboard, and people are barely keeping their heads above water ("Just keep paddling, Aunt Andrea!"), it's not enough to be told that there's "usually" a boat to swim to. We're more willing to risk storm-tossed seas when the ship of state is bristling with lifeboats and manned by a competent crew."
In my view, this need to show concern for the "passengers" is fundamental to understanding what drives the Socialist side of the aisle. We all want a fast ship and Capitalism is the design best suited for that...but when it's gunnels are constantly in the water, folks are going to get nervous.
Staying with the analogy for a moment longer, it's my perception that those who are laser-focused on being 'Skippers' of the good ship "Capitalism", too often lose sight of the "Crew" and don't appreciate that they wouldn't have won the ocean race without them...
Now, breaking with the nautical references, this leads me to a discussion of what all this means in today's parlance...i.e. The Wealth Gap...which is a glaring symptom of our American economic "status quo"...what is it? (for those who might not know)...what caused it?...and, what to do about it?
Hopefully, this makes some sense, and a willingness to carry on the discussion.
In my post below, I reference socialism and capitalism, and then I finished by noting that there is a continuum in between. I don't think it is helpful to focus on the extremes, to the exclusion of that continuum. Just because we don't have pure capitalism, or pure socialism as options right now (a Pure Socialist Party vs. a Pure Capitalist Party), that doesn't mean we can't notice the effects of sliding toward one side, or sliding towards the other.
I will read your link later.
up earlier and reply tomorrow AM.
Communism at one end of that spectrum and complete libertarianism on the other. Everybody is somewhere in between.
The United States has many public-sector elements, from basic government services to infrastructure to the military to entitlements. We’re not that far from Europe, really.
And we’re not about to get much closer to Stalin, no matter what you hear on the fear mongers say.
to those who get carried away with libertarianism. Libertarianism is bad but communism is downright bad and evil.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
in is cheating. That's where the difference is. I love what markets can do, I love what functioning economies can do. They are what make us rich, they are what create opportunity. But only fair markets, markets with rules. Markets without rules is about the rich take it all, it's about the powerful get all of it. And that's what's done wrong in America"
What do you think about that?
(no message)
(no message)
the quote is real and if she were as far left as most opponents see her, she would have been acting against her own self-interest by speaking so fervently in favor of keeping our Capitalist system...not likely. Furthermore, as the article relates she worked hard to deregulate the market for hearing aids...a very capitalist thing for her to do.
With that said, I posted her quote because the substance of it (free market cheating) strikes me as a fatal flaw in what would otherwise be an economic system that everyone could rally around. To the extent that the capitalist side of the spectrum refuses to acknowledge cheating, the socialist side will voice their displeasure - and votes.
Your thoughts...
(no message)
(no message)
Isms are merely manifestations of latent "issues." Some have never separated from mommy and are obsessed with everything being perfect just to keep her happy. Others are struggling to mature in order to separate from HER.
(no message)
Supply chains run in and out of every country and a simple products, say a pharmaceutical, can be composed of materials from lots of different places, which can be changed in a heart beat. The problem for us in the USA is that we need to employ as many people as possible but can't compete for the cost of labor for major manufacturing around the world. More than anything this is what causes the huge wealth gap. The answer for me is to do as much as possible to foster small businesses rather than large ones, because the former provide the majority of jobs. This would mean lowering taxes and decreasing regulations that impact small businesses.Unfortunately, our politicians care only about their own power and not making the best policy decisions for the general well being.
need lots of help...if we don't make make direct investments (plus a review/reset on regulations), we'll just have to pay for it when they hit the welfare lines.
As for the manufacturing sector, it's hard to imagine any kind of substantial rebound here in the USA...however, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that 'pre-COVID' our employment figures were pretty good...sign of a shift from "smokestacks" to "keyboards", perhaps?...makes me think of a new discussion thread..."Will the Post-COVID work environment help or hinder job growth?"...need to factor in 'work-from-home' effects, reduction in office construction/furnishing, etc.
Referencing the linked Vox article again, which btw refers to a National Review article...do you perceive that our current economic system is - and should continue to be - a fundamentally Capitalist system...with a "dash' of Socialism to take care of impacts on middle and lower class citizens? Again, I'm influenced by the fact that the Democratic Party has never added a plank to its platform that calls for anything like "pure" Socialism...just TLC for those suffering "collateral damage".